Why do people want more cancerous additions to the game? FnF anti-tank munitions are inherently frustrating and unfun to play against.
SPAA systems which are almost automated IRL still have to sit and stare at their target to even have a chance of fighting back and we want to add an Apache with 16 FnF Hellfires (which got buffed with the Mavericks remember).
Insane.
Because some nations have it but others do not. That is extremely unfair. It should have come to all at the same time and not to only a few. At the moment the Apache for example is worthless to be taken when compared to say the tiger or Ah-60 that can use FnF AGMs.
Likewise the typhoon lacks the same A2G performance as the Su30 or Rafale for no reason
opfor = lets make up fictional stuff and it’ll be AOK
nato: lets just nerf them to shit
We shouldn’t get any new CAS weapons until Gaijin adds better SPAA (which is coming, but we don’t yet know how good it will all be).
Alternatively, Gaijin could buff add those (and similar weapons), but restrict them from being used in ground battles. I think this is the best solution because ground RB is not ready for anything that’s LOAL, or more advanced FnF munitions.
What so good about them-I know the basics but what are they specifically?
IRIS-T SLS would not be effective at all
12km range and 8000m effective altitude
Type 625E is better around 15km effectiveness
SLAMRAAM depend on how Gaijin implement it, if irl its basically AIM-120 slingers but on ground
I think the SLS is going to be entirely for figuring out how to model IIR not great in terms of range but very potent at short range. Once that’s figured out they can add the extended range version
hmm maybe
hopefully
Its the best possible way I can think of to testing IIR seekers prior to their introduction both on heavier SPAA and on aircraft
How fast would Brimstone 2 be ?
They pretty much explained why they don’t want to add the missile with it’s most advanced mode. Having 16 FnFs would also be too much for them, and obviously Gaijin doesn’t want to experiment with mixes of FnF and SAL modes of the same weapon.
Some nations get stabilization much earlier than others.
Some get radar AA with HE-VT much earlier than others.
Some get 13km target lock IR AGMs much earlier than others.
Some get helicopters with FnF weapons while others do not.
…
Good thing we have asymmetrical balancing in the game so not everything needs to be a copy paste of it’s contemporaries.
Assuming that the reflector is parabolic; and has a frequency of 94 GHz, and a 180mm diameter
Theta, zero ( degrees ) ~= (70 * 0.00318928)/ 0.18 = 0.2232496/0.18 = 1.2402755556 ~= 1.25 degrees
Thus at 5km to find side length A;
5000 * Sin(1.25)
~ 109.04 meters
It covers ~110 meters (+/- 55m off boresight).
Wouldnt it be +/-110 meters? as that formula uses the Theta in reference to the normal.
Maybe, the angle that the formula is to the first null.
The issue is the game use Half-Power Beam Width for FoV calculations so may differ, I’d have to go look at my textbook, for this to make sure I’m not missing a step somewhere.
A bigger issue here is that the diffraction limit is the same as your beamwidth. That angle is the angular radius of the Airy disk. Maybe the mmW seeker logic of an AGM-114L/Brimstone/whatever can work out a resolved target with tighter tolerances than the Rayleigh criterion (that’s equal to that angle), but it’s not going to be by much.
Also it should be tan(1.25) * range, no? If we set “Distance between two vehicles=D” and “Range at which you can resolve the target=R” that would give you a rough estimate for the lock range of:
D/tan(1.24)=R
That’s kind of hard to believe, it would be completely abhorrent for cluttered environments in War Thunder, but I can’t see any leeway regarding that. If I remember correctly the AGM-114L is very often launched without target lock using IOG, at least that would somewhat match with this.
Spikes are hella mid tbh
Only good aginst spaa and light targets
There are likely further processing steps, like range and angular gating on top of Doppler filters to disambiguate moving targets from background sources, and with an INS on board doesn’t need to immediately transition to tracking a target upon receiving a good return and so has time to perform things like Conical or Rosette Scans to work as a Pseudo-imaging system.
If we swap to the AGM-114L, from the Brimstone.
Should the onboard / networked Longbow radar be included as a contributing sensor, some image matching techniques as outlined in
May be relevant as it could provide a radar snapshot (including Doppler Beam Sharpening)of the scene to permit further target / scene refining (e.g. MTI) steps as detailed.
It should also be noted that the -114L uses a much lower Frequency and so has different parameters
The brimstone on the other hand is modern enough and has a dedicated Salvo mode and so can basically just target sort, on top of automatically adjusting the searched volume of each missile to reduce overlap and then target sort based on range / angle to each major return and position in the salvo to ensure missiles are properly deconflicted.
That’d allow you to get more resolution if the limiting factor was something like your beam width, I think. The diffraction limit is a far more fundamental problem for imaging systems and cheating your way around it is generally not possible with a single, fixed emitter/receiver. I’ve only played around with that a bit for optical systems, but from everything I’ve seen it should work pretty much the same for radar.
I didn’t consider scene matching, that’d allow it to switch to active guidance way before a good return on the selected target is returned. Interesting, wasn’t aware it could do that.
The 114L operates at 94 GHz too, or am I mistaken about that?
Back to War Thunder, the GRB environment is incredibly cluttered. Can the 114L get mid course updates? Because otherwise only being able to differentiate targets at the very end of its flight path might end up with it just going for wrecks, teammates or enemies more or less at random if there’s enough movement. And with longer ranged shots taking ~30 seconds between launch and impact there’s a lot of room for that.
Not entirely sure what band, best bet would probably be asking @Flame2512 or @Gunjob if they had anything on the Hellfire or otherwise more concrete.
apparently the following exerpt comes from; Aviation Week 9 March 1981
So if we plug 0.00768699 ( 2.99792458 x 10^8 / 39x10^9) [Lamda = c/F] into the prior formula
= (70* 0.00768699) / 0.18 = 2.989385
= 0.5380893 /0.18 ~= 3 degrees
Similarly for 35GHz, results are ~= 3.3 degrees
I do know that the seekers used for both the Hellfire and Brimstone share a design linage from the canceled AGM-124 Wasp. Which itself lent heavily on prior work done on integrating PAVE Mover and realizing the strike component of the system.
Not really an expert on Hellfire. Brimstone definitely used a 94 GHz seeker. This document claims Hellfire used a 35 GHz seeker:
That tracks with the claim from Aviation Week, and considering the Hellfire is a Boeing (Sperry) product it makes sense.