The CS/SA5 in the developer server is starting to look like the worst of the new SPAAs coming in the new Leviathan update. The FB-10A in-game has the worst performance out of any of the new IR slinging SPAAs all whilst having mere 20g of manoeuvrability.
The munition selection for the 30mm of the CS/SA5 is also incredibly narrow, you only get AP-T (mixed) and HEF-I (mixed), so no APFSDS which is fair enough but no APDS which is also ridiculous - the Gepard sits at 8.3 with APDS.
The missile elevation in-game is also incorrect which highly limits your performance forcing you to lock a bandit before you fire giving your location and existence away to the aircraft.
7km to 8km of effective range for the FB-10A, incredibly high drag after the sustainer is out and low manoeuvrability all at the BR of 12.0 - this vehicle is genuinely worse than the HQ-17, China as a TT is devolving.
Use this topic to discuss all the inaccuracies of the CS/SA5 and the FB-10/A and other issues with the vehicle/missiles in the developer server
Ongoing Bug Reports:
Video testing the new SPAAs and their range (12:55 for the FB-10A)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGyDDhdPNHg
19 Likes
They added it as ‘CS/SA5,’ but they reject all CS/SA5 reports claiming it’s a different model. They’re using TYPE 625E and have named it CS/SA5 (which features a longer cannon barrel from what i could understand).
14 Likes
currently the fb10a is changing back to fb10 even if you chose 10a. bug report has been made about it but apparently its “not a bug” and fb10a isn’t ingame yet.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1EKrcH8WAgUT
and reports have been accepted for fb-10a to receive AHEAD and apds (maybe even darts?)
5 Likes
I genuinely don’t understand why the moderators in the issue section repeatedly mark reports submitted by Chinese players about the CSSA5 missile’s elevation angle as ‘duplicate,’ while the supposedly duplicate sample is a completely unrelated issue about incorrect missile rack modeling placement. Even after the developer’s modification, the missile rack position is still too far back, and its elevation angle remains an atrocious 20 degrees.
Furthermore, this FB10A missile can’t even be accessed through normal gameplay in the test server—only the FB10 is available. The in-game data for this FB10A is also severely underperforming; its stat card shows a mere 20G overload capability and lacks its documented IIR homing + IOG + SACLOS composite guidance mode. On Chinese Tieba forums, many players question whether this missile is just a slightly modified copy-paste of the in-game TY90 missile.
Additionally, compared to the Russian Pantsir-S1, other nations’ top-tier anti-air missiles generally exhibit high-thrust-high-drag characteristics with slower top speeds than the 95Ya6. Beyond 10km, they suffer severe flight energy retention issues, rendering them practically ineffective against high-altitude targets.
8 Likes
Everything they added they nerfed it into ground before it even came to the live game
my best guess for the 20g max is they looked at ty-90 and saw same fin design (which should be pulling more) so went with it
1 Like
No, Some of the 30mm models have a cylindrical cover over the barrel that makes it look longer. The actual gun is stubby like in the model. There’s like a bunch different CS/SA5 models and they aren’t very well documented. Some have 25mm no missiles, 30mm with manpads, 30mm with FB-10A, etc.
The missile’s design is literally the HQ-10 but without the passive radar homing seekers and a booster. The HQ-10s max overload is 20g.
Also, statcard overload is completely meaningless (Just like everything else on the statcard). The actual overload it will do is determined by a bunch of other things like fin AOA, PID, and wing area. The missiles will pull far more than 9Js even though they are both 20g on the statcard.
It can only be said that the design direction of the FB10A missile is more similar to that of the American RIM116 B2, but now the development team obviously does not really think so
As far as the performance of CS/SA5 in the current test server is concerned, as a 12.0 air defense, it is still too humorous
Gaijin usually always gimps chinese vehicles up
4 Likes
Yeah, and nothing about this kind of behavior surprises me anymore
They are not called CS/SA-5. They are all called type 625 because CS/SA-5 is then specifically the PLA version.
It said >20G but same thing to Gaijin.
It does perform fine with Gs but don’t expect it to turn anything very well, no off bore shots.
1 Like
No, Some of the 30mm models have a cylindrical cover over the barrel that makes it look longer
That’s allegedly the flash suppressor and it DOES count to barrel length if its a permanent attachment (which it does seem to be), hence people referring it as the “long 30mm”.
CS/SA5 long 30mm
Here is a short 25mm of the Type 625 as an example
Type 625 short 25mm
There’s like a bunch different CS/SA5 models and they aren’t very well documented. Some have 25mm no missiles, 30mm with manpads, 30mm with FB-10A
Those are the early production batches of the Type 625 or CS/SA5, the later models all have the FB-10/A iirc.
It is not “long 30mm”. It is flash suppressor
I don’t think so. Was photo where it just… Cylinder. Nothing more. It cannot participate in the process of projectile acceleration, so it cannot be called a continuation of the barrel.
God forbid someone reads my entire message without cutting parts relevant, I said that the flash suppressor DOES count to barrel length if its a permanent attachment and it does seem to be one.
“If a flash suppressor is permanently attached (e.g., pinned and welded), it does count towards the overall barrel length”
It is not “long 30mm”. It is flash suppressor
I LITERALLY said this, absolutely no need to repeat after me, are you some sort of children’s toy with a voice recorder?
Yes.
Is this some kind of rule from Gaijin or what?
Is this some kind of rule from Gaijin or what?
Real life, shocking I know 🤯🤯🤯
Lets not go off topic anyways
1 Like
