Its supposed to be 200km, and uh 40g.
this would apply to the AIM-120D-3, it gets better ECCM either in the D-3 upgrade or one of the ones before iirc
Every source I could find says 160 km, which is what the US Air Force wanted in an AMRAAM to ‘counter’ the PL-15 (something something, we need a missile that could reach out to 100 miles). If the D-3 could go that far, they wouldn’t be wasting money and resources on the AIM-260.
I can confirm its maximum overload is around 40 G.
Updated.
There was a recent interview with drdo scientists which said the range is to 200km, some even said 240km
Plus d3 is a single pulse missile, not fair comparision
Use auto translated captions
13:00
Astra mk1 itself is getting ramge extended upto 160km (likely battery and loft changes)
My apologies, misread it.
Fixed.
1 Like
Bumping the topic…
A question for those interested in the event: should the R-37M be applied across the board to every eligible airframe, or remain exclusive to the MiG-31BM for the duration of the test?
- Yes, enable them on all eligible airframes (MiG-31BM/Su-30SM2/35)
- No, keep them as MiG-31BM exclusives
0
voters
IMHO: I’m a No.
Even for a limited event, keeping them exclusive to the MiG-31BM preserves the “interceptor” niche. Performance-wise, trying to lug 4–6 of these 600kg monsters on a Su-30SM2 or Su-35S would likely tank their flight models more than a full rack of 12 R-77Ms would.
I think it’s better to let the Flankers lean into their multirole agility with the R-77M, while the Foxhound plays the dedicated long-range sniper role. It gives players a reason to try both airframes during the event (especially if they don’t already own them) rather than just picking the one that “carries everything.”
Of course, the “sandbox” perspective—letting everyone try every missile regardless of the drag penalty—is also valid for a test event. Curious to see where the consensus lies.
Lastly, @Sea_Harrier_FRS1 mentioned something about loadouts earlier and it got me thinking… to keep the data collection broad and allow players who don’t own top tier aircraft to participate, I propose a “Loaner Aircraft” system for the event (which was used for the SEAD event before, so nothing new here):
- USA: F/A-18E and/or F-16C (Block 50/PoBIT)
- USSR/Russia: MiG-31BM and/or Su-35S
- Germany/Italy: Eurofighter Typhoon
- France: Rafale C
- Great Britain/India: Eurofighter Typhoon and/or Su-30MKI
- Japan: F-2A and/or F-15JSI
- Israel: F-15I Ra’am and/or F-16I
- China: J-10C and/or J-16
Standardised Loadouts for Everyone
To maintain a fair testing environment, all aircraft (owned and loaners) will use fixed, historical/technical (where possible/ideal) maximum loadouts.
If an airframe has access to multiple primary missiles (e.g., Su-30SM2 with R-77M and R-37M or F/A-18E with AIM-174B and AIM-120D-3), you will be able to select between these specific presets at the spawn screen. This ensures no one can “cheese” the flight model by stripping their jet to a basically drag-free state; everyone (mostly) deals with the same weight penalties, making the event a true test of BVR tactics and positioning rather than who has the best custom preset (and also has the side benefit of giving devs the best data possible).
- Yes, provide a “Loaner” aircraft per nation
- No, keep the event restricted to those who have unlocked the jets
0
voters
1 Like
This whole thing reads like a pipe dream.
The SEAD event happened because they’re planning to add it soon. Hopefully these aircraft and missiles are still at least one or two years away.
The idea of gathering “feedback on balance and counterplay” sounds good, but testing in a simplified environment won’t reflect the real one. The results won’t translate.
Running tests with a 10 m multipath makes no sense if the live game won’t use 10 m. That would make the data useless. Same with RB EC maps, which the devs have already dismissed.
And they’re not going to add brand-new aircraft just for a test. If anything like this happens, it will use existing aircraft.
I think you’re getting hung up on the specific figures rather than the concept of a test environment. Obviously, this isn’t coming to the live game tomorrow, but the fact that it was pushed through for public viewing at a minimum shows that the suggestion devs were at least open to the conversation.
Regarding multipathing: 10m is a test figure. Even if that’s too extreme for the live game, the event could easily be modified to test something like 30m instead. It would have the same effect of rewarding BVR tactics while lessening the “lawnmower” worry for players. That is literally the point of this test event.
As for the aircraft:
- Most of these airframes are already in-game. Only about 7-8 aren’t if we’re being picky but at the current rate of additions, we are only a handful of updates away from stealth fighters anyway.
- Read the disclaimer at the top. The post assumes these aircraft and missiles are already available for the sake of the event; it isn’t a “Gaijin Please add this jet today” post.
The goal is to have a simplified sandbox to test how things like AESA seekers, ramjet or dual-pulse motors behave (and how players react) before they hit the 16v16 chaos of the live game. Better to find out the Meteor or R-37M is “broken” in a weekend event than during a major update launch.
1 Like
- Yes, implement map-dependent multipath limits.
- No, maintain universal 10 metre limit across all maps.
0
voters
After some thought, I’d also like to suggest a further improvement to the current multipath effect limit of 10 metres.
Previously, I had thought that by blanket setting a 10 m cap on all maps that it would better simulate these missiles real-world performance, which is in part true, but it would also work against the test event by taking out the fun factor for the average player.
