barely 50KG of explosives? is that the most light-weight explosive in an asm in game? With a 165kg warhead? Even though missiles that are less heavy (ASM1-2, Sea Eagle, even the as34???) have way more, even double the explosive mass? This is gonna be a crap missile… poor exocet
Well, it only says 50km for this with evasive maneuvers, so 70km could be the max range
do note:
-
Exocet’s motor doesn’t turn on until it reaches the planned very low altitude.
-
It was dropped from 27,000 feet in that example compared to where it could be dropped from 40,000 feet where it could travel further unpowered before turning on the motor, allowing it to reach 70km with terminal maneuvers.
1 Like
Yes, it’s realistic for the Exocet. I cannot confirm the explosive mass is correct for any of the other anti-ship missiles in-game. It is likely that while the Exocet is overperforming in explosive mass, it would be underperforming in explosive destruction and fire impact against ships anyway.
So 40000ft launch at supersonic speed to hit 70km with some turns at the end?
It dives at supersonic speed, not necessarily that it is releasable at supersonic speeds. 40,000 feet where it will dive for quite awhile (~1.5 minutes) before launching the motor and then cruising to the target before engaging in terminal maneuvers.
It took one minute to dive to around sea level from 27,000 feet. At that rate, that means 1.5 minutes from ~40,000ft.
1 Like
even the F1EQ-6 could carry 3 exocets
Sea Eagle and Harpoon are correct. I’m not sure about others.
1 Like
Yeah, not very ideal to only have one, but oh well, we basically gotta wait for Stratus-RS for more than 1 to be carried.
Problem with AShM modelling is that gaijin does not have any special modelling for some of the specific AShM warheads that are more specialized in their role. This has also been a problem for another AShM in-game, the AS34 Kormoran on the German Tornado IDS MFG.
The Exocet warhead looks like this irl:
AS34 Kormoran warhead drawing:
Of note; the warhead design has multiple lateral EFP’s to it, with the goal of piercing armoured bulkheads and causing massive functional and structural damage to components found in-line with the EFP’s in the area around the point of detonation. Its not just a standard blast frag warhead like gaijin models them in-game, or is often described as online.
6 Likes
“Resulting trail of rocket propellant cause a major fire…” seems very close to what I had pointed out before,
Thats not anything unique to the exocet, unburnt fuel is unburnt fuel, it tends to burn when there’s a sudden nearby explosion
1 Like
Yup I’m aware, just pointing out that this also isn’t modeled in-game for any ashms.
Though has been reported on the Seagles for not causing fires after impact as often as it should
3 Likes
I think with my rudimentary understanding that there’s actually 3 things that are underperforming on anti-ship missiles.
-
Destructive potential from warhead after impact.
-
Fire potential from warhead after impact
-
Contributory fire potential from unused fuel.
So it’s a problem that will need multiple reports to get fixed.
1 Like
I think 2 & 3 would just be combined as “causes fire on impact” and just operating on an assumption that you will always be firing at ranges where there is fuel leftover. I doubt they would ever model fuel load = amount of fire damage.
So I would just do 1 report for post-impact fire damage/chance and use both the fire chance from the warhead and left-over fuel for that report.
The first though… I dont think is an ASM issue. I think its a damage model issue and more importantly, how the game handles repairs.
Id want to see what happens when a AS-34, Exocet, Seagles, Harpoon, etc hits an in-game destroyer, with repairs totally disabled, before I comment on whether they do “enough damage” or not. (especially if unsinkability was disabled too)
Because iirc, the issue for the Exocets hitting something like HMS Sheffield wasnt necessarily the immediate damage, it didnt instantly sink. The issue was that the fire spread and couldnt be contained/extinguished. Post-impact fire + no/very very slow fire extinguishing + fire propergation. And the “damage” would probably be fine
Even AGM-84H is specifically stated to have increased incendiary effects and blast on top of the filler and fuel from the titanium warhead but afaik not represented ingame
They probably could model it as a slider. The more unspent fuel is left the more fires are created and vice versa the more fuel is spent, the less fires are created, but then another separate value where greater number of fires are created just as a result of the warhead alone.
Maybe. But I doubt its something they would add anytime soon, especially for a weapon type that I dont think the devs really wanted to add with how slowly theyve come
iirc starstreak used to have extra explosive power accounting for unspent fuel in the booster at short ranges