Britain SPAA Voids - what could be added?

[Jarms]

If we’re talking low and mid-tiers, things like this come to mind.

• Vickers Mk. VI AA (twin 15mm)
  
  Honestly, it’s probably going to be a really bad SPAA and more likely used as a mobile TD. So I’d probably say anywhere around 1.3 or 1.7 depending on performance, and if it’s open-topped or not.

• Crusader AA Mk. II (triple Oerlikon):
  

  
  
  Considering Gaijin hates enclosed SPAA, this could go down to 2.7 where the AEC AA use to be. Less passive aggressive response maybe 3.0.

• Centaur AA:
  

  
  
  You can probably add it to 4.3, slightly better armoured hull than Crusader AA Mk. II, likely more ammunition, and can neutral steer.

• Project 41:
  
  
  This can be our new 4.7 filling in the gap the Skink left. Pretty much the same firepower, except basically zero armour, and double the magazine capacity thanks to the 60 round drums.

• Skink (Hispano)
  

  
  
  Welded turret so slightly more protection, and 4x Hispano guns. Going off in-game performance that should mean a far higher rate of fire compared to the Polsten. From memory this used 60 round magazines as well. Likely go around 5.7 - 6.0.

I’m at a loss for what can go between 6.3 to 8.0. Personally I’d just remove the HVAP from the Falcon and drop that back to 8.0, but then you still have a gap between 6.3 to 7.7.

[Rileyy3437]

It would be nice to get rid of the Chieftain marksman in favour of the Challenger marksman (even if foldered). It’s not huge but the chieftain hull is basically useless whereas the Challenger hull would provide better everything similar to the ITPSV 90

[John_Sneeeeeeeew]

Yeah, a better hull would make it a lot nicer, whilst not putting it up in BR. However, PLEASE NO MORE 8.3 SPAA

[Rileyy3437]

Yeah i’d rather they filled the already existing gaps or added the Sabre rather than another marksman platform.

But the Challenger over Chieftain hull upgrade would be much much nicer.

[DevilO6]

@da12thmonkey

Star SAFIRE 380-HD

I know im a little late to the party, but that is most likely 380X or Newer version of TacFLIR 380-HD

Based on the small scope in the right bottom corner i would say so, look at the shape and size.

[DevilO6]

@_David_Bowie I’m going to challange Your judgement about My ZA report here.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kjFzLKXUzwiW
You say that there is no proof



Not only is the origin Vechicle, but also operating wavelenght stated(that are clearly in LWIR specrum), so not something NVD does.
Another thing is the LLTV. First of all Low Light TeleVision is not image intensifier, it is not a NVD, but a near infrared camera. Second of all

Firms are devloping, and the book states that would (Would not Was!) be offered, this part lists possible upgrades, but there is no source that states that low cost version was used. Also the document iteslf states it 2 things. 1 a TI with switchable FOV to repalce FLIR, and LLTV to replace FLIR. Something has to exist to be replaced. I added Janes there, as it is from 1994 and it still talks about thermal, not LLTV there. Also the brochure itself states

It equips FLIR to be able to work during the night, there is 0 things said about LLTV.
LLTV was one of the things that would be options for it, but neve did, just like the tracker with radar, that i have brochure for.
1 primary that stay it can have, 2 secondary stating it has it, 1 supplementary stating the same. LLTV was a option, not a thing that happend.
Here is Forecast International from 1996 i forgot to add

It also states FLIR.

[David_Bowie]

These sources have already been reviewed, most importantly the brochure does not mention that it is equipped FLIR. All secondary sources are disproved by the primary sources.

• ZA-35 Brochure

The system can be equipped with a forward-looking infra-red sensor which will give the system a night-fight capability.

Spoiler

Since the ZA-35 was not equipped with the FLIR version of the AA-EOT, there is only one correct answer. It is the LLTV version of the AA-EOT mentioned in Military Technology 1991, Vol. 12.

• Military Technology 1991, Vol.12

These include a thermal imaging with switchable fields of view to replace the FLIR, a second-level stabilisation system (0.075mrad), and a missile goniometer. Correlation and/or edge auto-tracking can be fitted in place of the centroid system. A lower-cost version of the system would be offered with an LLTV in place of the FLIR.

Spoiler

Therefore, further evidence is needed for that.

[DevilO6]

Can be equipped does not mean it was not. It is like Abrams Trophy. It can be equipped when needed.
Can never meant it didn’t. Also at the bottom of the brochure

If we go by this, the fact that it openly states that it can equip FLIR in order to give the system nigh-fighting capability, the system is based heavly on T-DATS

and secondary sources from multiple years (1991, 1994 and 1996) all state the same, that it got a FLIR, it would mean that it got it installed later in the development, or the brochure stating Can at the moment of its creation, meant that it is a intended feature, optional but intended one.
The LLTV is a one sentence in one of the secondary sources, in a part where possible changes to the system are listed. If we go with that, it can also have a TI with switch able FoV, as it is also listed separately from the Flir, and one of the sources confirm it,

There is no proof that Low Cost version ever existed, and brochure does not even mentioned it. Can is not a no, it is just like Abrams i brought before, just like Challenger 2 can mount DL2 kits, just like T-90M can mount Relict bags.

