What we should be asking is for gaijin to remove the Pantsir and the KH-38s. The 2S6 was more than good enough before the Pantsir was added.
2 Likes
can’t ru mains used it to kill tanks and not to kill planes so it was deemed? not “good enough” so here we are with pantsir
Don’t forget that the TorM1 wasn’t good enough so instead of adding it to Russia after China, they instead add the Pantsir.
2 Likes
I think that was a lame excuse so they could add the Pantsir. When used in the AA role the 2S6 was one of the best AA in the game at the time.
Yep they complained the TORM1 wasn’t good enough said the 2S6 was bad so they then immediately added the Pantsir, nerfed the 2S6, and buffed the TORM1 because gaijin
Way ahead of ya:
Just nerf the offending weapons, don’t make the problem worse.
Reduce the guidance time or the fuel load for the KH38s so they are easier to dodge if they were fired at a range above 10km and this would already be way less of an issue.
1 Like
It was the worst. Yes, considering the old missile physics it was still a pretty dangerous spaa. In a better state than current adats for example, but it was the worst among top tier spaa. Slowest missile, worst overload, bad range, worst unstable radar (partly cured by IRST lock though).
So basically… not the A-10
The problem as far as I know is a lot of our Guided Weapons are kinda… GPS guided
Because why should just one nation be allowed to do it lol.
I mean, I’d happily play as an Air to Air only fighter for 99% of the game but a) spawn cost, and b) map size means that you can get nuked even if you’re well away from the battlefield, if you’re a NATO plane.
Need plane spawns furthur away from the battlefield so they aren’t spawn camped then more Pantsir equivalents added to TT that need it.
FF (Fighter First) is always nice in concept but everyone knows how it will turn out at some point. Fighters just killing all light tanks that spawn 25 seconds into the match.
Again, we should be asking gaijin to nerf the KH38s, not ask for more similar weapons capable of outranging the SPAAs
3 Likes
I mean I’d love to run around in my Tornado F.3 doing nothing but top cover. Trouble is that a) AA, b) flat maps, c) Chinese Helicopters, and d) Vikhrs. (yes i know they’re supposed to have been nerfed. they really shouldn’t be tracking mach 1 crossing targets that are manouevring but you know)
1 Like
I can’t see Gaijin doing that. I’d like them to, but I don’t see it happening. Hence why I’d just prefer to advocate for even more effective fighters and our own CAS. The moment they start adding ARMs NATO’s world will get a whole lot better. HARMs and ALARMs would ruin Pantsirs outright.
1 Like
ALARM can only track the Pantsir search radar, so if its turned that off and just using the track radar or IRST ALARM will be blind to it.
List of systems correct up to 1 year ago of radars ALARM can track;
Spoiler
US
M163 Track: I band, 8-10 GHz
M247 Search: I band, 8-10 GHz
M247 Track(APG-66): J band, 10-20 GHz
SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz
Thomson-CSF Domino 30 Track radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): J band, 10-20 GHz
ADATS Search: I band, 8-10 GHz
Germany
SAG MPDR-12 Search radar (Gepard, Gepard 1A2): E band, 2-3 GHz
SAZ purse doppler monopulse Track radar (Gepard, Gepard 1A2): J band, 10-20 GHz
SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz
Thomson-CSF Domino 30 Track radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): J band, 10-20 GHz
USSR
1RL34(ZSU-37-2): I band, 8-10 GHz
1RL33(ZSU-23-4): J band, 10-20 GHz
9S86 Track(Strela-10M2): I band, 8-10 GHz
1RL144 Search(2S6): E band, 2-3 GHz
1RL144 Track(2S6): J band, 10-20 GHz
1RS1 Search(Pantsir-S1) F band, 3-4GHz
UK
Marconi S-400(Marksman system): I band, 8-10 GHz
Rooikat Search(ZA-35): E band, 2-3 GHz
ADATS Search: I band, 8-10 GHz
Japan
Type 87 Search: I band, 8-10 GHz
Type 87 Track: J band, 10-20 GHz
China
PGZ-09 Search: E band, 2-3 GHz
PGZ-09 Track: J band, 10-20 GHz
CLC-1 Search(PGZ04A): E band, 2-3 GHz
Tor-M1 Search: F band, 3-4 GHz
Italy
SMA VPS-A05 Search(OTOMATIC): E band, 2-3 GHz
France
DR-VC-1A Search(AMX-30DCA): E band, 2-3 GHz
Rodeo-2 Search(SANTAL): E band, 2-3 GHz
SAG MPDR-16 Search radar (XM975, FlaRakPz, FlaRakRad, Roland 1): D band, 1-2 GHz
Crotale Search: E band, 2-3 GHz
Crotale Track: J band, 10-20 GHz
Sweden
Marconi S-400(VEAK 40): I band, 8-10 GHz
Thomson CSF Harfang TRS 2620 H(Lvkv 9040C): I band, 8-10 GHz
ASRAD Search: I band, 8-10 GHz
Crotale Search: E band, 2-3 GHz
Crotale Track: J band, 10-20 GHz
Israel
M163 Track: I band, 8-10 GHz
1RL33(ZSU-23-4): J band, 10-20 GHz
Not only do I not see them adding Anti Radiation Missiles, I don’t think they would solve anything.
I would wager that Anti Radiation Missiles would only make it worse.
Literally just drop the Pantsirs range down to 11-12km to be in line with the rest of the world and nerf (or get rid of) the KH38s.
1 Like
That requires a Pantsir player to be intelligent enough to know to switch the search radar off. And then they have to sit with said radar off for 5-10 minutes.
6 Likes
True and as long as the search radar was on when the ALARM was fired it will hit the last known position after its loiter phase. If the radar is turned back on at any point during the launch or loiter the position is updated again. Its a scary missile.
Nice little anecdote;
4 Likes
Yeah… I thought HARM would still hit last known position but I’m guessing with insufficient accuracy.
Either way, ALARM would force any SPAA to be significantly more cautious in switching on its radar
I might be remembering incorrectly but I think HARM targets main beam transmissions, where as ALARM can track side lobes, makes ALARM alot more flexible.
1 Like
Basic HARMs use an older much more sensitive kinematic estimation method for triangulation(Park’s Ranging Estimator), which can correlate a target at extreme range as long as it receives returns for long enough. The issue is that it can be very inaccurate if it isn’t provided with enough data. or if the returns are intermittent, since it uses angular and strength information from the seeker and INS info to establish target position and movement relative to the traveled path, and then refines the estimation over time to home in on the target.
The other thing is that the INS wasn’t that good until the later variants included a GPS bootstrapper to accurately initialize and maintain INS return accuracy(AGM-88D or earlier AUR’s that have undergone the Block VI aka. Block IIIB refit / remanufacture). which occurred in the early '00s
These days though the AGM-88E & -G have a MMW Seeker so terminal accuracy is less of an issue, assuming it ends up in the same postcode as a target.
8 Likes