This is call RC channel, mica had it too. Btw GNSS is much better.
Well, yes, back then there was the Mig-27K. But it only had 4 bombs, No TV or thermal. Eye-tracking only. while the F-16 could carry 6 AGM/GBU with termal or TV seeker. Everyone was strong, but some clearly had it easier.
I’m talking about the regular version. Back then, there were only kh23.
They’re quite significant. All major munitions are divided into NATO and Soviet types.
Differences in NATO weaponry are minimal. They share common plans for weapon development and use. Apparently, the Soviet school of thought is jarring. In CAS, there are no differences at all with NATO nation.
It’s not divided. But the main and decisive types of weapons, in the end, are either Soviet or NATO-style. GBU vs. KAB, aim120 vs. r77, AGM vs. KH, Split Armor vs. Active Armor and more and more.
News flash, if GNSS matters, it probably means you fire your missiles too far AND your enemies are paid actors
regarding MICA, it can not be guided through datalink in a notch since RBE2-AESA gimbal limit is 70° (thankfully, migh i add)
Yeah no, not really, there are quite major differences in doctrines and gear between UK, Germany, France or the US, and weapons type vary quite significantly in certain areas
It is a moot point anyway, because the match maker does not discriminate on whether a country is NATO or not, so trying to justify russia having more than half the meta toys at top tier with this chain of thoughts leads nowhere
Name me a country with unique technology within NATO. For example, the Soviets’ specialty is dynamic armor. Can you give me an example of this? Visual differences and internal layouts mean nothing in this game.
GNSS is not better than a continuous DL guidance support from 120 degree radar azimuth limit. GNSS helps to prevent INS drift and prevents over-correction on reacquiring the target, it doesnt offer any fallbacks in case of chaffing.
This is just wrong.
I find it kinda funny that you talk about Mig27 which was extremely common at one time before the more busted options were added. 4x Kh25MLs you can rapid fire (like hellfires since they are laser and not beamriding) to get up to 4 kills wasnt exactly much to scoff at, especially since 25s have mach 1.8 speed at the end of booster + plane inertia.
Alternative to that were 2 Kh29Ts and 2 KAB500s which back then had way longer track range than 3km they have now, so they were very effective.
Thats 4 nearly guaranteed kills on a fast platform during a time with insufficient or bad SPAAs. Mavericks to this day are atrocious due to the incredible drag they have and the god awful post pen damage that used to be even worse than it is now
This is such an extremely minimalist point of view on non-russian weaponry it almost hurts.
Like others have pointed out there is a fair amount of non-nato and non-soviet nations ingame. People use NATO/Soviet weaponry terms because it saves time than having to call out every nation thats not russia ingame.
Example of this would be Spikes or Spices. They are widely used by some NATO nations yet it is not a NATO weapon, as it originates from Israel (Rafael ADS) and is then under license produced under EuroSpike.
Theres many similar things like this. Also some NATO weaponry just wasnt accepted by other NATO nations, for example PGMs on Panavia Tornados.
It was Russia who had it the easiest. MiG-27K could not be touched by SPAA’s as it was flying above their radar limits.
“Space nuking” wasn’t readily available to non-Russian nations til a year after the 27K, in fact, the only nation comparable was the UK with their Harrier GR.7, but the F-16 w/TGP and AGM-65Ds weren’t available at 27Ks reign. Three months after the addition of NATO LGBs and TGPs to Tornado’s/F-16s, Gaijin added the Pantsir which made everything less manouverable than the F-16 irrelevant (in fact Germany and Italy became completely irrelevant as their only LGP platforms were the Tornadoes, UK was somewhat capable, and everyone but the US had nothing to compete with), while giving enormous advantage to Russia, who soon after received the Su-25SM3 which once again made it clear what nation was the top dog, what followed was only more and more OP Russian CAS additions. Each more powerful than the last. Since the MiG-27K, we had a near unbroken chain of complete Russian CAS dominance, that was in 2021, we’ve had FIVE YEARS OF RUSSIA BEING A CAS TOP DOG, with occassional breaks for US/France to chime in.
Russian SPAA also basically always gets their performance modelled near the “top ceiling”, whereas, til today, SPAA’s like IRIS-T SLM or SAMP/T are still nowhere near what they should perform, and Gaijin added yet another Pantsir that is by far the most potent SPAA, again, but does nothing to fix NATO ones so that they can compete with the Pantsir on equal grounds.
