Pretty sure most/all NATO TGPs have air to air modes that offer passive detection and laser rangefinding. Both Sniper and Litening have it according to their companies, and those are the pods used on effectively all NATO top tier jets in-game.
2 Likes
Fair enough, thanks.
1 Like
Many if not most of these sources were extensively discussed with Fireball, Flame as well I believe. They would not have let nerfs « pass » like that, (or would you consider them rafale fans ?). In the past 2-3 months there has been a huge amount of new primary sourced data. Some things are still somewhat unknown (like the actual values that are attached to the engine burn graphs), but can be extrapolated thanks to other data. Things that were heavily discussed include :
- Burntime (3.5s instead of 6)
- DeltaV (1000m/s motor instead of 1100)
- Range values (30G at 12km from VL, 20km intercept range)
- Time to target
- TVC deflection (and max fin AOA but apparently those and the in game AOA are not tied in any way)
These I would consider very well sources, with multiple primary sources giving a pretty clear picture on these informations.
People have been arguing the 100°/s, as only 1 source actually states this value, but is published by a French Navy magazine, which could be considered primary, could be considered secondary
2 Likes
Sorry I meant laser warning receiver not rangefinder. I do know that some TGP do perform MAW capabilities, but I don’t think they have LRF.
I really hope gaijin makes the sniper usable as an IRST so we can get AAM-4 IR slaving finally.
Also btw, it’s not in the realm of a bug report, so it’s not gonna get passed or seriously looked at, due to it fundamentally changing how the modules in the planes are, that’d need to be a suggestion.
Would be secondary for anyone else, but probably will get implemented. I’ve seen worse sources used by the French for Buffs.
All good nerfs. Wierd how the frenchies try to spin them to be buffs.
But hopefully we’ll get these nerfs
The DeltaV reduction is the only real nerf I see here.
The burntime would make it overall far more dangerous (especially with fixed TVC), as it would have significantly better short range time to hit values, and the diamond alert in RB would disappear very quickly. See the video above showing that the MICA would actually achieve even tighter turning radius compared to the current implementation
Currently, it’s also nowhere close to matching the VL configuration datapoint (doing less than 15-20G at 12km and falling out of the sky before reaching 20km), meaning it would need some significant range improvement (especially if DeltaV is reduced), which would also improve the time to target quite significantly (for a missile that is already better than most missiles under 20km)
1 Like
Couldn’t find a paragraph of the book that explains it, but it gets mentioned here at least;
1 Like
The moment it stops burning. it looses TVC. So it would only pull hard for 3 seconds instead of 6-8 seconds it does currently.
Making it easier to defeat kinematically at short ranges.
Sure it would accelerate faster, but also would start bleeding more speed faster as well.
Shouldnt even have markers in RB anyway and you dont in SB.
and this is what I dont believe.
Its turn radius should be worse with a faster acceleration and the moment the motor stops burning, it should pull far worse than it does currently.
that is just basic physics.
If you are reducing the delta-V , then the range would decrease. So unless its too heavy or doesnt have any drag, range would get worse not better with a reduction in delta-V.
The only thing I think might be wrong is guidance time.
sa for performance vs maneuvering targets, every missile is underperforming in that regard. 18 month old reports for the AMRAAM sitll.
Again. I dont see how it could. That is just defying the laws of physics
You missed something
How does that change anything?
Faster something is moving forward, the greater the turn radius.
If the MICA is somewhere in the region of doubling its acceleration, surely its turn radius would increase, unless its G pull was also doubling.
The drag is reduced(slightly), which helps range, and the missile should be given a loft profile, which definitely helps.
You forgot the stated 30G at 12km from a VL launch, meaning it would definitely pull at least that at much greater range from an air launched situation. TVC is only useful in the early phase where its from high off bore and needs to turn quickly
Same here, you forget the fact that TVC is currently half of what it should actually be.
You can’t just take each points one by one and say « it’s a nerf », because all of these variables have impacts on each others
As of now, the MICA is one of the missile with the highest drag in the game. It also is missing it’s loft (doing only 5° as of now). And even with guidance time buff, it still wouldn’t match the vertical launch parameters. Also, guidance time is most probably correct, as discussed with @Fireball_2020 in PM.
3 Likes
Mainly comes from the 2.5->5 degree tvc angle change they mentioned, so its pulling harder off the rail.
1 Like
Except its not. Its shorter. 7 seconds down to 3 seconds.
I doubt this would offset the loss of 100m/s delta-v.
Sure, but kinematic performance wouldnt change that much
Brain fart, forgot which way its changing aha
2 Likes
Oh it definitely will with a loft profile.
I mean it really also should just get time dependent PID logic, especially if it’s burning for less time with more authority.
it will be needed for stability im sure, didnt somebody demonstrate reworked guidance logic for tvc stability recently?
Which is still far lower than the 50G it has on TVC.
So it can pull double its current 50G?
So with 100m/s less Delta-V and a shorter burn time .its meant to reach 80km within the current guidance time?
Sorry. That just sounds like fiction.
So again, that only lasts 3 seconds. the moment it stops burning that goes away. That video shows its pull barely changing during its entire flight.