This is why I’d like to propose a slightly different adjustment to multipathing in general: a variable multipath limit that differs across maps presented in this event, similar to the change made to visual contrails at different altitudes on different maps. Essentially, maps with rugged or variable terrain (Vietnam being a good example) could have a slightly higher multipath limit set from 30 to 40 metres, instead of 10 metres. This takes into account things like trees or dips in terrain which would make ground hugging or terrain masking much more difficult and physically dangerous at high speeds.
As for the maps on offer in this event, I propose these revised and map-specific multipath limits:
Note: these aren’t definitive and are instead guidelines for possible implementation
- Vietnam: 40 m
- Afghanistan: 30 metres
- Sinai: 10 metres
- Spain: 30 metres
Any and all feedback welcome.
Added Seeker Lock Range column for all ARH missiles in the provided table in the main post.
Again, if there are any inaccuracies that go against what is provided, please provide the relevant technical data to help keep the table as accurate as possible.
IMO multipathing should stay at 60 meters.
Jets with lesser cm options (j-10c and j-15 being the most prominent examples I can think of) need a way to defend from missiles.
Otherwise they are going to be useless.
Other jets like su-35 or f-16 have options where they can replace larger calibre cms for much more smaller calibre cms, while with j-10c I don’t think it has smaller calibre cms than it already has in game.
1 Like
Hi,
While I understand the concern for aircraft with less countermeasures as a whole, if we keep multipathing at where it’s at currently, we aren’t just “helping” aircraft like the J-10C and others; we are effectively also making adding the missiles proposed pointless. What would be the point of having multipathing remaining the same and missiles that we know are for a fact are not at all affected the same (or more accurately, at all) by multipathing as something like say an R-3R?
With my proposed multipath change, it would see maps (in this event to start, with maybe more variable limits applied across all relevant top tier maps) have a slightly higher limit than the original 10 m limit. I have personally gone and tested flying lower than needed on every single map proposed here to have come to the conclusion of the revised multipath limits, so I’d know at what height to fly where >90% of the time players could still be safe while flying just a few tens of meters lower than normal.
1 Like
J-10C and J-15 also have extremely strong armaments to make up for weaker defenses
1 Like
What ever is realistic works fine. Hopefully when they do something like this event they would also test EW and ECM along with it, this way players would have more way to defend themself instead of multipathing
1 Like
To be fair, there’s also going cold but that won’t work for most of these :P.
I am hopeful that ECM will either be in the game by the time these are available for all (as in, after the event) OR they’re tested in one singular event. Whichever way Gaijin goes, I’m fine with.
Based on recent community feedback, newly acquired info (especially surrounding the Meteor), I have made several updates to the main post:
- General grammatical corrections
- Specified F-16C variants potentially on offer in the event (Block 50 and/or PoBIT) to carry AIM-120D-3
- Minor correction in F/A-18E/F AMRAAM missile count
- Added JF-17 Block III to carry 4 PL-15E to China (missile table also updated accordingly)
- Removed F-15JSI from Japan (literally doesn’t exist (for now), so should be fine)
- Updated the missile table: sorted the missiles alphabetically & edited Maximum range and primary gimmick section of Meteor and PL-17.
- Added PL-17 to J-16
Again, if there are any technical inaccuracies that go against what is provided, please provide the relevant technical data to help keep the table as accurate as possible.
And disable shooting down missiles, And nerf notching by better seekers/ banning chff
Hi,
Thank you for taking the time and responding. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
I understand your concern pertaining to the possibility of people opting to shoot down incoming air-to-air missiles. However, as this will be in an Air RB-esque setting, people rarely (if ever) shoot down incoming missiles anyway. Lastly, even if we could go about that route of “disabling”, it would mean having to adjust each and every single radar in this event to essentially ignore projectiles traveling faster than Mach 2, at least, which would make certain aircraft eventually invisible on radar (such as the MiG-31 or Eurofighter).
Next, all missiles to be featured in this event could have better seekers (although in the Meteor’s case it’s less “could” and more “will”) although the actual in-game differences remain to be seen across the majority of them. Lastly, banning chaff is not on the table, at all. It is a crucial element in defending yourself in BVR/WVR engagements. To “ban” its presence here would not make any sense whatsoever.
Lastly, “notching” in the traditional sense (that is, you notch the missile and hopefully it goes away after some extra maneuvering) will not really work against most of these new missiles, in theory. The idea is that you not only have to notch the missile but also the launching aircraft, as long as they’re still illuminating you it can and will still track and/or reacquire you. Most of the aircraft presented in the list you won’t really have to worry much about that since their radar’s gimbal limit won’t allow for this, but for the very few (Su-30SM2, Su-35, Eurofighters with AESA, etc.) you and all players participating will need to adjust to notching both missile and “mothership” one after the other (or same time if they’re flying at you after launch).
afaik People who are fighting tournaments have been using/ practicing the trick quite often, or at least in practice matches. Many SU30 players have been using it in everyday ARB matches when they found they have 12 r771 and an AESA. It may be hard in SB but won’t be stopped by RB. Codewise-ly speaking, it can be avoided with the same code for ground SPAA radar filters.
This is why I’m emphasizing on seeker, notching and chaff. Currently we are having most ARHs with worse anti-notch than those good old SARHs or phoenixes, which made everyone far far away from energy fighting missiles. I’d rather see BMS level notching, aka the last thing to pray at after all other tactics.
And about chaff, sadly its advanced (and complex) ways of use haven’t been modelled in game. It’s mentioned simply for the notching effectiveness - it turns out that our radars and missiles can be notched without chaff, at a seemingly good effectiveness level.