Then like BOL, “man-in-the-Loop” weapons such as AJ168 and what the rumours suggests IIR is going to be like.
They probably should create a placeholder for full MMW. So its essentially “IR+” better than normal IR guidance, but fully LOBL target tracking without having to mess about with modeling the MMW properly
That would be expected, yeah.
The problem with War Thunder is that there’s a lot of targets stuffed into a very small area, the movement paths are generally the same and within minutes you have them cluttered by the wrecks of dozens of tanks. For a 7 km launch that Hellfire is going to travel just about 30 seconds. If we assume that the tank is stationary and the closest wreck is 30 m away it will be able to differentiate between the wreck and the target at a distance of just about 500 m, ~5 seconds before impact.
War Thunder has a lot of stop and go, tanks don’t really travel with a set speed in a set direction. The chances of the missile acquiring the correct target after it had 25 seconds to move with random speed and direction changes through a field of tank wrecks seems very low (well, unless your target is either camping, moving with continous speed and direction or very isolated).
I plotted the range at which two targets could theoretically be resolved according to the Rayleigh criterion, better than continuing to punch numbers into a calculator. Assumed reflector diameter: 180 mm, just like above)
In cluttered environments IIR F&F weaponry already struggles with switching to wrecks (in War Thunder), and that only really happens if the target gets so close to it they’re pretty much touching. This would presumably be significantly worse.
They could, but that would be extremely unrealistic make believe if what we’re assuming here currently is correct.
At the latest since the addition of the Israeli AH-60 with 16 Spikes I didn’t think the addition of AGM-114Ls would’ve been much of a balancing problem, if everyone were just given VIRSS smoke. A nuisance for other helicopters, no different for ground. Probably would’ve been fine with the full 16 of them.
I never expected the AGM-114L being so harshly kneecapped by the GRB environment if implemented realistically though. Not really sure where to go from there. Implement it realistically but just skip to the JAGM so you can redirect to the intended target using SALH?
Why should that be done, as in “better than normal IR guidance”? From what we’ve seen here it seems to be significantly worse for the context of War Thunder.
Then there should be no issue adding MMW right now then, and we can get AGM-114L and Brimstones
The Brimstone would still be unbalanced. It’s probably hard to implement if things like scene matching and whatever other special stuff they have were to be implemented, and how exactly it works is probably not known publicly. Scroll up a bit and you’ll find that you can calculate the radius around boresight it scans, that becomes absolutely massive at the lauch ranges you can get out of it.
And then you still have the problem that these things would seemingly target vehicles and wrecks at random in many of the scenarios they’d end up getting used in ingame.
Then I go back to my original point.
BOL - totally fake modeling that is SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than IRL performance for the sake of balance (should basically be large calibre flares with short burn and standard calibre chaff, at the moment both are 1/4 the strength of regular CMs)
AJ168 - total work of fiction guidance method because Man-in-the-loop wont be modeled
IIR - Reported to just be 2x methods of IRCCM instead of actually modeling IIR because it would be too strong and bad for game health.
Why then MMW MUST be accurately modeled or not added at all is beyond me when we have multiple other examples of things being added in dramatically different states for the sake of game balance/gameplay
Heck just look the Typhoon’s PIRATE and CAPTOR-M for how badly modeled things can be in War Thunder
Guidance systems usually get cuts to parts of their capabilities for balances sake, not physics breaking improvements. Add the PARS 3 LR to that list, that was using SALH when they added it to the game.
They could make up some magic mmW weaponry that behaves like current IIR AGMs, sure. The people that want realistic implementations would probably be disappointed, I wouldn’t mind and you seem to be a fan of that idea for just as long as it’s the nation you play that gets an in game advantage out of it.
Brimstones in their current implementation are useless outside of GRB.
Any form of FnF would actually make them usable in gamemodes like ASB.
That is what I want.
I changed my stance on MMW a bit, I think it could work without a ripple fire mode and the addition of multispectral smoke.
There is a slight issue in regard Brimstone. Brimstone isnt affected by that.
