I posted the initial page of his source being from 2008 , the missile had 60g overload before they accepted his source from 2008 and there were no comments in his claim , what do you mean
HA! They locked the bug report cuz they didn’t wanna deal with people calling out their stupid decision? xD
@Gunjob you guys have some absolute clowns handling the IRIS-T SLM situation, willingly ignoring the OEM statement on the seeker capabilities simply due to the fact it states something inconvenient to gaijins stance on their magic DIRCM forcefield for the russian helis. Too bad the other tech mods and devs dont share your standard of care for bug reports.
9 Likes
I literally posted the picture of the comment, It can literally apply to the SLS because SLS uses an Air Launch Iris-T, which was commented btw
What are you trying to say?
He says it wasn’t nerfed but corrected instead, I mean going from 60 to 50 is a nerf no?
I’m saying it doesn’t affect the SLM, and never did. AFAIK the 40G stat hasn’t changed sinced Dev started
Ah yes, I’m aware of that , I named the post the same as his just in case and not sls , none of this makes Any sense at all since in the claim of the original dude it’s not even about the sls or Slm but the air launched one but ofc they took that as an opertunity to nerf AA, even if it “only” affected the sls
Because the SLS uses the same missile as the Air Launched one
Still , tested overload isn’t the same as max and there are sources claiming more than 50 g talking of wich you could also agree then if the air launched one can. Reach Mach 3 so should the surface launched one considering how drag works at high speeds, if a missile gets to Mach 3 launched from Mach 1 the missile also wouldn’t have much issue going very close to Mach 3 launched from 0
This is where it actually differs because test parameter differs. Air Launched can mean being shot at Mach 1 at maybe 2.5km or something with only that conditions allowing it to reach Mach 3
It is physically impossible for it to reach mach 3 at 0/0 not only because of air resistance, but that missile uses up most of the energy just climbing.
This is not a hard concept to follow you know.
1 Like
just assume all claims about Mach 3 for the Slm are wrong aswell right ?
This is starting to get offtopic
SLM can possibly reach it because it has a huge booster section. Have you found primary or maybe even secondary sources that supports the claim of Mach 3? Feel free to use it
Because most of the claims I saw for it are from 3rd party websites (tbf I wasn’t looking hard enough)
We had multiple , and when we stated them they weren’t goin enough since it wasn’t from the country of origin aka they make shit up
1 Like
Didn’t Gunjob take a look at it? Also that report for time to target was already accepted but has yet to be implemented
It’s our last hope to get it fixed ( the time to target one). I don’t think gunjob looked at the other post today
and like its so funny because they gave the ground 120C-5 the same top speed lol
YOU GET 780m/s, YOU GET 780m/s, YOU ALSO GET 780m/s, but you? you get 710m/s(less than chapparal speed XdD), YOU ALSO GET 710m/s, EVERYONE GETS MACH 2.2 AT MAX
8 Likes
not only that, but DIRCM systems find incoming missiles by detecting the launch plume. it would be very difficult to find/track missiles after the motor has burnt out.
- IR missiles fired from far enough away could not be tracked and therefore should be unaffected by DIRCM
- the system could also only track 2 missiles at a time, any new threat while the turrets are busy couldn’t be tracked at all after burnout
- the system should also not be able to differentiate between IR and radar missiles, wasting laser time on immune missiles
of course they would have implemented all these physical limitations and some RNG if the DIRCM was on a NATO heli, but since it’s russian, they just made it god_mode = 1 (even though single stinger launches have taken out ka52)
no bias tho
3 Likes
i think that would require too much
my solution is that DIRCM would scan a designated angle only, it would. have 100% scan “rate”. It would take 1-2 seconds to lock onto incoming missiles
Then it would took its time to shoot the missiles down
for example
Scanned FIM-92K, locked(2 sec total), FIM-92K doesnt have alot of resistance, so it take 3 seconds to disable it
Things like AIM-9X, same lock and scan time, but it has better and alot more resistance overall, so it would take 9 seconds to get disable
the better the missiles, the more time threshold require
speaking of, the russian helis all use UV MAWS iirc. They should be incapable of using MAWS on missiles with burnt out motors… Has anyone tested if thats the case? cuz im pretty sure they work no matter what atm
Pretty sure the whole LDIRCM and MAWS system on the russian helis is specifically designed for MANPADS, not high performance SAM systems like the ones being added that theyre currently immune to.
yeah that’s my point, right now it affects all IR missiles regardless of motor status, angle, quantity, IRCCM or range
i believe the only exception is type 81s and strelas in photocontrast mode
To be fair to them, UV MAWS can work against burnt out missiles if sophisticated enough, see Rafale. Though I doubt Russia has the tech required to built such sensors.