Japan’s SAM Tree Needs Real Progress, Not Copy-Paste

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
4

If we don’t look on bias and too early came IRIS-T SLM, Tan-SAM Kai in perspective is one of the best SAM between other systems in current update.

But it is in “perspective”. Issue is not that it is copypaste, no, but in realization of vehicle and its mechanic. It is worst SAM in update thanks to problems with it and tons of not added features. IRL it has many of them like LOAL launch via launcher only (no datalink but thanks to INS it is going to the target so very effective against helis), no “trajectory flight via INS when launcher can’t launch missile directly to the target”, incorrect realization of TV seeker aka copypaste of Strela 10 which thanks to ingame seeker FoV is even worse than Strela 10 seeker. Also it looks like time of battery work is too low

So all this problems doesn’t let operate Tan-SAM Kai as good SAM in game and it is not issue of “copy-paste”.

Current realization of Tan-SAM Kai already doesn’t reflect real-world capabilities.

What is more funny is that historically Tan-SAM Kai was born at the same time as Tunguska-M and Flarakrad. I think all Japan mains players who were suffering on Type 93 (with missing main features) at that time and were getting answers like “It is problem of Japaness engineers that they couldn’t create normale SAM lol” by some players are crying listening it

As it was said SLM looks too bias for this update and all of that “big SAMs” should appear for all possible nations at the same time.

It takes 6 missiles IRL and loading 2 missiles per one process

No, it is not so. Chu-SAM is missing any vectoring nozzle

In fact Type 11 at any variant is even worse that Tan-SAM Kai

3 Likes
5

I know it is, but I still want it lol

6 Likes
6

I agree with the addition of new SAM system, but…

The thing is not really the lack of the top-tier vehicles but rather a terrible decision making from dev part. The meta was defined a long time ago with introduction of Pantsir which made practically every other SPAA useless or underpowered from most aspects. The powercreep lasted for several years, until devs decided to redefine meta with introduction of IRIS-T SLM, which was a yet another horrible decision, especially due to growing compression of top tier ground.

Was it not due to these moves, japanese tt progress would move at similar pace as others. Tan-SAM Kai provided crucial anti-CAS support for top tier as the only missile SPAA Japs had at the time was Type 93 (an atrocious SPAA for sure) and was it not the genius who decided it was overperforming at 11.3, it wouldn’t need to compete with Pantsir and SLM in almost every battle.

The ARH Tan-SAM Kai is another case of poor decision making. It should have came 2-3 major update ago when Japs had no practical counter against Kh-38MT, or at least their carriers. As it was said, it would be an above average SPAA was it added before multi-vehicle SAMs became a thing.

And that was a problem: due to multi-vehicle SAMs being too much of a novelty, devs decided to pull out a DOA SAM system (which would have been nice a year ago) built in 1970s alongside god damn 2000s system. Because of the want of providing totally new ground forces mechanic, devs overlooked the efficency of said vehicles, and went straight for another powercreep machine.

Chu-SAM is a sort of competitor for SLM. I am not sure how effective will it be considering not much specs is available online

The only sober solution rn is to actually decompress ground forces at top tier: extending the top BR to at least 13.0 (so it matches with air BR), thus making SLM and CLAWS 13.0; Pantsir, CS/SA5, Elde 98 and alikes 12.7; Tan-SAM Kai (ARH), FlaRakRad, ADATS and alikes 12.3 with the rest of SPAAs being either same BR or increased by 0.3-0.7. After that something like Chu-SAM can have place, but definetly not rn, not under current circumstances.

Outrunning powercreep with powercreep is not a great idea, as well as plaguing top tier with even more compression, and Chu-SAM is indeed the solution for top SAM but only after decompression.

1 Like
7

Yet the Chu-SAM wasn’t given to the Japanese when the SLM came out and here we are again on another major update while everyone else gets better SAM sytems, Japanese is still stuck in the 1980’s with 10km missiles while Russia gets a 70KM range SAM system. I get that this update was to give everyone else who didnt get a multi vehicle sam system last update but its not an excuse to not give Japan a better damn SAM system when everyone else gets modern (at least 2000’s) sam systems. Like bro come on, next update they NEED to give Japan the Type 03 instead of giving an already competative ground tree with the type 10’s ANOTHER tank. it was never needed, what we need is to be caught up with all the other nations.

1 Like
8

A little note about date - Type 81C is 1996 year SAM system

1 Like
9

oh sorry i got the year wrong, but not the main point of the argument

1 Like
10

It should be mentioned that even the base Type 03 is already outperformed by the SAM systems we’ve in-game by now.

The only domestic SAM left that could at least keep in a resonable matter would be the Type 03 Kai.

2 Likes
11

This one is also outdated

1 Like
12

Do we know if the Kai upgrade has a TVC system?
Or any range estimates? just tryna figure out how much of an upgrade it would be compared to the regular one we have now

13

Never heard of a TVC system on the Kai. Probably doesn’t.

14

There is no TVC on either variant, maybe the future one.

Generally Type 03 Kai is still quite classified as it just entered service. The specification Document doesn’t have any specific numbers except its new sizes.

2 Likes
15

I can’t find good sources, but most of theplaces I find are talking about the warhead being 74kg, when in-game it is 15 ?
The equivalent TNT factor (14kg makes 17.9kg of TNT in-game) is ~1.28, which makes with the 73kg head 93.3kg of TNT…

It is ~5 times the original, making it way worst than IRL in multipathing, and the radar fuze would be way larger.

Characteristic Specification
Length ~4.9 m
Diameter ~0.32 m
Launch Mass ~570 kg
Warhead 73 kg HE fragmentation, proximity fuze
Propulsion Solid-fuel rocket (boost-sustain)
Guidance Inertial mid-course with data link updates; active radar terminal homing
16

Because 15kg is written in document available online and what you have is just bad and not proofed sources from net

17

What is yours ? I couldn’t find well, I’ll be happy to see.

18

Base variant Type 03 Specifications Document;

grafik

It should be noted that “warhead weight” includes Rod, Explosive, Projectiles and some Electronics; its not reprensative for fillers or its efficiency.

19

Thanks !
But I can’t help but have doubts about something; the explosive part. When I’ ve looked around, the “warhead” is with the fuze, and mechanisms (The combat unit).
The Buk missile (9M317M) weight 581kg which is 2 less kg than the Type 03 ( in WT).

After what I’ve seen the combat unit of the 9M317M, the combat unit is 63kg, 10kg less than the Type 03.
Those are find in the very same site the ev server based their source on 9K317M "Buk-M3" medium-range anti-aircraft missile system | Missilery.info.
(and the G overload is 24G instead of 30G’s on the very same webiste)

All taht looks very weird… for 63kg, Russia stuffed 30kg of explosive, and Japan with 73kg only 14kg ? It sounds very weird.

20

73kg of warhead is not proofed data and mostly wrong one

21

we can’t say it is not. It is classified I think. I’ ve been looking for 2-3 hours and still can’t find something good. But everytime I find something, it uses the same numbers.

But War Thunder used a lot of hypothesis in his history.

22

We do can say that, as we have the Specifications Document for Type 03 and Wikipedia etc (especially Grok and other “AI”) are no sources.

If anything, Buk has an overperforming Warhead in this context.

5 Likes
23

Yep I put Grok thing but it might be bulshit. But I think we need to say that the Type 03 is underperfroming against heli’s compared to the Buk.