Yeah, that entire Dev comment was just insulting. Would have been a major insult anyway, with the Su-25SM3 running around. But to make those statements in the same update that added the Su-34…
And then also initially the Tornrado Gr4 was limited to only 9 anyway, not its current 15 or its actual max of 18… Let alone the fact its a Tornado…
Was just insane
read
so stop ragebait / ragewar.
still not proved for many Top tier MBTs,…
especially French, Italian, Swedish, German, and Chinese ones.
yes and? they would be as good as others against FnF - Dropping a FnF within 5 seconds is possible, and then you can go evasive like everyone else : doesn’t prove they would be good enough defence vs FnF for MBT’s.
wrong, but you still won’t hear it,…
Smokes and staying at one place is the Tanker problem.
Smoke and keep on the move will more effectively broke any FnF requiring IR terminal guidance.
and only moving would break GNSS/GPS weapons
yes, and i’m aware about that part, reason why i didn’t even bringed it.
You do also have SAMs that can and will shoot down Typhoons before they come into range for Brimstone.
Then you have warhead size, Brimstones do not always one shot.
Hammers and Kh-38 do
18 sounds a lot until you spend spawn points and get killed by a 2S38 while trying to guide this missile into something.
The su-25sm3 situation was even worse. IIRC we didn’t even have an ability to lock on munition back then, lol.
Nope. That came after the Su-34 I think.
and what? i just have to get rage baited on by Morvran, because all he sees is that he doesn’t have FnF?
i’m trying to get comprehensive,… and i understand that EF-2000 needs FnF, but then he’s unreasonnable when he says things like “french mains” and stuff, while the solution is close by.
so no, sorry but i can’t let go that easily.
he want to block me, fine,… i know that he’s a better man than me sometime, but i’m not the one advocating to not give FnF to EF-2000, simply asking to make it fair for everyone.
KH-38ML/MT or AASM are 98% Pk rates in game : Yes
not a reason to add a 100% Pk rate Brimstone due to the lack of CM’s
that’s what i was advocating for.
read again the whole Convo,… never said EF-2000 should never get FnF
and if you’re objective there, you would see that i’m not:
That’s the problem. He shouldn’t get FnF somewhere in the future or even the next patch. It needs it now or it is irrelevant. Playing EF in GRB right now feels like competing with a prime Tony Hawk while being in a wheelchair and simoultaneously having 2 kids constantly poke your eyeballs with christmas sparklers.
They should have had a plan in place prior to the Tornado Gr4.
Let alone the Typhoon.
A year+ on and we dont even have SAL Brimstone 2 yet (Also usable by the Tornado) is just insane
and i agree on that,… i’m trying, as him, as anyone here, to get FnF for EF-2000.
but i take on the reasons and found that the only true problem is ECM for MBT’s,…
because, let’s be honest, they will be the prey of such weapon.
as i said already, in-game:
the only reason for that is smokes currently breaks IR and Laser locks.
so i’m looking for something similar,… as it would be plausible, and it is done for most Navy Ships, with chaffs dispensers looking like those:
Yet, many nations doesn’t have such Chaffs-Cartridge for MBT’s smoke devices, let Alone APS systems (8 vehicules in the game right now)
And that’s what i’m searching for, a reasonnable Counterplay, allowing to add MMW-ARH with a 98% Pk rate instead of 100%, by/with CONCRETE and REAL Stuff
I’ve never searched for spectral smoke in use right now. I’d imagine that information would be highly classified though, because:
1)As @DevilO6 pointed out, some of them might only be effective against only selected variety of wavelengths, hence having your enemy to guess which one it is - the most desired outcome.
2)MmW munition is quite new and development is still going on. In defense - creating a shield is always the hardest part, hence again - secrecy is highly desired.
At the same time in the paper I linked - the phrasing implies that a research of countermeasures is going on for a long time already. Heck, without even searching there was a link on a 2022 paper about spectral smoke effectiveness.
what i can say is that IR-Smokes are in the game right now, but those are effectively designed for such use.
here on Galix System (Leclerc MBT):
https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--2965--SE
(it was a study for enviromental impacts of Galix system)
but i didn’t found much evidence for anti-radar smoke cartridge, neither chaffs cartridge (80mm)
aswell, i’ve only found IR/EO/Laser Protection for the ROSY-L of Rheinmetall https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall%20Group/brochure-download/Protection-Systems/B180e0524-ROSY-Rapid-Obscuring-System-for-vehicle-protection.pdf
last of which equip the KF-41 Lynx (got one in-game for hungarians), but nothing against MMW-ARH (40mm)
the MPL-76 from KNDS, using 76mm ammo, doesn’t give protections against Laser, but only EO and IR, according to this source:https://fr.scribd.com/document/83782608/Wegmann-76mm-Grenade-Launchers
Leopard 2’s are the main users of the MPL-76
such vehicules would get entirely destroyed by MMW-ARH seekers, with a 100% Pk rates
if it was possible, for balance, to give IR sensor instead of MMW-ARH, i would be happilly getting it for Brimstones.
the only one i found early evidence (nothing yet proofed) is for the american M3 Bradley that have been rumored to get Chaff cartridges
Except for PIRATE, in which case German Typhoon = git screwed lol subsystems “have to be installed on that nations jet to be added” coughRafalecough
Its not just spectral smoke. Also spectral camoflage panels counter radar seekers. Most Nato vehicles use these. They also block thermal/IR emissions. Would require alot coding and the introduction of a whole new mechanic. But would be worth it. Imagine your tank won’t light up on thermal viewers anymore and has a certain immunity to IR targeting AGMs as well as radar ones.
didnt the russians have an issue with their thermal camoflages which basically created a black hole on thremals?
X doubts,… the nets are not going to absorb enough radar waves alone.
These are no nets. The producer states this, so I guess its true. It reduces detection in UV, visual, N-IR, SW-IR, T-IR and RR (radar).
link?
for all other (UV/IR/TV/EO) i can understand why.
but radar ones? i find it weird.
As far as I understoof this:
They claim it works against SAR, fire control radars (good bye Krizantema) and radar-guided missiles. Its designed in a way that frequencies of coms systems are not impaired.
