Explosive mass? Or warhead weight including fragmentiation mantle?
There are gaps between many different types of missiles in game.
The gap is significantly larger from AIM-120D vs Meteor / MICA.
So its not clear what comparason you are tying to draw here. Since its not the same at all.
3 Likes
Can we please get a update on if console to PC account transfer is coming back
4 Likes
Scenario A: I launch Meteor at you with AESAphoon. It acquires you from ~25 km, I maintain datalink updates while notching. From your POV, I’m a few degrees off from the missile itself, so even if you notch the Meteor (totally possible, even if by an absolute minimum it shares the same side lobe sensitivity/seeker FoV of 7 degrees), you failed to notch me. Even if you do notch me too, the Meteor will have reacquired you by then anyways, so it’ll be a back and forth of you trying to notch and losing energy too. Either way, you ded
Scenario 2: I launch <50 km and let it get you on its own. In normal BVR, missiles we currently have are gliding into people who are closing too fast. Even if you try to run, you can’t, because it’s already hauling ass behind you at Mach ~3.3 minimum.
It shares a derivative seeker; not the same, but upgraded using the AD4A as a base. The Meteor’s seeker probably just has better ECCM (which isn’t modelled in War Thunder, yet) compared to the MICA EM we have in-game. Unless of course, information becomes public which says otherwise.
Also, missiles with two-way datalink aren’t a simple “notch missile and win”. You need to do so much more to evade such missiles. The saving grace for you is that Rafales with Meteor will be by far the easiest to notch, as they can’t guide + notch at the same time like Eurofighters can.
It doesn’t, lol. It shares the same (some would say better) terminal turning capability as the AMRAAM. The only difference between them is energy difference down range.
I can’t speak of the MICA NG, but,
What we know about Meteor:
- At minimum, basic seeker specs we can copy/paste from (shares same seeker technology as MICA EM, with some improvements (these are unknown))
- Two-way datalink-capable, but no GNSS.
- Propulsion type. What we don’t know is how the Meteor ‘manages’ its thrust in different situations, such as an initially ‘close’ target turning cold: does it “coast and sip” to maintain minimum fuel expenditure but maximum thrust (the target dies eventually), or does it throw conservatism out the window and commits to 100% thrust no matter what, pushing it to its maximum possible speed for intercept?
To the remainder of your post, I’ll say this:
The R-27ET is only really a problem if you’re not paying attention. It has roughly the same flare resistance as a AIM-9L from far out, and only really becoming a problem once its FoV shrinks down enough to ignore flares, which is around 2 km on average. At or around top tier where you’ll find these missiles, you’ll probably either have a MAW-equipped aircraft or in RB specifically, the R-27E missiles has a long burn time so you should notice its smoke trail + missile diamond if you are, again, paying attention. Even if you notice it late, you can still turn into it and flare them off much easier than something like an R-73.
As has been pointed out many times in so many words, the other “long range IRCCM” that exists are way too strong. They do not share the same generation of IR seeker as the R-27ET does. Unless, of course, you’re advocating for the addition of these missiles without the IR/IIR seeker performance? Can’t wait for the uproar about that.
That is, if Gaijin adds that in any way, shape or form.
Current missiles with two-way act exactly the same as one-way ones.
I think I’ve pointed out abundantly clearly that I think the problem is there aren’t any similar missiles in-game. It’s also not about how easy or hard it is to detect & defeat. It’s about loadout variety in kit people get to choose. This holds true to R-27ER vs AIM-7M/P also, no one will even consider taking AIM-7M rather than AIM-120 currently, yet as an example SU-30SM2’s get kit where they can genuinely choose between R-77-1 or R-27ER/T. I hope I could make it clear what I’m trying to say.
As has been pointed out many times in so many words, the other “long range IRCCM” that exists are way too strong. They do not share the same generation of IR seeker as the R-27ET does. Unless, of course, you’re advocating for the addition of these missiles without the IR/IIR seeker performance? Can’t wait for the uproar about that.
Any and all missiles clearly out performing has caused an uproar, R-27ER is still an uproar, AIM-54 was an uproar when it came and even more recently MICA-EM. Heck we can wait for next update and see what kind of uproar AIM-120D causes, too bad performance or too great, it’ll be uproar regardless. It falls for Gaijin to make the final balancing adjustments and choices to whichever armament they choose to add and when to add them.
Depends on the pressure and temperature from the exhaust, as if it’s too high you just have an expensive pipe bomb. That is just be the initial throat size as it may have significant burn away from the exhaust so it may be more efficient later.
AFAIK the length of the combustion chamber depends on which burn technique is used and how well the respective fuel can mix with the air in a given amount of time at a given flowspeed through it. I would imagine they could shorten the combustion chamber if they achieve better mixing of the fuelgas from the gasgenerator and the air at a shorter distance, like it was done in modern gasturbine engines of planes where techniques for flameholders like “trapped vortex” were developed to improve air-fuel-mixing while allowing shorter combustion chambers → less weight, less wear, less cost.
Also “pressure” would be more relevant than temperature as structural ceramics like silicon nitride can be used for whole combustion + nozzle setups for, for example, hydrogen + oxygen rocket fuel for five minutes straight without disintegration and without a supportive structural cladding.
The throttleable ducted rocket in the meteor is likely the first iteration of said technology by the prdocution company. I could imagine that we will see some substantial improvements in later iterations of this missile and its motor.
1 Like
Then are you opposed to the addition of Meteor and having MICA EM’s range fixed? After all, range doesn’t matter.
idc about micas range, what is a problem is that all fox3 seekers(except phoenix) are copy paste and for some reason the mica one is better.
For all i care give mica more range but nerf its seeker to be on par with the rest of the roster for balance and nerf the rafale to realistic flight performance.
Can you just answer the question? MICA’s seeker is apparently easy to defeat anyway as you said. So are you opposed to adding Meteor and fixing the MICA’s seeker since by your own words range doesn’t matter and MICA’s seeker is easy to defeat since all you gotta do is:
it still isnt fair that mica get 2 chaffed and the rest of missiles get 1 chaffed
what would be the point of any missile other than the mica then, you would have the most agile, the best seeker the best range and an unrealisticly good platform carrying it. Might as well not play anything else.
Not everything is black and white
Why are you including “the best range”. Range doesn’t matter.
against a good player, nope.
against 95% of arb timmies who bought their way to top tier and just fly straight, yes
Then I never understand why players ever state that range doesn’t matter when that is a very specific context that really just matters in esports area and not for the average player in air rb.
Now i have a question for you, why is it that the plane with the shortest range missile has the highest winrate?
Mabye range doesnt matter that much?
1 Like
Because France isn’t mirrored. If it is, then winrates would have to reach an equilibrium due to being on both teams.
it is still winning versus all other nations, (mirage included), which field longer range missiles, and even bigger missile counts.
If range matters so much why is this?