Docs from CTTO Jaguar tactics manual (3rd edition) 1992
Here’s the docs that cover that for you.
5 Likes
You’re a better person than me. I was just going to point him to the Old Forum thread where they were posted like half a dozen times
I decided I had best download them and any other docs I find myself referring back to all the time because the old forum wont be around forever
1 Like
No, it should not be decoyed when following an afterburning target. It doesn’t require rear aspect tracking of the reheat plume.
I would agree, but I don’t know that we have such definitive evidence of that much all aspect performance the way we do from specifically rear aspect.
I literally posted sufficient evidence the other day.
The US F-4 Phantom flares were insufficient to protect it against even AIM-9D/G type missile seekers in mil thrust let alone AIM-9L in afterburner. No amount of flares should decoy the AIM-9L when tracking a re-heat plume from an F-4 or F-8.
Based upon the RAF docs, the conclusion appears to be that Aim-9L vs Jaguar on full reheat dropping large calibre flares That in a head-on situations flares alone werent a total gurantee of missile defeat.
But Id imagine there is a lot of nuance with regard to exact angle, weather conditions, etc etc that could also impact the hit chance.
But overall, yeah, they really need to overhaul IR signatures in game to better model things like reheat plumes. WAY too many issues imo can be attributed to the current thrust = temp situation we have in game currently
5 Likes
Namely the compounding issues of the F-5 series having SEVERELY overperforming flight models, very low engine exhaust temps, and now affecting the F-20 and proliferating into other tech trees.
5 Likes
Yep, and inversly the harriers, with a lot thrust, being hotter than the sun most of the time. Despite the fact there is some evidence that Aim-9Ls dont even work in all aspects vs a Harrier
5 Likes
After some time I feel like getting you riled up on it.
The F-5C on Full Afterburner is colder than the F-117 on mil power from rear aspect.
In fact, the F-117 can be detected in the IR spectrum at about 30% longer ranges than an afterburning F-5C.
Yes, ladies and gents, you heard it right. An afterburning jet from early 60s has a lower IR signature than a stealth aircraft with no burner and a closed off exhaust. Here it is:
(Posted here since the IR signature issue impacts the 9L too and there is a lot of evidence in this thread)
12 Likes
and this is why we really need a total overhaul of how IR signatures are handled.
7 Likes
Don’t know about a total overhaul, but an adjustment of a couple of coefficients alongside a bounded or case-by-case relation of horsepower/thrust/temperature and IR signature will solve most of it.
At least as a starting point, but I do think there are too many issues, including the flare resistance of missiles, caused by the lack of reheat plume modeling.
Like we have the reports for Aim-9Ls being totally immune to flares if they can see a reheat plume that isnt modeled.
Also edge cases like the Harriers being able to hide their exhaust by VIFFing and placing their wing between the nozzle and a seeker. Certainly enough to prevent a rear-aspect missile lock and maybe even enough to prevent an all-aspect seeker lock.
A total ground up rework to properly model both the temperature of the exhaust and the location of the exhaust I think would do the game a world of good in the long run (the start of that might be in the works. I think helis got a new heat sig system in Firebirds that does model both)
3 Likes
I think a modeling of geometric properties’ effects on IR signature might be a bit of a far ask for this game. Reheat plumes are supposed to be modeled, alongside IR signatures being separated by sources (engine exposed parts and skin temperature). We also have coefficients that determine their scale by aspect.
Just changing these two would fix a lot of stuff:
- What goes into calculating the base value for each source
- How those values are scaled by aspect
Yeah, proper modeling might be beyond them, but I would at least want them to try
Don’t think it would be beyond them, just look at the level of modeling we already have. A really high level for what is essentially an arcade simulator (though, the standards for individual models leave a lot to be desired). It simply will not be a priority, as it will take a lot of time and resources, which they seem to not have, and give marginal results (not much will change, especially for casual players).
Nice to dream though, lol
1 Like
Yeah, it would be, the day where not having flares on the Harrier Gr1 isnt such a big deal would be lovely :D
Report it?
They’re gonna buff the F-117 instead of nerfing the F-5 series
…I mean, they don’t trust the NATOPS over tertiary Russian magazines for the flight model so I don’t know what you expect.
5 Likes
I would, but I have like a dozen or more other bug reports that I want to file. Having the last 4 of the responses to my bug reports being a clear case of reading comprehension skill issue does not help my motivation either, especially when the replies are closed off immideately and everyone insists on just filing a new report.
Also, I just wanted to do a large bug report on IR signatures and their scaling with aspect angles, but that will take a lot more reading and researching. Reporting the F-5 (in this comparative manner) will just lead them to buffing the F-117, unless anyone here has docs that use the F-5/T-38 for IR missile tests.
PS: If I interpreted the figues correctly (I know, I know, don’t rely on datamines), it seems like the only difference between the F-117 and all other jets is that the rear aspect IR multiplier is 0.5 instead of 1, which seems very pessimistic.
1 Like