@_David_Bowie

there is only one correct answer.

No, there is one more. That option would be lack of night-fight Capability. After all the brochure itself states “forward-looking infra-red sensor which will give the system a night-fight capability.”
As i have said can does not mean no. If you type can, then it is a possibility at the moment of writing a thing.
If i type “I can drive a car” does that mean that if someone looks at it 10 years later it meant i never did? No, it leaves a possibility that i could have drive it, but also not. That is why i provide pictures of me driving (here secondary sources) that show i drove a car (here, that FLIR was include).
When it comes to development parts.
Possible changes include Ford Mustang to replace my Fiat Panda, a power steering and a cruise control. A better navigation can be fitted in place of my old one. A lower cost option would be driving a bike in place of a car. These are possible changes to the outcome. I provided pictures that show me driving a car. In the past all of the changes i said to one person, while giving 4 people in total a photo of me driving a car. Does that mean 10 years later that i drove a bike? Even the only person whom i told all the possible changes also says i drove a car.

Additionaly i have a request, can you please tell me why Can is treated as No?
It by itself means maybe, If nothing is provided it stays as maybe, and is up to personal interpretation, but i have provided secondary sources that tilt the scales onto yes. It should not be treated as a automatic NO and then a thing that could have existed, but also could have not be taken as a fact, disregarding other things.

[David_Bowie]

@DevilO6

Can be equipped does not mean it was not. It is like Abrams Trophy. It can be equipped when needed.

There is no proof of this, we cannot pass the report based on assumptions alone.

All sources are secondary sources and the primary source, the brochure, only mentions possibilities, the sources you have already uploaded have been previously reviewed and rejected, therefore we cannot pass the report unless you provide new sources.

@DevilO6

There is no proof that Low Cost version ever existed, and brochure does not even mentioned it. Can is not a no, it is just like Abrams i brought before, just like Challenger 2 can mount DL2 kits, just like T-90M can mount Relict bags.

On a single completed prototype like the ZA-35, can (possibility) means no, if the project ended without the vehicle being equipped with FLIR, the developers would not implement it.

I have used the same source to create internal reports in the past and closed it for the same reason.

@DevilO6

No, there is one more. That option would be lack of night-fight Capability. After all the brochure itself states “forward-looking infra-red sensor which will give the system a night-fight capability.”

And that sentence refers a possibility, it does not say it is equipped.

We need a primary source that directly states it is equipped, this is especially important because all secondary sources are negated by the primary source, the brochure.

@DevilO6

Additionaly i have a request, can you please tell me why Can is treated as No?

As I said, all material uploaded in the report has already been reviewed, there is no new material in your report and it cannot be forwarded.

[DevilO6]

So if i get it right. Brochure states maybe, no from maybe is taken and is carried over to secondary sources, negatig them.
And then developers decided to give it a NVD based on LLTV?

So after sorting it out. Brochure states it could do it, but developers decided that they will choose that it did not had it. Then they decided to use a part from a possible options to be developed in the future (that part also openly states tah flir exist in “These include a thermal imaging with switchable fields of view to replace the FLIR”) and add a NVD based on one of the options for the future.

I’m giving up then.
4 sources that state it had it, brochure that stated can, but ok.

[Surbaissemaxxing]

rooikat SAM would fit very well, however got rejected cuz “mockup turret”, as if there isnt far less realistic stuff ingame

[SwingfireOP]

If something is rejected because it was never fitted to an actual vehicle even though it could have been, I expect the yak-141 to lose its irst then.

[David_Bowie]

Ground vehicles and aircraft have different standards. This is not a good example of this.

Also, finished and unfinished prototypes are different, ZA-35 is a finished prototype, and in this case it implemented the actual vehicle as built.

[Jeef25198]

If you don’t mind me asking (and if it’s relevant enough) what are the standards for each?

[David_Bowie]

Basically, unfinished prototype is implemented with the performance it is expected to they have (e.g. Ho 229, Yak-141).

However, finished prototype is different, in which case the vehicle is implemented as it was built (e.g. ZA-35, M60-120S)

[DevilO6]

Then i guess ther is no chance to add ETS2400 to ZA-35? It was a possible option, and it existed(was mounted on a different thing but still did)

Spoiler

[Jeef25198]

Thank you!

If you don’t mind a final question is it different for tech demos too? I think we have a few in ground but not very many to none at all for air

[Surbaissemaxxing]

extra photo

also a photo of the G6 carrying the turret

[DevilO6]

Launchers on the G6 are mockup, just like the ones on ZA
Missile flew tho

[Surbaissemaxxing]

yup, atleast the missile actually worked, there are also other platforms carrying it