That really isn’t much, definitely less than I was expecting.
1 Like
This is a bug.
Maneuverability was not supposed to change.
Yup, I was hoping it was underperforming in-game or at the very least somewhat accurate but doesn’t seem like it is.
Just furthers the need for an overhaul to how AI handle repairs. currently they can achieve the same as a player. Repairing massive damage, even if it should be impossible IRL.
I think they need to heavily limit what damage the AI can actually repair. That way a hit, even a relatively “small” one like from Exocet or AS-34, actually does meaningful, long lasting damage.
5 Likes
Also a “problem” is that games don’t last an entire day. Ships that were destroyed by the exocet didn’t sink in minutes, but sank after grueling hours of the crew trying to stop the fires.
1 Like
Yeah, but thats kinda what I mean though. In-game the fire lasts for about 30 seconds?
What if the AI literally couldnt put out certain fires (whether by size or location or even a combo) and so the ship did just eventually burn to death. Especially if they improved fire spreading as well (usually not an issue in naval matches, but could be interesting to add to AI target)
Also worth checking that Exocets are currently creating the fire-on-impact they should be (Sea Eagles still arent for example)
1 Like
Would maybe explain why some crews thought it did not detonate ? Who knows
Stratus can’t come soon enough, i’ll die on that hill
Unfortunate for the real-world casualties but fortunately for in-game there does seem to be plenty of source materials regarding impacts of Exocets against ships. I suppose getting Exocet’s destruction modeled correctly should mean an even greater destruction potential for all other antiship missiles.
I also vaguely remember source materials talking about how leftover fuel from the Exocet missile contributed to fires, so launching missiles at closer ranges to ship versus further out should also mean greater fire impact as well.
3 Likes
also regarding various ship types, ww2, early-post war ships that were still riveted have enormous damage to hulls and structures when hit with exocets, or other AShM. But be sure that gaijin won’t change anything to how they perform and damage models…
1 Like
Wouldn’t this only really apply to jet versions?
Why would it?
Unless there’s an incredibly long booster or it’s a short range there isn’t much fuel left
Ima be real honest, the damage to the ship is the least of the Exocets problems coming to the Rafale.
Having done a fair bit of anti-shipping work for fun during the NT events, I know for a fact most of the more valuable ships, such as the missile destroyers and carriers generally manage to handle rather large AShM waves fired at them with basically no problem. I’ve only ever managed to hit the REDFOR DD and REDFOR CV with subsonic AShM’s like once or twice each, and I’ve basically had to fire 6 missiles at them from sub 10km. The Rafale only carries 1 Exocet… The BLUFOR carriers atm are easier to hit, but Gaijin said they’re replacing them with Nimitz class carriers, and replacing the REDFOR ones with Fujian iirc, atleast at a Rafale relevant BR bracket, and those have even stronger air defense, so you aint getting a single exocet through unless they modify the AI targetting to just always let them through basicly.
The damage is rather irrelevant when the missile will never hit anyways.
As an aside though, atleast in NE, ship damage was rather permament, so I’m pretty sure they’ve already resolved what you’re worried about.
Case in point actually, heres a clip I took using my TGP of another F-2A firing 6x AShM’s at the Kuznetzov from ~10km, and it handled them like they were nothing. A single Exocet wont be getting through anything without preferential treatment from gaijin.
5 Likes
So it’ll be around maybe a little bit before F-47 enters service and competing with block 4+ F-35’s on the export market
to all missiles, jet or not
Exocet sustainer should be 120s, so if it burned for 60s (having travelled roughly 20-25 km as a result), there should be some fuel left, will only have an effect at short ranges for solid propellant missiles like exocet (idk if any other AShMs uses solid propellant)
F5 for Marine Nationale too, so probably new aircraft being bought
The airframes dating back to CDG’s entry to service, they will really need replacement when the 2030s come around.
Also, no word on Stratus
1 Like
Penguin missile, technically some of the more ballistic antiship missiles would qualify
1 Like
heh but tbh, this lack of damage on AshMs should not be a surprise, be it Exocet, Harpoon, or RB15
They’re only here to mission kill after all
You want to sink a ship, you bring a submarine and a bunch of torpedoes, now these things carry a nasty amount of explosives + bonus for underwater explosion (sry i’m going off topic)
To come back to Exocet, afaik it should be SAP-HE ? If not that’d be surprising, <50kg of explosives for a 160kg warhead would be surprising without a penetrating head
Could not find any penetration values in the files though
5 Likes
It’s already competing with the f35 to this day under F3-F4 variant and has still been sold to many countries which can’t afford US stuff.
Also, F47 is to enter service in the mid 2030s, but that would require Boeing not fucking up on yet another program. We will see if they’ll fare better than Lockheed when it comes to this development compared to the F35. Most likely, the F47 probably won’t be anywhere close to the export market before 2040 - at which time France would hope to also see their 6th gen depending on the development of the SCAF replacement’s timeline - with export coming later in the mid 2040s probably
3 Likes
Block 4+ ? I know about block 4 but not that.