Yea, I didn’t take altitude into account at all. It was a very rough estimate - I do agree with that.
UPD. God damn those things are abysmal
That one is actually an even better argument since it’s western tech. There is no reason why Diehl would take a huge step back compared to tech from the 1970’s :-)
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
15 Likes
this is why i said we get something gimped but wait and see the BUK M3 that BVVD talked about it will 100% be outperforming everyone else
4 Likes
While KH38s are already breaking into top tier, we needed a new AA system to counter these AGMs. However, Gaijin nerfed these AA systems and they’re now underperforming. At the same time, the mighty OP KH38, which supposedly never needed a buff, just got one: they are now GPS guided. Good luck trying to dodge a swarm of KH38s with the new AA system while managing three vehicles at once!
Some will still say Russian bias doesn’t exist after that lmao
18 Likes
ig thats why they wanna have the focus of this update on the ships, since they knew they were giving the other nations basicly just “long range” strellas
did they really deleted the report that accepted and forwarded as suggestion ?
At least I can’t load its URL at all now
I guess we will just have to see what the finalized look of it is at launch
I would very much like gaijin to release a second test version. Based on the data we currently know, it seems that none of the top air defense systems in the new version have reached the level of Panstir S1
1 Like
Maybe these AA systems were never supposed to be better than the Pantsir? When did Gaijen state this?
How could IRIST-SLM, as a theater level air defense system, have weaker air defense performance than Panstir.Furthermore, if these newly released top tier air defense systems only achieve or fall far short of panstir’s air defense performance, what significance do they have in improving the imbalance of air ground confrontation
You mean “These AA systems can’t be better than the Pantsir in the snails mind”, right? They seem to be unable to even think about that…
1 Like
I mentioned this in another thread, and probably you folks are aware of it by now, but I thought I would share this video from Diehl about the EFFECTIVE (not maximum) range of the IRIS-T SLM.
1 Like
At least for now, the performance of these so-called theater level air defense systems is far from meeting expectations, which is extremely disappointing
It is interesting. Usually the solid rocket fuel propellant is aluminium based and burns orange. The flame here is red, which indicates that (even if just partly) there is lithium mixed in (which burns bright red and is also used in red fireworks for the color). Lithium is even more reactive than aluminium and there is active research ongoing:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1385894724059400
If that’s the case you can’t even apply a general estimation to the missiles thrust based on current solid fuel rockets which use fuels like “APCP” (Stinger) as it will fall short.
Who wants to frame-count the video (with the launcher as reference) to find out the speed and acceleration after the missile left the tube? :D
3 Likes
what happen here
18 Likes
There really IS a definition for the term “effective range”, even if a little vague but still.
However, effective range specifically refers to the maximum distance within which the desired effect is highly likely to be achieved in the event of a hit with weapon fire. The effect is generally the neutralization of the target (killing an infantry soldier, penetrating armor, the effectiveness of a rubber bullet, the depth of penetration of an arrow with a sporting bow, etc.). Therefore, the effective range also requires a certain minimum target speed (hit speed) for sufficient penetration.
So “effective range” DOES NOT mean “the missile hits the ground while stalling and falling out of the sky”.
4 Likes
What happened to the Mach 3 bug report, I can’t open it
2 Likes