AGM-65F uses the same seeker as the AGM-65D and is also mentioned in the manual as being usable against ground targets.
The reason they are referred to as “anti-ship” is because they can be used effectively against ships with larger warheads than previously possible.
GCS-1 seeker operates independently after release from the aircraft, rather than being pre-locked before release the aircraft like the AGM-65, and has a completely different acquiring method. AGM-65 is not an appropriate example of this.
See the developers answer that just because X can be used in Z environment, it doesn’t mean Y can be used in Z.
This does not say what you think it does. The Igla uses a pretty crude guidance method where it spins quickly in order for its two control fins to be able to engage a maneuvering target. Mistral and Stinger have 4 controls fins and don’t do this, on top of the Stinger in particular having much larger control fins.
They’re just comparing weight and control surface area. Which doesn’t seem to mean much since the larger and heavier TY-90 with relatively smaller fins is doing 20G.
So that’s a yes, both you and the devs are saying that MBDA are just straight up lying about the Mistral’s capabilities then. Interesting take.
From the same country that can’t have attackers so instead they called them “support fighters” (despite said “fighters” being hopelessly outdated) and can’t have aircraft carriers so they named them “helicopter destroyers” (with F-35s in them).
You seem to forget that politics plays a very big role in military procurement, especially in a country where anything considered ‘offensive’ is very much looked down upon, and wording is bent accordingly.
Wrecks are filtered out since they are too hot. Friendly targets are an issue but this can be avoided with some care as to where you drop.
We have IR guided bombs already, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to require the GCS-1 to require lock before dropping if we’re that afraid of an unpowered, non-glide bomb.
Then please write a bug report with that point and prove it, I won’t stop you from doing anything about it
I rather think the TY-90 odd by the same standards, they are the only missiles that have deviated from the current implementation despite having a similar design.
I don’t think either of them is lying, I’m just explaining the point developers are thinking.
You are taking everything in quite a twisted way here.
It’s not a problem of name, it’s a problem of method, and several sources have already said that the reason GCS-1 didn’t use the well-known laser guidance method was to avoid political problems abut ground attack capability.
So if you want to prove something, it’s better to bring one piece of data that states that GCS-1 can do ground attack than to bring dozens of unrelated pieces of data. That’s what the developers want.
I have answered this question sufficiently here and there is nothing new here. If you find something new, please report it on the bug report site. Here I will leave this circular argument.
I could say so much here… but I’m not gonna bother.
Either 1) MBDA is lying about their 30G maneuverability claim, or 2) Gaijin devs are artificially nerfing the Mistral because they don’t believe it can maneuver that hard.
Only one of these can be true. Both cannot.
Which doesn’t exist because again, this is japan we’re talking about. And as I said before, as with anything modern, capabilities have to be pieced together from what little available information we have (which we did) and found that yes, the GCS-1 CAN track a ground target.
Please, if you have any disagreements regarding other topics such as dev or moderator decisions, feel free to continue the discussion via PMs in order to keep the topic clean.
(p.55)
Max thrust with no AB is 2320kgf
but in game only has 1950kgf
and max thrust with AB is 3310kgf, in game 3110kgf
and weight 760kg not 810 in game