Though would have no issue with that being ahistorically modeled for balance
I understand MMW radars would be too powerful currently
But for example in the case of the PARS It used to be SALH because gaijin thought it was too powerful
Well now it has its full IR seeker modelled Why cant a similar thing be done for other nations that are lacking FNF weapons right now?
AGM-114L for example could just have a fake IIR seeker for the time being so that its atleast on par with everything else
Or they could add a nerfed MMW radar implementation so that it would behave the same as a IR seeker would
Or if they really did not want to ahistorically change the seeker they could just add the JAGM and disable the MMW part of it so its just SALH/IR
Options DO exist gaijin just dont want to take advantage of any of them for whatever reason and yet they keep adding more FNF missiles to top tier
That is entirely part of the trade off that you make for the convenience of F&F ordnance once it’s not on the rail you have no further input.
But then you turn around have have entire salvos ripple fired into the Spawns on;
Ardennes
Artic
European province
Maginot Line
any of the Fields or Approach variants
or many others
Using the APG-78’s G-MTI to cue the seeker for example and the issue should be self evident where there is very little actual cover for a significant distance and so practically play to their advantage entire teams could be wiped in short order with very little counterplay (Autocannons with HE-VT ammo & Hemispheric radars would go a long way to making intercepting ordnance viable)
That’s the thing they are designed for attacking pop up targets of opportunity, and taking down incoming columns of armor while limiting exposure, not pin-point accurate attacks on singular targets that are in cover. which is where the SALH / IIR variants come in.
Its certainly an option but leads to the question of if you add it to the existing -64D or wait until the -64E, further if you go straight to the JAGM-MR, AGM-179, AGM-169 or AGM-176
Considering how shit the hellfires and gaijin unwillingness to fix them
Just add kh59, subsonic and every russian multirole aircraft can use italso add slam the same update
A brilliant suggestion.
Why shouldn’t we add a 200km range missile with a 300kg warhead?
Surely those who complain about a 40km range missile with 100kg warhead will be most pleased.
/s
Was a bit too focussed on the missile, using the G-MTI radar in general seems to be a bit of a problem. I really don’t think automatic target recognition and engagement has a place in gameplay at all. Maybe that could somehow work out if implemented the right way, but I don’t see how. You’re right in that it would be oppressively strong on open maps if you can just dump half your payload in seconds. The Spike carriers are very limited in that regard as each missile needs to be locked individually. Well, they can track the target off the rail, even in cluttered environments, so maybe that somewhat makes up for it.
That makes an implementation very hard if it’s supposed to be realistic, though. Do they model the weaknesses? Is that’s something that makes for engaging gameplay? It doesn’t really look like there’s a good, realistic option to me.
Do you happen to have anything on the NIR sensor of the JAGM-MR? I’d assume it’s an imaging sensor, but that still leaves a lot of room. There must be some pretty limiting constraints on it considering it’d have to be placed in front of the radar.
Extending the range out too much is probably a bad balancing decision for helicopters, at least with fire and forget munitions. The AGM-176 should be fine as soon as there’s longer ranged SAMs.
why we keep skirting around the true problem with kh38mt my guy? its the mach 2 it goes at
Not really heard anyone complain about that part before.
For a long time, the only advantage NATO ever had over redfor was in the introduction of fox-3s last year with the 120s early performance, completely rinsing other missiles. Instead of gently buffing the rest a bit, Gaijin had to gimp it for short ranges and its AOA generation to make it a weird medium range missile?
Now Russia got even a better missile than the 120, and there’s no sighting of better ordnance in short term.
Why i brought that tale here? Because expecting something that would outrange Russia in this game is a forbidden thought. They were (and still are) allowed to outrange you with R-27ERs uncontestedly. They are allowed to outrange you with X-38MTs uncontestedly. They are allowed to have competitive ERA packages.
You lil NATO player don’t.
Then you are intentionally not listening (shocker). It’s the whole reason it sits in a league of its own, even compared to it’s closest comparison in the IR AASM. It’s time to target advantages make it almost entirely uninterceptable(especially if double launched), and allow it to be reliably fired with ‘point’ locks because it will clear the distance to ‘track’ faster than any other missile.
800 meters range
