SAL Brimstones is busted, I had to deal with this earlier today, plane is very agile and really the only way to desperately deal with the Typhoon using them is something like the strela.
If SAL Brimstones are busted then KH-38MT are a god-tier weapon.
Typhoon should have SAL Brimstones 2 for something actually decent for short range and Spear-3s for some form of GPS stand-off wepaon
8 Likes
I mean Kh38 is a god tier CAS missile regardless of how good the Brimstone SALs are perceived.
However at least in squadron battles it’s pretty common that people prefer Brimstones over Mavericks, so I partially get where he is coming from.
AGM-65s are a 10.0 weapon that is still being used at top tier. They are slow, weak and easily defeated. Also very little can carry enough to overwhelm something like a Pantsir.
Brimstones whilst just as slow (if not slower) can be spammed and overwhelm a Pantsir. We’ll have to wait and see what hte new SAMs do, but if their performance is anything like IRL. You will not be able to enter range to use the Brimstones using the current tactics because you will just die. and dealing with multi-vehicle SAMs will be impossible.
Also in SQB they can be taken without sacrificing A2A ability if needed as they also dont weight very much and you can take 12 without giving up any missiles
Though Im surprised its the not the Rafale being used for SQBs at the moment.
1 Like
They are actually (somewhat) significantly faster, as I have tested a while ago as well. Not really super fast still, but definitely not worse than Maverick (which however quite decently underperforming, backed by sources). AGM-65G does slightly better in terms of energy retention and maximum range than the D however, but I think still worse than the Brimstone.
Spoiler
Interesting, but yeah, probably the Maverick FM issues to blame. Was thinking in terms of energy. AGM-65 should reach 23km meanwhile Brismtones barely reach 20 and only when given a lot of height or launch speed
(Though thinking about it, thats the guidance time nerfs Gaijin applies and not necessarily a kinematic issue)
wasnt there also an Maverick buff/fix coming with this patch?
another 405 error…
how to worse than Hellfire Brimstone
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Y1NnwzcDCxAx
I have no idea
they havent fix flight model or anything yet
only zoom
Yes, Mavericks win out over extreme range simply due to 105s guidance time and higher mass leading to more energy retention. But it’s overal worse in every way when fired at lower ranges than those. Mavericks also still require high launch speed and high altitude to reach its max range regardless. It usually “barely” does does high ranges, unless fired from orbit. The maverick usually ends up with an impact velocity ranging around M0.4-0.5 otherwise, which isn’t great. Brimstones I think also dropped to pretty low speeds, but overal stays higher speed, at least up to 15km. Don’t remember if I tested for like 20km.
Brimstone 1 has a reported range of 12km when fired from a heli. Using stat-shark (and I think I have it configured right) even at 1000m launch alt. It didnt reach 10km by the time of guidance time ran out. So either the guidance time is too short (and this is supported by the fact Brimstone 2 didnt receive a battery upgrade but increased the range 200% from motor alone) and/or its too slow and has too much drag and flame does have good sources for it
There are also reports in to massively buff its IOG and whilst they wont accept video evidence of it for some reason. it should also pull 40° AoA off the rails
It’s unfortunate that while they made some AGM65 changes, they just completely ignored the bug reports that mattered the most.
Yeah… But KH-38MT is OP and therefore no other CAS can get buffed
Sustained?
Seems that were solely the two buffs that happened some time ago. The laser Mav tracking rate and IIR Mav FoV fixes.
I toyed around a bit with custom missiles in usermissions with the Maverick to get it to perform close to manual graphs (within 5% error or so), with use of the real Mav rocket engine specifications (reported already). It literally meant that drag had to be cut down by over 33%, with however about a 20% lower wing area.
Loft code I didn’t touch yet, because it looked somewhat correct (but could still be slightly wrong). But changing loft code slightly can already yield much better energy retention.
How? 1.5x G is only for planes limited to 9G to simulate pilot’s fatigue. Anything above that shouldn’t receive the artificial boost, as it’s now not about the pilot. Even 9G planes getting the boost always seemed off to me.
Those other platforms should be corrected to the Gripen standard.
The FBW system completely failing, the airframe likely deforming and cracking, and the pilot not purposely doing that action means that the airframe has the opposite problem. It cannot pull over 12G. And once it does, it falls apart.
1 Like
I’ve also found statshark not to be really accurate at times. So I would try testing it in game, either just in custom match or usermissions. According to stathshark for instance, the AGM-65D can hit an 18km target, when fired at mach 1 from 1km altitude. In-game it can’t even do 12km. So you have to check it in-game first. It’s likely even performing worse than statshark figures (I have found that wing area and lift coef do nothing there).
1 Like
Id have to make or find a user mission with a Tornado Gr4 or Typhoon hovering. Which I ahve no idea how to do. But if we ever get the Harrier Gr9A or AH-64E with Brimstone 1s. Expect more bug reports.
But anyway. Given the Typhoon never used Brimstone 1s and they are artifiically limited to SAL only. I dont think SAL Brismtone 2s would be unreasonable.
New packs are on the Xbox store.
Not sure if anyone has said anything about it yet.
1 Like