What kind of nonsense are you writing, an incomprehensible source from 12 km away, it is unknown under what conditions. The picture is complete nonsense
Itd be kind of odd to skip ahead right away, particularly since stuff like the F-4F ICE has AIM-120A/B’s afaik. I’m genuinely unsure how they’re going to balance this whole fox 3 thing, since the introduction time, platforms, and capabilities do vary a decent bit.
Its a possibility, though the BVRAAM question was touched on during the J-8F devblog, so itd be a bit weird if it didnt get PL-12’s right away
I think they’ll do both MLU and J-8F with ARH missiles, as PL-12 is supposed to be a bit better than AMRAAM B but the airframe is terrible. I do expect everyone to get AMRAAM A/B as placeholder even if they used Cs IRL.
2 Likes
Yeah, thats why my initial prediction was that basicly everyone was gonna get nerfed down near AMRAAM A levels kinematically except Russia which is going to have bad modelling of their R-77 make them just better in just about all situations to everyone else because gaijin will allow the missile to retain the pro’s of lattice fins but not the cons, hence why I’m worried.
I think missile-wise it’ll be pretty balanced (barring Russia) but plateform wise, it likely wont be, seeing as a few nations are going to be running F-15/16, M2K, Ja37D or Ja39A and MiG-29/Su-27’s while the rest are playing in the dirt with F-4/J-8/Tornado. Even the Ja39A probs wouldnt really be on par with the US/russian/French offerings FM and/or missile quantity-wise
1 Like
Personally I have a suspicion that the Su-27 won’t drop with ARH, it will just have a full kit of ERs and R-73. The SMT and Yak could get R-77 instead. That would give the BVR advantage to the Eagle and the dogfight advantage to the Flanker. I could be wrong and they jump straight to Su-27SM tho
Also, we’re getting Gripen C not A. 4 AMRAAM and 2 9Ls will be OK so long as the F-15/16 are also limited to 4, just the flight performance will be lackluster…
Be prepared to be completely disregarded and baffled with their decisions on implementation. Nothing we say here will influence that decision.
3 Likes
Btw, regarding the whole lattice fin argument on the R-77, here is a pretty damning line (and the text around it for additional context/info) from a NATO research paper:
Spoiler
“If, for example, favourable aerodynamic effectiveness and yaw stability at high incidence
angles are making lattice wings very attractive for high-speed agile missiles, the substandard wave drag is completely discrediting it in this situation.”
“Therefore, the high speed applications of lattice wings are actually undisputed only as drag braking devices or stabilisers for control of bombs and dispensers or as
control elements for very-short-range missiles where the high resistance certainly plays only a minor role.”
The paper in question (from 2006): Defense Technical Information Center
There is a good reason why ONLY the R-77 and R-77-1 use lattice fins, even among russian air to air missiles.
2 Likes
I’m not 100% sure, but I do think that regardless of how ARH’s come, launch platform and general missile balance between the nations are likely to be trash.
Instead of screwing around and saying all nations would get them at once, they shouldve added them to nations with substandard launch platforms first, such as the F-4F ICE, Ja37D, Tornado, and AV-8B+ imo.
2 Likes
From what i could find, the TC-2 is a bit worse than the AIM-120A/B.
- The missile cannot loft which greatly reduce it’s maximum range : (60km compared to 75km of the AIM-120A/B)
- It has a worse seeker with only 9.3km detection range (against a figther sized target?) compared to the 16km of the AIM-120A/B
-Maneuvrability is similar but i found various number for the TC-2 so be aware that the 30g is more of an average of the source i’ve gotten.
-Warhead size is similar with both 22kg of HE. - We don’t know if the TC-2 is capable of Home on Jam while the AIM-120 can.
About the upgraded TC-2C it’s similar in capabilities to the AIM-120C5.
- Same range (100km for the TC-2C and 105km for the AIM-120C5). I don’t think the TC-2C is able to loft, i think it manage that kind of range simply by a very high impusion by it’s booster (MACH 6 speed for the TC-2C compared to Mach 4/4.5 for the AIM-120C5). So the TC-2C should be have a better time on target than the AIM-120C5.
- Seeker wise it got upgraded with better ECCM but it’s real capabilities are classified. It’s probably similar in capabilities to the AIM-120C5.
-Maneuvrability is similar again.
