Today I want to create a topic about reducing the combat rating for the Japanese Type 81 air defense system to 10.7, please read the text to the end before writing a disagreement, thank you very much:3
As an argument, I want to give the following arguments:
At 11.3, according to the developer, it is equal in effectiveness to the recently added HQ-17, whose destruction range is 15 km. But this is far from true, in fact, the hijacking of the plane occurs at a distance, God forbid, 6 kilometers, while even the A-10A, located at 10.3, poses a mortal threat to us due to AGM-65 missiles. These are far from the best missiles, but even we cannot find and destroy them, unlike other air defense systems. Also, the effective operating range of even these ammunition is ± 10 kilometers, which is why we cannot do anything to a competent pilot on the A-10. I’m not even considering other, more effective ammunition. We can lock helicopters literally from 4 km, even with contrast guidance. That is, any non-primary helicopter, not flying close to the map also poses a mortal danger to us.
In fact, we are closest to the Strela-10M air defense system. But we have a slightly faster and more maneuverable missile and have a thermal imager, so I propose a BR that is not equal to it, but a little higher. The amount of ammunition also does not change. Reducing to 11.0 will not help, since in any case this air defense system is useless if a top system like Pantsir, Flarakrad, Ito-90, etc. appears in the team.
In its current state, I consider this particular air defense system not playable and I’m talking about this here, since I have more than one nation behind me and I have something to compare with. Honestly, I don’t even think that the Type-81 is equal to the Tunguska, which is at 10.7, since it has a longer range on targets and is more versatile thanks to its guns, but at 10.3 it is unlikely to be lowered due to the speed and overload of the missiles. I sincerely hope that this post will generate enough support for the developers to notice and take action
change of BR that won’t make any difference since Japan jumps from 9.7 to 11.3 and it’s not worth taking the 9.7 to BR above to use AA which is dependent on the map and the map’s climate to be useful
You have good points but it is insignificant since there is no way to use it in BR as you said since there are no vehicles between 9.7 and 11.3
I understand your feelings perfectly, but in my opinion it is worth giving the Type 81C a phased array radar (PESA) with a range of 30 km (which is available in reality) + give the IR missiles a LOAL mode, which is also available in reality + give ARH missiles with a range of 14 km, which are available in reality and have the ability to receive radio commands before activating the ARH. Then the Type 81C will become an extremely good and dangerous SAM for enemy aircraft, at the level of the Pansir S1 or even better. The only thing is that the 81C is unlikely to be able to intercept high-precision weapons in reality like the Pansir S1. But in all other respects, in addition to range, it will surpass it, for example, in the rapid successive firing of 4 targets, successive target acquisition by the radar, issuance and programming of the IR missile for the expected future position of the target and LOAL launch. Thus, it is possible to achieve the launch of 4 missiles at 4 targets while the first missile is still in flight. According to some data, ARH missiles at 14 km in this form can fire at 2 targets sequentially at the same time.
in general, many SAMs in a high-level game, if configured according to real parameters, will be able to receive adequate ratings. But at the moment, many of them have fantasy characteristics.
Yes, of course, Japan does not have such BR. But you can still build a setup based on air defense. I also want to note that Japan has 10.7 aircraft, which means that there will still be some kind of setup. I don’t want to seem annoying, but it seems to me that if the BR of this air defense is lowered, then it won’t be bad for Japan
I understand, but I’m not asking you to give him something overly unbalanced weapons, I’m just asking you to bring this air defense to balance, lowering the BR
And it will not be an unbalanced weapon. Pansir S1 if it receives a repaired radar (now it’s broken) will be stronger on average than Type 81C with the missiles and capabilities I mentioned above. It is necessary to simply distribute to other countries SAM systems similar in capabilities and parameters as the Russian Pansir S1, but certainly not clones.
this is a problem of the game, the accuracy of the radars in the game and the maps themselves. as I wrote above, if you bring everything to more realistic parameters, then the 17th will be able to hit targets at 14 km accurately, it has powerful missiles with a long-running engine
Also no, you are comparing different speeds. For the 9M311-1M missile, you took the average speed at a distance of 8-10 km (starting 910 m / s), and for Tan-SAM the starting speed. I do not know at what exact distance the Tan-SAM missile engine turns off, but it is most likely around 5.2 km. Therefore, its average speed is most likely in the region of 750-800 m/s over a full distance of 10 km; but it should be remembered that these are rockets of different weight categories.The Tunguska missile engine turns off at 1.7 km after launch. You can not compare Tan-SAM and 9M311-1M missiles by filling with explosives. In reality, the 9M311-1M has a shirt made of an expanding rod striking part (rod diameter 4 mm) and ready-made steel fragments on top + a detonator at 5 meters, this in reality gives very serious damage even to armored large aircraft. I do not know what striking part the Tan-SAM has, but I think it’s just ready-made fragments without cores. The SAM damage issues affect all missiles in the game and are just another cheat on the game mechanics side.
