gaijin just has to fix IFF so that it shows the IFF when you have a lock. for some reason it doesnt do that…
I made a suggestion for it like a year or two ago on the old forum but we all know what happened to that
1 Like
IRL NCTR technology is not reliable enough to be used in the real combat.
Enemy radar identification is much easier and reliable, although RWRs of 80-90s still had problems with targets separation in threat rich environment.
3 Likes
BS claim. NCTR was REQUIRED for taking BVR shots in the Gulf War and over serbia due to ROE. NCTR was part of the target identification matrix( which involve iff, awacs eid and clearance etc) for taking bvr shots. With the F15 being the only one allowed to take bvr shots without awacs clearance in the gulf war, thanks to NCTR. Also one of the reasons that prevented the F14 from taking a major roll in CAP/OCA/ESCORT during desert storm like the eagle was the lack of it. In a congested airspace, iff alone isnt enough.
Why do you think those F15 pilots talk about solving the ID matrix(which involves NCTR) before firing? Why would you involve a piece in the matrix which you know it is NOT reliable?
How do you think AWACS can do EID?
Redflag
7 Likes
Will the new RWR system account for delayed SARH guidace of missiles like R-27R, where when sufficiently far away, the missile will first use inertial guidance and/or radio correction before switching to SARH guidance.
During the China-Thailand military exercise, China released some data, which can be referred to
1 Like
Leave your politics biases out of game forum please, it’s not the place to discuss this. All weaponry in game no matter what country and without any biases is based on pure and paper data not having any possible real life issues due to being just a game.
1 Like
They have a very low opinion of Russian capabilites. Interesting
“AIM-9L/Stronger” lmFao
I recommend people read “Red dragon Flanker” by Andreas Rupprecht. It has a chapter on J-11A testing which includes the exercise between China and Thailand. Essentially it highlights how disappointed the Chinese where with Flankers performance and why J-10 and indigenising J-11 was prioritised.
I think it refers to a 9Li, but imo maybe the PRC just doesnt see the use of a thrust vectoring missile in their approach to air combat.
they made the PL-10 which is almost an exact 1-1 copy of the IRIS-T… including thrust vectoring…
you better stop right now before you get banned
1 Like
politics go out
1 Like
The Chinese believe that the R-77 of the Su-27 is inferior to the aim-120 and pl-12. They feel that the radar of the Su-27 is too backward and cannot fight against the aim-120 of the jas-39c beyond visual range.
2 Likes
Yep J-10A beat J-11A in BVR and WVR with a PL-8B and PL-12 loadout and Gripen only won BVR but lost a majority of WVR engagement. J-10AH also defeated SU-30MK2 and that was also attributed to poor weapons and avionics.
I can use Ukrainian sources as an example!
J-11A is a Chinese modernization based on the Su-27SMK project…the exact composition of the equipment is unknown…
Spoiler
First of all, we are talking about simulated air-to-air missile weapons, the tactical and technical parameters of which were introduced into the software of the fighter aircraft weapons control system (SUV), which is responsible for modeling virtual air combat in general and “electronic launches” in particular. So, if the parameters of far from the most promising PL-12 medium-range guided air combat missiles equipped with active radar GOS of type 9B-1348E and having an effective range of only 70-85 km were introduced into the SUV of the Chinese J-11A, then the parameters of long-range guided missiles were introduced into the simulation software of the Thai Gripen weapons control systems. AIM-120C-5/7 air-to-air missiles with a forward hemisphere interception range of 105 and 120 km, respectively.
And even if the PS-05A low-energy radars installed on the JAS-39C/D did not allow the Gripen crews to fully realize the range potential of AMRAAMs, their early launch from a distance of more than 110 km could be possible thanks to the implementation of the “HOJ” mode (interference guidance; in the case of J-11A pilots using L005 container electronic warfare systems-With “Sorption”), or by targeting from an on-board radiation warning system capable of locating and calculating the angular coordinates of the radiation source (in our case, the Chinese radar N001VE) at a distance of about 200-250 km. As for the Chinese J-11A, the PL-12 suspensions placed on their nodes, which have not so “long-playing” single-mode engines (in comparison with the AIM-120C-5/7), would not allow to intercept Thai Gripens at a distance of 90-100 km, even if direct participation in the process of target designation, on-board radiation warning systems SPO-15 “Birch” or KJ-2000 long-range radar detection and control aircraft were used.
I’d like to remind everyone not to indulge in any political discourse or discussion of ongoing world events. This is a video game forum.
It’s simply not feasible that the R-77 is outranged by the earliest AMRAAMS and the Gripens used in the exercise previously mentioned against the PLAAF were using the AIM-120C-5/7 as mentioned.
With this knowledge, we must also consider that the Gripen has a relatively small RCS … The Su-27 is 3-5x larger at almost 20m2. The disproportionate detection ranges, uncertainty as to which AMRAAM variant the Gripens used… and the lack of launch parameters for stated ranges leaves us with little to work with. It’s not a very good source.
15
Translation error, if the score is 1-5.9l（较强）=4，r73（强）=5