I highly doubt we’ll see standoff missiles on aircraft anytime soon
We already have the GBU-15 / AGM-62, all that would need to be added would be the AN/AXQ-14 / AN/AWW-9 or -13 datalink(s) to add the functionality.
1 Like
I’m not saying there’s a technical limitation to standoff missiles. Standoff missiles are just specifically designed to be fired from outside of the range of any defenses, making them far too OP for the game as it stands.
It’d be the issue of helicopters and drones outranging and bullying top tier SPAA but on steroids.
Didn’t they just add exocets to the files this patch?
Exocet is an anti-ship missile. It is radar-guided, has a range of 70km, and is only effective against ships silhouetted against otherwise essentially flat ocean.
The AGM-130 is TV/IR guided, with a range of >75km, and can hit armoured vehicles with precision. Two very different weapons systems.
The 130 is not going to be pushing 75km of range in game unless you are in low earth orbit due to it’s design, the aerial Exocet will as it can GPS guide to a target point, yes you wont be able to deal with moving targets because GPS, just like the JDAMS they tried to add a while ago.
1 Like
the 9J is kind of the worst of both worlds imo. it doesnt have the nice pull of an r-60 while also not having the range of a 9G. somehow the R-13M1 feels like it performs better
The AGM-130 has a motor. I believe you are confusing it with the GBU-15 bomb it is based on.
It has a small motor attached to the exterior of the bomb, it does not have enough delta V to actually push the missile outside of 75km without already being stupidly fast and high, its like saying the AIM-120 has 100+KM range from the ground, which is false, you can only push 100+KM range on a AIM-120 if you are stupidly high and extremely fast.
Unfortunately the motor specifications are classified. However, the AGM-130 is specifically designed to be launched from low altitude, over the horizon from the target.
While unlikely to give the 75km max range, low-altitude, subsonic launches did at least give a range of 15mi (24km), as this was on the lower end of standard launch range.
This would still outrange any SPAA in-game.
Not by much, the Pantsir sits at ?18~20km? and is certainly within design specs of the next tranche of prospective SAM systems.
Perhaps within range of the missiles, barely. Unfortunately, many nations don’t have mid-range SPAA between ~18km range systems and anti-ICBM Patriot equivalents. Additionally, the 111 would be below the horizon and not lockable.
Also, with TV guidance the 111 could fire, then turn away, only being in range of the best SPAA for a few moments.
The AGM-130 was designed specifically to make SPAA useless, a job it does well. Not exactly the best addition to a game where CAS is already very unpopular.
Pretty sure that every nation has some form of MIM-23 or SA-2 / -3 analog available, or SL-AMRAAM launcher, so so it’s not to much of an issue to keep expanding IADS ranges, the key thing will be to have a variety of options in play at any one time.
And so the SPAA now aware of the release targets the ordnance and due to limited magazine depth of the aircraft the SAM comes out on top, and failing missile based interception, there are gun based backstops.
In real life sure but, with the various in game simplifications of RCS and lack of punishment for leaving the radar on (Anti- Radiation missiles) most players will see the missile on the radar on its way in and have a significant amount of time to react, with no counterplay without teamwork or getting much closer since CCRP doesn’t work with rockets, for now.
1 Like
And now it seems like 9Bs only is confirmed…
Bug report regarding missing AIM-9E/9J?
They know about it, they just don’t want to add it for ‘balance reasons’
Ah well. In that case not much we can do about it unless it gets played really well and thus gets a BR raise.
My interpretation of the Q&A response on it, is they want to be cautious. Start with 9Bs, if it’s really not doing well, it will get 9Es. But considering this is an interdictor not a fighter. It’s better to have 9Bs, be fine, and be 10.3 than get 9Es be too strong, move to 10.7 and end up struggling as an interdictor.
1 Like
Fair enough. Though I wouldn’t mind a move to 10.7 if it came with improved AAMs. I feel like it would still be fine and only really struggle against like the SARH missiles (which aren’t too hard to notch if you try, at least at 11.7) and still be fine-ish as an interdictor.
Calm down there mate
And the 111 ought to be 10.7 by flight performance and ground attack capabilities alone- 9Es and 9Js would simply allow it to defend itself at its appropriate BR.
1 Like