if they tought that far aheat they could also see the conection between going mach 3 and hitting a target 30km out in 60s
(sory ment to reply to Markus752)
3 Likes
This assumes it has fuel enough to get up to that speed from the ground. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
This specific one isn’t a crazy claim at all. you have to take into account engine burn time as well as it having to maneuver from the very start. mach 3 is MAX, at high altitude (way less drag), high launch speed, flying straight. From the ground it HAS to make a 90 deg turn the first thing it does and it is automatically in way more dense air and as such has much more drag to fight through.
I didn’t say anything on the SLM. I’ve seen only one published secondary source state mach 3 for the SLM. Most other sources are third party and cant be used for reporting.
1 Like
Then why does the SLM have the same top speed of Mach 2 when it is a different, improved, designed for surface launching missile. Are the SLS and SLM just being treated as the same then?
1 Like
i do actualy have a question about that how come that the accepted 60s to 30km and the accepted (the 1 soruce) for speed dont account for 2 secondary sources for speed? i mean its clear as day from the time to target that is HAS to go faster than mach 2 ( even under the most ideal condition )
So realistically, what are we supposed to do?
We have come to a point where things are so modern that it’s rare to even have a single reliable source.
Gaijin just decided an arbitrary value that makes no sense and doesn’t meet any of the data points and tells us that we need to find something?
The missile can hardly reach 30km kinematically and yet the “Effective Range” is given at 40km.
The Range numbers are primary sources, right? So why don’t they at least try to make it meet the most basic data points?
For now it doesn’t even hit a target at 15km reliably, let alone 30 or 40km.
I have no idea, the only thing i know is that i haven’t personally seen more than one secondary source state mach 3 for the SLM. I don’t have any influence on those choices at all. the SLM being faster than the SLS makes logical sense, but sources are needed to be able to report it.
Result, no longer not enough data, now its just an Dublicate
Well we have already given another source for the speed…
If the manufacturer says it takes 60 seconds to target and it’s currently not even close to matching that, then I don’t see why they can’t use that.
It also clearly states 12km altitude before reaching a target 30km out. The ingame one would run out of energy to do anything at 12km.
1 Like
I don’t know, i don’t handle bug reports, but i’m guessing it is because the time to distance doesn’t specify enough surrounding information (like maneuver amount, speed of target, altitude or similar things just as random examples) for it to be reliable enough to get a number out of.
Could you link that source? i haven’t personally seen it yet.
thats what confuses me, even if we were to take a stationary target into account it would need to go faster than mach 2, im literally talking about that there is not a single scenario where it could reach that far in 60sec with only mach 2, but i understand, things would probly be better with people like you in the bug reports and not whoever is in charge of it right now
I agree that you can’t get a precise number out of it… BUT
If I tell you my car can reach a place in a hour drive from my house and then you try it and it takes twice that time even while flooring it the whole time then you see the issue, right?
There isn’t a way to get a specific speed. But you can create some loft profiles, play with the weight and thrust and adjust the numbers until they match that report roughly. They have guessed a lot more than that with other vehicles, so I don’t see the reason for not doing it here as well.
7 Likes
Could you link the source?
3 Likes
as peer post above,
the source about the speed that you ment (i think) https://www.luftvarn.se/vlv/1503.pdf
and the source about time to target
We all know which mod it is lmao, the one they removed names from the site for
Yeah that doesn’t say much at all sadly. "Engaged at " does that mean hit at that distance? does that mean the missile was fired when the target was at that distance and the target is then moving away from/towards the launcher? at what speed is the target flying towards or away from the launcher?
If the target is flying mach 1 towards the launcher for example then it travels 20 km in those 60 seconds so the missile meets it at only 10 km away (Random numbers just to show what i mean). There isn’t enough information at all to get any speed from that statement.
… i mean thats what it says here no?
but i get what you mean, its still frustrating having to argue about the speed when there are so many sources saying otherwhise, just sad for us that diehl itself doenst put it into the marketing
It doesn’t say at what distance the target was hit though. the only time distance is mentioned is “engaged at”. it doesn’t say what distance the target was hit. and i can’t personally see them stating that those are the same, it’s an assumption from the reader which sadly isn’t good enough for a source.
I would like to point out that i am personally also on the same page as you guys, i want it to be mach 3 as that is the number i see almost everywhere, but i have yet to see more than one reliable source for it that isn’t third party or, a wiki page or a random blog. I did try to find a source for it myself just a few days ago but sadly couldn’t.