-Warhead size is similar - We don’t know if the TC-2C is capable of Home on Jam while the AIM-120 can.
The MICA share the same aerodynamical formula as the SUPER 530D and is indeed capable of 30G maneuvers. The MICA VL is stated as 50G under 7km and 30G under 12km.
The 50G is for when the TVC is functionning (ie the motor is burning) and the 30G is for when the missile still has lots of energy left.
In game i think we can expect 30G capabilities until impact up to 15/20km when fired at MACH 1 at 1km altitude.
3 Likes
yes, however we were discussing low range, low altitude shots here, if i recall correctly.
As for the acceleration, it isn’t linear, but i’d assume the missile accelerates less when it’s reaching it’s maximum speed, meaning by assuming the acceleration was linear, i was actually quite generous on my 0.6s time in between M0.9 and 1.2
As for the aim7, while the dv is maybe worse than the R77, it burns for much, much longer. And the burn time has greater impact on a SAM than on an AAM.
For example, MICA VL (SAM variant of MICA) has a 6s burn and a 20km range, while it’s replacement, MICA NG (very original i know) has a second impulse when near its target, which gives it a range of 40km. Meanwhile, the MICA is stated to be 80km as an AAM and MICA NG 100km as AAM. That impulse is probably around 2s to 3s. Which means one missile has double the range of the other with just a 2/3s burn increase in a SAM configuration, while only gaining +25% range in its AAM configuration. Note that if the burn occurs at higher altitudes, it is more efficient, since the missile will keep the resulting energy better (less drag).
In the case of AIM7 / R77 SAM versions, it means the aim7 can probably end its burn at a much higher altitude and further away from the launch point, which might explain a good chunck of the range difference stated above. The grid fins might also explain it but i’m far from capable of estimating to which extent. What is sure is that the grid fins are not the only factor at play in this case.
TDLR, for a SAM, i think the delta v is as much important as the distance between the launch point and the point where the missile cuts off burn
Another reason it’s apples to oranges and y’all REALLY aren’t going to convince mythic otherwise. The good thing is, the devs understand where he doesn’t. No need to waste time arguing with one who won’t listen.
1 Like
Just an FYI, if you guys are going to be measuring missile kinetic capability by vertical launch configuration, it is much better to be looking at maximum altitude limitation rather than range.
Range in VL configuration is subject to battery time, possible lofting and efficient energy saving guidance, and etc.
Altitude limit would look at strictly how high it can climb in VL situation, which strips things down to just kinetic energy.
2 Likes
We trust in Stepanovich
1 Like
I don’t, the guy looks at primary and secondary sources stating things about American missiles and says he rather believe what he thinks because he doesn’t think what those sources say is “realistic”. He’s also said some incredibly questionable or downright provably things in other threads regarding radar guidance. The players that do trust him main russian vehicles because his decisions tend to be negative for western vehicles and advantageous for russian ones.
2 Likes
I’m a very patriotic American, I also have a good common sense compass. What Stepanovich says makes sense. We can try to prove him wrong on complex issues like multi patching… but even so, he’s a game dev. He’s not an expert in the field. They make mistakes.
That’s why we must compile sources and bug report honestly. You want to pretend your sources say a lot more than they really do, and you’ve shared quite a lot of questionable information yourself. You stick to it, it doesn’t help your argument here.
Your testing isn’t worth shit because when you tested varying that coefficient in shots, the time to range didn’t change. And you just ignored it when I called out that that result didn’t make any sense and discredited the validity of the model.
Do you realize how insanely nonsensical this result is? You increase the supposed drag coefficient by 30% and get a 1% shift in time to range. Bias, bias, bias.
3 Likes
He’s done a very good job overall modelling the missiles in War Thunder. Is he perfect? No. Do I trust him to do his job? Yes. Also yeah, I totally main Russian vehicles…
2 Likes
I’ve done subsequent testing to ensure there wasn’t an issue. It still yielded further range than common Google results will tell you. The ~80km range limitation is nonsensical. Would require that the missiles has nearly half the total impulse or significantly higher drag than any CAD model shows for the grid fins. At best it might be a battery limitation but I doubt it. It’s just the max range for a lower speed and lower alt launch.
You can ask others who’ve looked into the drag profile such as @BBCRF his CAD model totally goes against what Mythic claims about the grid fins.