I mean, a third of the time I was rocket rushing (a favourite activity of mine, although not very effective) or playing AA duty with 16x TY-90 (And you can see I have 134 air kills).
As for usefulness of the missiles, well I can launch, dip below cover, and laze at the last few seconds, which is pretty effective vs SPAA. It’s more effective especially when the missile is faster, as with the Hellfires.
1 Like
America has good CAS because bad tanks.
You are cherry picking statistics. If you’ve ever played with both missiles (which I have) you’ll find it quite obvious that Hellfire has better speed and responsiveness. For reference, these are some that you missed.
Some parameters from the same document to highlight:
1. Raw acceleration.
Hellfire wins easily with 151.33 m/s^2 vs 119.57 of AKD-10. It gives the Hellfire much more starting energy.
2. Booster vs. Overall delta V
The Hellfire has a much stronger booster than AKD-10 with 501m/s vs 122 m/s of AKD-10. Although AKD-10 has a strong sustainer while Hellfire lacks one, in practice, their traits mean that Hellfires will be much faster to hit targets of typical ranges (less than 6k meters, common when spawning at closest helipad in GRB).
3. Maneuverability.
It is true both have same G load and wing area multiplier. However, consider that the AKD-10 is MUCH heavier than the Hellfire. After the booster burns out, which is 3 seconds for the Hellfire and 1 for AKD-10, the Hellfire weighs 36.8 kg while the AKD-10 weighs 43.5 kg. That’s 118% heavier. The sustainer of AKD-10 takes 23 seconds to burn off, and even after that, AKD-10 still weighs a comparable 35 kg.
As well as being heavier, AKD-10 is considerably slower at <6km ranges than Hellfires, as we’ve established already. It also lifts less, at 8 degrees vs the 9.6 of Hellfire. These factors mean that it will have less energy to maneuver with.
Combined with the wing area multiplier, which is a bit lower, this results in the AKD-10 being much less maneuverable. Especially at typical Ground RB engagement ranges.
If you’ve ever used both missiles, you can feel the difference quite easily. Hellfire has MUCH lower time to target compared to AKD-10.
1 Like
Don’t blame other players, everyone coud get fnf missile.
China has millimeter-wave end-guided missile, the ba-21 missile
yes, they have same issue with agm-144L
If possible, can you go into a custom game, fire hellfire at a target 3km, 5km, and 8km (short, medium, long). Do the same for the AKD10 and share me that replay
My assumption is that because the AKD10 has the sustainer it can manage it’s speed the longer it gets where as the hellfire will lose the majority of it’s speed after it’s main engine goes off.
One of the things that the hellfire struggles with is hitting any targets that moves (with randomness) at range because since it loses that energy fast, any sudden movement from the target will force the hellfire to over correct leading it to over/undershoot the target.
I could be wrong, but sharing that replay could help me better understand the performance of the AKD10.
I’m not at the computer right now, and large number of replays probably would be too much effort to go for, but I will share the time to target for both missiles at different ranges when I do get back.
2 Likes
appreciate it 👌
Yet, one missile has a sustainer that burns for 23 seconds and the other has no sustainer at all, the hellfire looses speed the moment that motor burns out, 3 seconds after launch, the AKD-10 does not for it’s entire flight. The intitial booster acceleration is not everything, eg, the AIM-54 technically has superior booster delta V than the Fakour 90, but the latter has vastly superior flight performance.
Once again you speak bunk without any actual backing to your statements. Why dont we take this to the test range and see if your statement that the AKD-10 is vastly slower than the 114 under 6km is even true, better yet, lets try out the “inferior” AKD-9 which should arrive at a target vastly slower.
Oh wait, all 3 impact the second tank target in 10 seconds exactly, huh, thats really weird, you’d think the 114 should be beating both the AKD-10 and 9 by a massive margin because of that better booster right?
Nope, wrong again.
The hellfires weigh 45.321kg and the AKD-10 weighs 46kg, 0.679 kg is “much heavier” dude this is laughable.
Funny you should mention that, greater mass after the loft actually improves speed gain, especially with a sustainer, this is another reason why the Fakour 90 is an absolutely insane missile, so once again thank you for proving my point again.
