Target drones are never anywhere near mach 1. You’re arguing that the missile went to 12km altitude just to hit something at 10km from the launch site.
Is there anything you won’t say to protect Russian cas dominance?
Realistically the drone was very much subsonic, launched on when it was at 30 and hit when it was at 20-25.
They aren’t the ones defending it. They are making some good counter points to our sources that we need to explore. They aren’t making any claims.
We have a flight time to hit a ~m0.4 target when it was at 30km. That is more than enough info to make an honest estimate, the nitpicking you’re seeing from these people is anything but honest.
That then sounds like more of an issue with to much drag and/or to little engine power than a top speed issue (for in-game purposes). That is however generally a better argument. My main issue is that it’s all still user calculations and a lot of guesswork/assumptions. Even at the lowest end of estimations those are to my knowledge not accepted at all. The source is to vague to be used, the range you could get out of it is so wide that it might as well say nothing. Even if the bottom of the range is above in game values it’s still to vague to be used. It’s like those that say “above x speed”, well how much? would x+0.00000001 be accepted by the community? likely not at all. it’s better to then have some semblance of concrete numbers (which with modern systems are… well… hard to get)
I get that.
I also think it’s frankly…a kind of stupid decision to not at least listen to basic math.
If even the lowest estimate is far above ingame values then they should at least consider it.
Especially since right now, the missile is incapable of reaching 30km at all ballistically. I means what’s the point of saying you have an effective range of 40km when you can only engage targets up to 15km away?
3 Likes
i found this
so mach 0.65 our asumptions that the target is flying right at the launcher is still questionable considering the fact that it is “evading”
1 Like
This:
I’m trying to show how it can be read and interpreted, and if it isn’t unambiguous then it likely can’t be used. I’ve actually taken part in trying to help find sources for this, i want it changed as well but i also see Gaijins side and as such trying to find better sources and point out to others how best to think like Gaijin and find better suited sources.
1 Like
Theres also the DO-DT25 drone which goes 250kts instead of the 450 kts of the DT45
I think they have for some of the sources, there are some that have been forwarded as suggestion i think.
1 Like
at this rate with the devserver closing tomorrow ig its just gona be another “it is what it is” but considering the HIGH speed testing target the SLM would still not be able to engage the target at 40km out with its current flight performance (while flying directly at the launcher)
My question is the following:
What would Gaijin do if they only had the effective range to go by?
They apparently don’t have Thrust or Weight of the missile and they don’t have the burn time. So we basically know nothing. This means that it’s all guess work and boy have they guess wrong.
The current version is FAR short of even reaching the effective range at all, let alone a maneuvering target.
We really gotta hope for 2nd dev or dev continuation, if the radar gets Look Forward - Back Scanning and the stated <1s target refresh it would be miles better.
Also reduced smoke would be a very good buff, just hope they implement them.
The issue is that we shouldn’t have what we currently have as the starting point. The only sources available logically point to a speed of Mach 3 and range upwards of 40km. Where did Gaijin get their initial “sources” to get the missile to where it currently is?
5 Likes
First source here is likely no good, it's third party that links to other sources
I just found this but i don’t know how trustworthy the source is, and it might actually be a third party source perhaps but i’m unsure (though it is written by a Swedish military analyst):
(https://dettyskakriget.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/fangad-i-spelet-natbok-1-version-5.1.pdf) Page 140
Edit:
Just found this as well:
(https://www.cleardesign.se/tidskrift/arkiv/forsvarsutbildaren-05-2015/forsvarsutbildaren-05-2015.pdf) page 21
Edit 2:
one more:
(https://www.portail-ie.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Defense-antiaerienne.pdf) Page 3
Edit 3:
(https://bin.yhdistysavain.fi/1601152/L9PyPMQ7AT9jfDiArSjt0UJan6/Ilmatorjunta%202_17.pdf) page 35
Previously known:
(https://www.luftvarn.se/vlv/1503.pdf) page 10
6 Likes
They don’t have any. I’ve scoured the web for any source that mentions M 2.0 of the SL(M) and that simply DOESN’T EXIST. Be it primary, secondary, or some forum, a speed of M 2.0 is never mentioned anywhere.
Their stats for the SLM are completely made up.
Actual max range according to the Bundeswehr btw is 50km’s, making the effective range of 40km pretty cut 'n clear, well we don’t even get effective range of 15km’s in WT, lol.
10 Likes
Man I have been looking all day, but finding something is really hard.
Your sources look good and if they count as secondary sources, we should have enough, we only need 2, right?
But I am almost certain that this is getting the “It’s just a magazine, unrelated to anything, not a real source” treatment :/
5 Likes
“all sources are sweedish so they must by spewing propaganda”
2 Likes
Perhaps, the first one is a bit… questionable? perhaps.
The second is a magazine that gets released once every two months by the “Swedish Federation for Voluntary Defence Education and Training (Försvarsutbildarna)”. so likely a bit better.
Yeah, i’ve gotten really good at using google to the full potential. It’s amazing what you can find once you know how to tag the search properly.
2 Likes
Gotta love the burn :D
I am trying to find some info in German as that’s my native language anyway, but most info is from random magazines or repeated from the sources we already gave to Gaijin. I am not giving up yet, though :D
Try searching like this:
“IRIS-T SLM” “[the german word for speed]” filetype:pdf
keep the quotation marks and the colon but not the [ ] symbols. That is how i found most of my Swedish sources.