It’s not that simple, the game has a lot of problems with SAMs as a class of equipment and they are both bad relative to what they should actually represent.
The Tan-Sam is more of a Japanese analogue of the British Rapier, but improved in all respects. the same stationary deployment of the system to protect a certain section of the front without the ability to instantly change location. Although according to some data, the connection between the radar and missile machines at Tan-SAM could be via a radio line instead of cables, which gives much better mobility and the ability to quickly leave the territory than the Rapira.
I was talking about 9M37M found on Strela which has 700m/s max speed.
Also, I just tested, 2S6’s missile will reach a fixed point that’s 9km away in ~16s, which gives it an average speed of ~560m/s over that distance. This is of course a perfect scenario in which missile doesn’t need to pull thus energy loss would be at the very minimum.
For a 10km shot it took 18.5s and means the missile needed ~2.5s to travel the last kilometer, so that gives us the average speed of ~400m/s which means the missile is barely even supersonic at the end of it’s flight path. Dodging that becomes really easy, so this is why taking max range into the account for those earlier SAMs (especially 2S6) is not really a good idea.
We can agree on that.
Type 81 is still better for targets at range though.
Oh shit, I must be too blind and read it wrong, I apologize for my stupidity, yes 9M37(M) has a speed of about 700 m/s max, and an average of probably 580-600 m/s. In general, it is strange that the Tunguska missile has an average speed of 560 m/s at 9 km.
in general, judging by these graphs from the game, it is very suspicious that the 9M311-1M has such a sharp drop in speed after 8km, because its engine falls off already at 1.7 km. Maybe the Gaidzins broke the missile again to please CAS? 🤔
yes, I play on Tunguska and I know very well how poor its missiles are after 6 km, in fact, after 7 km we cannot hit the assault drone (the missile starts to swing a lot), and it can launch an ATGM at us from 8 km. + terrible accuracy of the floating radar (sometimes the capture mark window floats so much that it covers the drone and I cannot see it), but this is already a general problem of deception on the part of the developers
That graph doesn’t make sense to me.
Speed drops significantly after 8km but the time curve remains more or less linear.
It’s engine burns out very quickly so seeing it retain 750+ m/s all the way till reaching 8km is highly suspicious and I’m definitely not trusting that graph lol.
Oh yeah, I had drones dodging my missile from 8km like it’s nothing. It’s laughable.
Have you tried using IR lock, I found it move much less than the radar one.
of course I know and use IR capture, but its efficiency is low especially in bad weather (capture range)
Yes, there are many questions about the time schedule. And about the speed, the 90mm 95Ya6 rocket loses speed at 40 m/s every kilometer, I don’t know at what speed the 9M311 rocket with a diameter of 76 mm should lose speed.
I think 9M311-1M should have an instantaneous (not average) speed at 9 km of about 600-610 m/s
yes, this graph is absolutely wrong, at 10 km the speed should be around 580 m/s, but on the graph it is below 490 m/s
This graph has some questions about the flight time and speed of the VT-1. The fact is that the VT-1 in reality has a range of 15-16 km, and accordingly the drop in speed with distance should be much less than in these graphs. Although according to some data, the VT-1 Mk3 version (apparently an improved version of the VT-1 missile) may have a range of 15-16 km.
Yes, but the fact itself is that radar air defense systems are better than thermal ones both in terms of versatility of purpose (a flakrad can even blow up tanks) and in terms of range.
I don’t agree. There are air defense systems like the TOR-M1 on 11.0, and it will be much better. I’m still going to stick to my point of view here.
I disagree again. Type-81 loses at almost any distance, maybe it will be a little better in exceptional moments
That graph shows 9M331 is by far the best at retaining speed until you hit 8km, which makes no sense. Sharply falling off after 8km doesn’t make sense either.
I didn’t measure the time in the millisecond, but average speed of 560-600m/s over 9km should be pretty correct value.
I reached the target at ~10km in 18.5s, which coincides with the maximum guidance time of 18.5s the missile has, which gives us an average of 540m/s.
Considering that in my testing missile took around 2.5s to travel from 9km to 10km, the speed at the end should be somewhere around 400m/s.
the Type-81 also has a large “blind zone” where the missile cannot maneuver. Why don’t you think so?
Airplanes are not captured beyond 6 kilometers, only in ideal conditions against a clear sky, which almost never happens. Tunguska has no such disadvantage
3)Tell that to the jumping grip and all the Su-25T/Su-39, which are simply maneuvering at a distance of 6 kilometers and the missile does not have enough energy to catch up with them
I’ve killed targets well under 1km with it, TOR can’t do that.
Tunguska is crap at 6km of range regardless. I’ve used both and Type 81 is noticeably better.
Considering it has a long burning motor, it definitely should be able to have enough energy to hit targets at 6km of range.
On the other hand, motor of a 2S6’s missile burns almost instantly, making it a brick after 4-5km.
