No, I still need mooooreeee XD
per example hush kit guide of warplanes v2
or the haynes on various other vehicles
and more about the harriers in the falklands
Also I have a bunch of these (German military history magazines I got from the father of my ex girlfriend)
4 Likes
I’d take it very happily but why was it under guard when it worse worse than even a meteor MK.1?
Skyhawks touches briefly on the fact that the RN was still susceptible to low-level approaches from Skyhawks even after Argentina was doing that in the Falklands.
Then again, it also mentions the RN being susceptible to those prior to the Falklands, so eh.
Wait the brits bought and used Sabres? And not just some, over 300 F-86Es were ordered and delivered
Dont tell me i am the only one that wasnt aware of that
Does sound resonable, the sam missles of the RN failed often during the Falklands campaing. Since the Sea Cat was so widespread, the only really good missle defence they had was Sea Dart of the Type 82 destroyers. Until Sea Wolf came along and heli borne AWACS solutions in form of this beauty
came around, the frigates really laked any kind of potant surface to air systems
In both cases it was a carrier they targeted.
The first time was HMS Eagle in August 1971, taking part in EX Southern Clime. Two Skyhawks had departed to act as decoys at the edge of Eagle’s radar range to draw off the Sea Vixens aboard, while six other Skyhawks skirted around Eagle by going far out into the Tasman, then dropped down to 50 ft as they made their run in. When the six Skyhawks arrived at Eagle, the Sea Vixens were in the process of landing, leaving the carrier essentially unprotected.
The second case was more awkward for the RN.
Now we’re in November 1983, and HMS Invincible was arriving for exercises. So the decision was made to carry out what was now a customary mock attack - they’d done the same thing to the cruiser USS Texas only a few months prior - and in the process earned themselves a debriefing once Invincible had docked, as the RN was rather interested in just how a bunch of Skyhawks had still managed to get close without being detected.
This continued up until at least 1989, with the RNZAF repeating the act during EX Vanguard '89.
1 Like
They also used Canadair Sabers.
CL-13 Mk 2 and CL-13 Mk 4.
4 Likes
That was a bad shot honestly. It’s theoretically fine as you shoot, but he goes through the notch once the missile leaves the rails and because it resets its flight controls when that happens, it put it outside of its maneuvering capability for that shot. If the fins didn’t reset it probably would have been fine. Is not a Skyflash issue, it’s a SARH issue in general.
1 Like
Follow on from comments I made on the IRIS-T thread, on how it doesn’t matter that IRIS-T, AIM-9X etc etc can turn harder than the ASRAAM, you will be dead before that happens. This confirmed from the new doc @Flame2512 sourced from the National Archives.
13 Likes
From what I’ve seen ASRAAM will probably be the best IR missiles when it gets added.
7 Likes
The only issue I can see happening is if it’s 50G dual plane and not roll stabilised.
MICA IR would like to have a word with you :).
But otherwise i agree, the range doctrine of the ASRAAM over the maneuvrability of the IRIS-T/ 9X is the one that will be meta in WT (and is also “Meta” irl).
The thing that could save the IRIS-T is its ability to shoot down missile. It’s probably more a gimmick than a capability you can use to shoot down 100% of ennemy missile but still could be usefull.
The 50G (supposed) of the ASRAAM will be enough for most encounters in the game.
The only situation where the IRIS-T/9X will be better is if you go into a furr-ball or if the ennemy surprise you and is very close to you.
How do you see the two comparing? Am I right in thinking MICA has a bit more range, but a somewhat worse seeker?
I’ve never quite got to the bottom of what makes it so that IRIS-T can do that while other missiles cannot. Certainly in game I expect all missiles will be able to do it (current missiles in game already can)
Probably its more sensitive to smaller heat sources, like a head of another missile. That is the only thing i can make out. I dont think its proxy or guidence precision.
The MICA has indeed a bit more range, is more maneuvrable when the TVC is on but a bit worse after.
Seeker wise , the ASRAAM has better HOBS capabilities (90° vs 60° gimbal) and the MICA IR has a better IRCCM hardware wise (Dual Band vs Single band), we won’t know software wise obviosuly.
It’s better than other missile at hitting very maneuvrable target (ie other missile) since its using a H-infinity icontroler instead of a PID one and is probably the most maneuvrable missile on the market today.
While other missile can indeed already hit missile, i guess the IRIS-T can do it quite reliably.
And also the IRIS-T is the quickest to do a 180° shot and has probably the lowest NEZ of any missile which can be used quite effectively*.
*If you get into a dogfight after a merge (visual id needed irl) or if you’re close to the target during an Air-Patrol.
Any idea what kind of range we’re talking about? More than AIM-7F levels?
Who the hell came up with this and why did we not put it into production!
3 Likes
Depending on the variant 60km (NG is thought to have 100+) is whats quoted by the Greek air force compared to ASRAAM’s 50km.