I don’t you ever did, and last I checked, all 3 missiles I mentioned hit their targets in exactly 10 seconds, that seems like no difference at all to me. Also, no, 0.679kg is not enough of a difference to cause an issue.
Hmmm yes, 1.6 degrees, that sure is lot, once again, no. If you want an actual tangible loft difference, compare the 114 to say the AIM-54, 9.6 vs 17.5, now thats a tangible difference. Thinking about it as well I would wager that you would say that the 10 degree loft of the L-UMTAS would assist it compared to the AKD-10’s 8 degrees of loft correct? Heck, by your measure the L-UMTAS should be preforming vastly better than the AKD-10, yet, that thing is a joke due to it’s sustainer being extremely weak.
Missiles with sustainers by design maneuver better than those without due to the fact that one maintains energy when turning and one cannot, every manuver that a hellfire makes causes it to loose energy and thus maneuverability, the AKD-10 does not as it has a sustainer, so once again, no.
After firing all 3 missiles I can easily safely say that they are nearly identical in use, with only the AKD-9 having issues at it’s absolute max range, with the 114 taking literal ages to travel out to it’s max range as well.
I would say “try again” but you really need to take some time and do your research before doing so, because you are really making this too easy for me.
2 Likes
You need more excuses.
2 Likes
Yea it was artificially nerfed because they were too good. I think if they don’t want to add the L, at least unnerfing the IOG so it essentially is a “JDAM” would be great. It would allow some counterplay between SPAA and heli but still let the heli be more competitive.
1 Like
Prob they need to add AGM-179 for that, but limit it as Brimstone.
Or JAGM-MR with limit to IR(or what does NIR mean?) only
“Near Infared Seeker”
Per lockmart it seems to be a type of imaging Infared seeker, a lower cost one than other options. Gameplay wise it should just function like the SPIKE’s or any other similar generation ATGM seeker.
The flight path is more or less accurate to real life, which works great in reality but not so much in WT.
I believe there’s different flight path depending on the distance of the target. There was a bug report made on it
1 Like
Ok so I tested both missiles just for the time to target.
Methodology: used Stalingrad map, firing along the river, thunderclouds. Using the AKD-10 from Z-10 and AGM-114K from OH-58D. I tried to orient the helicopter exactly in the direction of the target. I hovered at 200 meters while firing. After firing, immediately read the prediction of the time to hit from the HUD. Waited for the countdown to end, and added 1 second if the missile hit later than shown by the indicator.
Laser designation constantly on throughout firing. Testing results not very accurate, since not having any decimal precision, and small variations in direction. In particular, both missiles seemed to veer off slightly to the left or right, and did not follow an exact straight line after firing.
Testing results:
Distance: 3km
AKD-10: 14s AGM-114K: 10s
Distance: 4km
AKD-10: 17s AGM-114K: 14s
Distance: 5km
AKD-10: 22s AGM-114K: 18s
Distance: 6km
AKD-10: 25s AGM-114K: 25s
Distance: 7km
AKD-10: 28s AGM-114K: 32s
Distance: 8km
AKD-10: 31s AGM-114K: 41s
Both AKD-10 and AGM-114K exploded before hitting target at 9km.
1 Like
Thanks! I completely underestimated the speed of the Hellfires when in comparison to the AKD-10 from the short to medium range.
Was this targeting to a stationary target? If so I’m curious how each missile would perform on moving targets over distance. Probably the disparity increases the farther it gets.
Could also add in comparisons to some other ATGMs present too, eg the L-UMTAS takes a whopping 37 seconds to hit a target at 6km, and the ZT-6 takes 20 seconds.
1 Like
It’s targeting to a point on the ground, stationary targets. Personally don’t have a solid prediction any way, but I do know both don’t respond too well to movement.
1 Like
still you dont get it people always mix shit toghter we are talking about heli performance not general CAS performance of a nation we are compering helis we are saying why dose isreli ah 60 gets 16 spikes with FAF and russia gets proxyfuzed vikers germany gets pars 3 italy gets spikes but all other nations including Brits USA Japan and isreali sweden apaches have to suffer
somepeople on fourms just have no commen sense feel like talking to a 8 year old on WTs subreddit