6 years with eurocopter with PARS
PARS wasn’t F&F for about a year after it was added as Gaijin deemed it too powerful, so until 2020, and then it was promptly nerfed. Has Russian CAS been nerfed the way PARS was? Nope, never. In fact, LMUR is the only F&F missile that LOFTs properly, even though it was added 5+ years after PARS, and Kh-38MT has a seeker than is fictional (the variant itself is wholey fictional).
But sure since i know french stuff more i’ll go with that :
Mistral’s octogonal seeker cover
TVC on ARH (not a breakthrough, but unique in doctrine), and btw, since we are on MICA, the main body being same between IR and EM variant is far closer in doctrine to R27 (a Soviet missile) than US ones
IRIS-T family being afaik one of the only medium and soon long range SAM with an IR seeker
UK’s spearfish torpedo having a unique propulsion system making it the fastest in the guided torps department
Talking of submarines, some NATO countries are focused on building nuclear fleets with a lot of autonomy for deterrence or projection missions while others prefer building ultra quiet subs specialized for coastal regions (UK, France, US for the first category, Germany, Italy, Japan for the second)
in terms of tanks : Germans and british favored protection, french and italians favored transportability and light vehicles
For CAS, some make glide bombs (Israel), some make small but numerous laser / MMW guided missiles (UK), some srap a propulsion kit to a standard bomb (France, US). Just in that department there are so many different approaches.
And i’ll conclude with a small china mention : they are not in NATO either and produce their own unique designs with their own doctrine as well, what do you make of their case ?
All in all separating technologies in terms of alliances does not work. Each country have a full or partial defense industry, and each of these industries will get inspired by and improve on something someone might have done abroad, be it allied or competitor
Yeah, that’s pretty funny to me too, considering the Soviets didn’t even have a thermal sight for their CAS before the kh38. Was it easy to aim and spot the enemy by eye?
Specialty? They went with ERA because its cheaper to slap slabs on existing tanks than to mass retrofit a massive tank fleet. On top of having to go through the redesign for updates and other things that would cost time, money and manpower.
Its not a specialty, its a difference in doctrine. Youre almost making it out as if the russians/soviets had some form of ancient knowledge on how to make a brick of C4 with two steel plates on each side.
Vast majority of them?
You have so many different and interesting military designs, from weapons to vehicles. Hell half of cold war west german vehicle designs look like the designers were high on illicit drugs when making them.
This is again extremely reductionist.
also can i just remind you that by the time the “NATO” was already fielding AMRAAMs the soviets were still running with SARH based missiles.
within NATO or within the nations not affiliated to russia?
if its NATO, they have some of the highest thrust to weight ratio at top tier, have unique weaponry like the brimstone wich has really long range capability for its weight and size, they have ahead ammo for some of ground vehicles, they have IR guided bombs, rocket assisted bombs and have possibly the most advanced composite armor
for non NATO allied countries:
4 second reload for top tier japanese tanks
decently good all around armor for the israeli
they also have the most advanced ground to air IR missiles
soviets speciality was ERA and its not even that good, there is a lot of ERA ingame that irl its underperforming, CLARA ERA for the PUMA ifv its a good example, it has one of the best weight to performance ratio in wich each module weights 40 kg being capable of protecting against 850 mm of chemical (tandem) and around 110-120 vs kinetic, better against chemical than Relikt
relikt ERA its also outperformed by Duplet by a good bunch and duplet was also very VERY heavily nerfed, in both chemical and kinetic btw
Are you denying that this is a distinctive feature of Soviet-Russian technology? Sounds strange.
Is there a difference in how a vehicle looks to the enemy that can penetrate it? I’m talking about the vehicle’s global defense mechanics, not its appearance. There’s a major distinguishing feature between the Soviet and NATO systems. Can you identify it for NATO vehicles?
Without having a Pantsir staring at you that you cant even detect or any competent SPAA able to do much against you that you could take your time to find targets with contrast seeker?
It sure as hell wasnt hard.
So, would you have been okay with the Soviets being without Pantsir at that point, and you were easily getting six guaranteed kills from space bombing in a single F16? Would you have considered that normal?
