60km theoretically…. Consider 2 things:
1: tpod doesn’t work beyond 30 right now so SAL is 30km whether we like it or not
2: it’ll get there in 2-3 business days and that’s assuming gaijin models the motor and seeker life correctly to get that far. I mean our current brimstone has a “20km” range but will never get that far while still having the seeker on.
Most missiles in game can’t hit things at 1/3 of their stated ranges unless the target is either stationery or travelling in a straight line. I wouldn’t hold my breath even if 60km Brimstones are introduced.
Sorry comrade, Russian mockups only
6 Likes
Just going to point out that the F/A-18 isn’t cleared for the BRU-61, only the -55, so would only have access to dual stores stations not quad, so has access to 8x AURs total.
It might later-on get access to the Triple Rail configuration of the MML (TER-9A/A + MRL / HSRL family of launch rail), but that’s a future decision I’ve seen no movement towards, but with UAI being a thing it shouldn’t require much work.
Wasnt this the Eurofighter Thread?
Could Swear it was
No this has become the general aviation thread in which we talk about everything plane related
4 Likes
Next Step: Missile Talk
1 Like
No problem, already here:
next step?
looking back at it c5 simply had placeholder stats from when before amraam a/b got heavily nerfed. it makes sense they would nerf it, as they had left it untouched in the same state that it was in since it first dropped in the files.
This could be the case, but my point was that they should have thought of making a better performing seeker, compared to the A/B, from the getgo. It makes no sense that we don’t have differently modelled seekers at top tier yet, except for the MICA.
The C5 is an already poor performing missile, a “harder to defeat” seeker would have been fine tbh, at least to make it superior for the 2 minutes of BVR phase in the match.
As of now throwing the whole amraam loadout at the start of the match is pointless, for how easy it is to evade, and once you get to the WVR phase the MICAs and R-77’s are obviously gonna perform better.
The report has been seen, but it doesn’t make much sense when Su-30s have clearly been seen fitted with the racks of more than just the 2 x R-77 claimed on earlier documentation. As such, taking into account footage of Su-30s with these racks fitted, the devs consider this loadout viable.
Spoiler
Last time I checked, this was also the Eurofighter thread. So please keep it on track.
2 Likes
Smin, to stay on topic, if we would get an mail from the Bundeswehr which confirms that the 8 AMRAAMs would be possible in theory, would that be enough for an report?
1 Like
It would be required to also know where.
1 Like
But… It is Su-30 with R-77 on air intake pylon…
10 Likes
Yea, forgot the mention it before (speaking offcourse about the Inner Pylon)
If it can be confirmed as possible by an official source on active aircraft and on what pylon station, then its open to a suggestion report and down to the devs to decide.
2 Likes
Good :)
In this case, Time to Pray for an answer
1 Like
I literally posted that in the su27 thread and said it’s misleading lol, look carefully.
Single rack
That second r77 is on the intake pylon
8 Likes
Yeah, sure guy. Come back to me when the plane ends up overnerfed and underperforms massively because the whine never stopped even after it was corrected.