Thrust vectoring is not a maneuverability increase, it’s an instantaneous increase below 700kph, even less really.
Every country has meddled with thrust vectoring engines.
F-16, Su-30, Su-57, earlier J-20s, F-15, J-10… and each time every country concludes that the mass increase from thrust vectoring engines, as well as maintenance requirements, does not add benefit outside an instantaneous turn.
It’s cool, really cool for airshows, but it’s not useful in-practice.
No pilot is going to use a single instantaneous turn below 700kph that’ll marginally work against a superior opponent, let alone get that slow against an opponent to begin with.
On top of that, War Thunder needs new flight model standard for active thrust vectoring.
This fight is not an indicator…The F-22 is a supersonic interceptor by definition…
Raphael’s promotional session is expensive…Let me remind you that Rafale had practically no export contracts in 2013, nevertheless, 8 more years passed and France persuaded the UAE (the contract was signed during the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to the UAE in 2021) on such terms… Объединенные Арабские Эмираты ведут переговоры о софинансировании разработки новейшего французского истребителя Rafale F5 | ВОЕНКА Российское и зарубежное военное обозрение | Дзен
Let’s go back to the F-22…
Myth 10: The F-22 has supermaneuverability.
In fact: The Raptor’s subsonic maneuverability is at best consistent with 4th generation fighters - strict stealth requirements are affected. He does not need an OVT to reach supercritical angles, but on the contrary, to quickly get off them - unregulated air intakes do not like large angles of attack. The F-22 nozzle roughly corresponds to a round nozzle in the range
M=1-1.2, inferior in other ranges. Due to better
integration with the fuselage, the external resistance is lower for F-22 flat nozzles in a narrow range
M = 1.3-1.5, corresponding to the speed of the supersonic throw during interception. In the F-22
, the requirement of low visibility has led to a noticeable simplification of forms. Of course, the layout is integral, but there is no wing influx, its role is played by the edge
of the outer surface of the air intake. There are no vortex-forming shields,
wing ledges. In this regard, the aerodynamics of the F-22 is close to the MiG-23 or F-14. The integral vortex aerodynamic layout gives approximately 1
units of normal steady-state overload, which is approximately equivalent to
reducing the load on the wing from 350 kGf/m2 to 300 kGf/m2. Due to the requirements of low visibility, the F-22 wing had to be made flat,
the fuselage was also typed with flat surfaces. The potential of the Raptor’s aerodynamics is revealed at supersonic, where it has an advantage.
Export contracts mean nothing other than cost of the vehicle and restrictions the company puts on countries.
Lockheed allows countries to build spare parts domestically for their aircraft, and sometimes outright build the aircraft.
Boeing flat out allows countries to build their aircraft.
Saab recently allowed countries to build spare parts and aircraft.
Sukhoi allows countries to build their own aircraft.
That’s why they have exports while others don’t.
“Super maneuverable” is itself a myth, as this means aircraft that cannot retain energy for extended engagements.
Su-57 will lose to Rafale just like F-22 did. More AOA = less long-term maneuverability.
F22 is 2D thrust vectoring, Su57 being 3D and meanwhile it prioritised manoeuvrability so not necessarily u can compare them, like how Su27S (J11A) managed to beat JAS 39C in short range dogfight.
I’ve looked into the first production model of the Su-34, which is what we’re getting. In which irl is a piece of shit, and not a very comparable aircraft to anything NATO, even though it’s modern as hell, it’s just like a Su-33 but worse in every way. It doesn’t have its rear radar (gaijin “modeled” it in but it’s not useable), the radar is good but useless with R-77’s (the current R-77’s in game), so why try using A2A when it’s technically a one trick pony like the Su-25’s?
Because it actually can into A2A? Su-25 despite being able to bite back is just can’t fight proper in the air, it plainly can’t contest air superiority. Su-34? Ain’t perfect, but it still can both contest/annoy enemy air a d perform XAS
Su-34 or its weapons should be nerfed in range as it can’t be shot down by the best SPAAs in the game. At the same time, the Pantsir-S1 easily destroys everything including AGMs flying at it.
The Su-34 can’t really be nerfed as pretty much everything on it was nerfed outside of the KH-38(s).
It doesn’t have Thermals, radar was nerfed to oblivion, FM is horrible, no HMD, no MAW, no Rear Facing radar (you can see it’s there visually, but it’s not modeled in game so it’s not there pretty much), only thing it has is the KH-38’s and even then, the Su-25SM3 is still better even though it carries two less KH-38’s.
Just ignoring the fact the KH-38s have a Gen 3 thermal optic, you dont need a Thermal TPOD
Still probably one of the strongest radars in game at the moment.
Outperforms basically any other 13.3
Netiher do a lot of other aircraft at 13.3
Same answer
Significantly increasing the SP cost for KH-38s or removing the IR guided version. Just leaving the Laser guided variant. Would be the best way to mitigate them in GRB.
Saw 2 the other day just dominate an entire match., the other team could do nothing about. Only SPAA that might have had a chance is the Pantsir. Until such time all nations get Pantsir level SPAA, KH-38s should be reconsidered.
I also dont understand how its 13.3 in air modes and not 13.7
