for the first month
in case you didnt know that was well over a year ago, and not the last update
and it still didnt get its countermeasures back despite that not being a limit for sniper pod, and chaff having always been unrestricted there
and its not “considerably better” it about the same or arguably worse do to the low FoV
it was one update
Don’t be shy, use the full context xD
No no, I didn’t say they never did at all, just that they’re not used on Eurofighters last I checked
That’s what I meant by full context xD
Ohhh I see, derp.
It’s the PL-16 no?
it is, and afaik china has stopped production of the PL-15 so we should see it soonish
C8s would probably be the best AMRAAM we could get on the Typhoon, Whether theyd actually be any better than C5s would probably be down to what Gaijin wants to do
Too many conflicting sources on that for it to bear any fruit
Why are you including testbeds that never even had weapons equipped or even designed with them in mind?
Biggest issue I find is that you’re fighting aircraft that can TWS over 90 degrees allowing continuous guidance whilst notching, meanwhile your missile is only good at long range, but that can be easy to negate. I get the purpose for the AIM-120D is to cover up for some of that. But the GNSS is functionally worthless if your missile still pitbulls from like… 16km while you have a lock. Even if they added the two-way datalink in it’s full capacity by allowing it to work with whatever Link-16 capable aircraft. I think the issue would still be the same. The missile just pitbulls (does the game implement HPRF?) way too early. It’s super easy to chaff the 120 and I’ve had more deaths from other missiles than I have from 120s.
It’s not some dookie tier missile. But it’s advantages are not that great over the C-5, and I only notice the difference when the missile is in mid-course and feels more reliable there but mid-course is the easiest part for guiding in a missile
the current advantage that a high off bore sight radar is providing is way exagerated. countries arent really investing in such extreme angles outside of russia, captor e is pretty much the sole western and chinese example afaik, because its really incredibly niche as aircraft dont fly alone, datalink provides the same exact capability but even better.
So something like Link 16 or AWACS would be better then gimbled radar?
in just about 90% of cases yeah, its gives more and better information, and would actually make aim120d a massive upgrade, is it can use link 16 information
I get that. It’s more the missile than the radar. But having a 90 degree plus radar is a decent bonus. And a missile that turns on a dime is more meta than a long range AIM-120 where some puffs of chaff spoof the missile because it pitbulls from super long range. Honestly, they should implement the two-way datalink by allowing you to guide the missile with your radar and then it pitbulls when you lose or drop track, or your missile within 3km. This makes it where you have to spoof the more powerful transmitting radar making it where long-range defense is difficult.
If the missile is kept in it’s current config. With the 16km pitbull. Even if you added link-16. The missile wouldn’t really be much better, especially in the late game.
The Mk72 booster is quite large, about 1500 lbs (680 kg) apparently. There’s one estimate of like ~475 kg of that being fuel, but it has the total weight higher, so idk. If we keep the same ratio and the same estimate of the Isp (2200 m/s, which may be somewhat low), you get like 410 kg of fuel.
I put these estimates in a custom missile and shot it straight up (well 89° or so), no guidance, simulating booster performance only. It can get 10km+ altitude before dropping below Mach 1. Max speed at burnout (6s) doing this is Mach 1.86 at 1.8km altitude. Reaching 7km altitude (I think is a pretty decent altitude for the initial launches in ARB), the missile is still going Mach 1.39.
In any case, the booster gets the missile considerably faster than Mach 1 for sure. But it seems looking at this that the Hornet surpasses booster performance at 7km+ altitudes probably, given you’re going at decent speed too (so probably not subsonic, unless at extreme altitudes). In surface launch we also have to factor in that likely the second stage is firing earlier (and at lower altitudes and higher speeds, which may decrease its effectiveness), which shifts it more in favor of the Hornet here. But at lower altitudes, even going supersonic, an air launch from a hornet is easily outperformed by the surface launch with booster I’m guessing, as the booster does quite a bit more than just bringing it to Mach 1.
and raven on the Gripen
Funny how the 2 most advanced, well funded, and powerful militaries on earth both use fixed plate AESA’s on their aircraft
I wouldn’t be so sure.
I see a guy here lobbying for the Meteor to get essentially an improved MICA’s seeker (which is just stupid as it is), so 2 or 3 launched, even at range with sufficient angular separation and there will be no help…and he already succeeded with Rafale and MICA, so…
what CxK value and weight did you use for the entire stack?
