I think the problem with the brimstone is the 7G placeholder that copy pasted from the hellfire missile.
So TLDR
Vikhrs cant do it therefore we dont understand how Brimstone can do it
2 Likes
I love that it’s an opinion and not a matter of fact.
Yes the seeker is capable of it but the physical missile in game isnt!
Gaijin need to stop this shit, we dont think it’s real…All the while ignoring the Kh-38 debaucle
They wonder why we lose faith with these clowns
It’s me or they just "marketing lies"d it?
5 Likes
Believe me defence contractors will find a way. There’s a reason being on time is already impressive and being early is practically unheard of
Welcome back btw
1 Like
Anybody know where to find brimstone missile specs? Like G limit, max speed release, etc.
Data sheet says nothing but most unofficial sources put it at 10G-15G
Brimstone is limited to 7G’s atm
Yeah as you said in typical Gaijin fashion it’s a copy paste of a Hellfire.
Like the CRV7 is a copy and paste of a Hydra!
That’s just flat out untrue…
Ok it was when it was originally added
with gaijin refusing to buff the brimstone, and the EFT still lacking a FnF weapon we should campaign to get the Typhoon added to the EFTs I didnt realise they built mock ups of the weapon and since we have had the ASRAAM test fired it should be enough to get it added to the game
you are switching up ASRAAM and SRAAM
SRAAM: Short Range Air to Air Missile
ASRAAM: Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile
ASRAAM is in service with the RAF and is actively used on the EF
im talking about the Typhoon that as far as I am aware was built off of the same body that became the ASRAAM
Pretty bummed out the CRV7 dont have their other warheads and stuff as well. Gaijin really undercooked a really intereating piece of kit.
Also, the fact the Hydra-70 became the NATO standard instead of the CRV7 is a tragedy.
2 Likes
The source document says Brimstone can be fired against targets up to 40° off boresight, and in game you can indeed hit targets that are 40° off boresight.
@DevilO6 you could do a report on the flight path fairly easily, but frankly I don’t know if it would make things better or worse with the way Gaijin model missiles.
I like this Part:
“Thus, apparently, the missile uses (or can use) some other guidance law, which we don’t have any information about. Feel free to create new bug report if you find any publically available (!) information on that topic”
Not sure if flight patter report would do anything.
Do we even have a missile that follows a simmilar path in game?
They will find a way but it’s primarily to ensure that the cost does not fall on the taxpayer. BAE have in the last decade been in scandals for delays and refusal to compensate, often charging more to fix their cock-ups but the best example is the Type 45 IEP (Integrated Electric Propulsion) and subsequent PIP (Power Improvement Plan) fiasco.
Frankly, the UK can’t support it, and is sick of it. So the UK MoD already had plans to mitigate that but Japan certainly doesn’t want to deal with it.
T45 fiasco
BAE managed the design and construction of Type 45.
The issue more specifically the Rolls-Royce Marine Gas Turbine part of the IEP system is fine, but the Northrop Grumman Intercooler that forms part of the propulsion and power distribution system, frankly, sucks and managed to allow the system to overheat in the coldest Ocean in the world causing the entire system to crash and completely kill all electrical power to the ship. The ships operated on the assumption that the Gas Turbine was from RR and therefore supremely reliable and also the engine its based on is world-renowned for reliability, but when the intercooler fails, the Gas Turbines lose most power, which then increases demand on the diesel Generators, which then trip out and die.
The solution is to rip open the ship (literally as engines were never designed to be replaced as, again, the Gas Turbine is very good), and then add more diesel generators so load is manageable. So yeah the GT’s still die every now and then but there’s backups now.
Good willing defence contractors (yes, they exist!) would front at least some of the cost. BAE meanwhile… haven’t paid a penny
Though it’s not 100% their fault, actually its Northrop Grumman’s for supplying an unfit intercooler and Rolls Royce’s for not fully testing the WR21 in a broad enough spectrum of conditions to have determined that would happen. However due to the disclosure that PIP was theoretically more risky it’s a 50/50 on whether BAE would accept liability. Then again you’d expect the largest European defence contractor to be talking a small % risk.
Subsequent Gas Turbine engines are of all Rolls-Royce design and a new testing facility was opened for them primarily the MT30 and flawed WR21. A singular MT30’s current max power output is just under that of two WR21 engines, though RR notes can be boosted on a case-by-case basis. No cooling problems have arisen and its been tested to well in excess of anything T45 has actually experienced. Oh and unlike WR21, you can extract all the components of MT30 bar the baseplate through the engine intake…
The good news is a lesson has been learned, T31 and T26 are painfully well on schedule as T45 being delayed and overbudget added insult to injury, and all subsequent RN vessels and designs will use purely Rolls-Royce designs MT30 or successors, Types 31 and 26 are also working up to be export behemoths, T31 to Indonesia and Poland as their principle vessels, T26 to Canada, Australia and likely soon to Norway and potentially Brazil. So far they’ve blown all their competitors out of the water, including FREMM, Constellation class, FDI, ASWF, Arleigh-Burke derivatives, MEKO and F127.
Thank-you.
4 Likes