That is actually my way of doing it. If I’m confident enough for a gun kill I fire an SRAAM. Especially against maneuvering targets and without mouse aim, they are good to use that way.
I’m observing that some of the most expensive devices, manufactured under (hopefully) the best tolerances and which are very very very important to have 0 failures, still fail.
I think War Thunder will benefit from the implementation of duds, weapons failures, guidance errors etc.
As long as its unilateral and there’s no favouritism, it’s fine.
I find an excessive focus on control, reliability and other stuff like that to be stale.
The manned extended range SRAAM
don’t we already have guidance errors build into the code?
pretty sure we do, unless they are bugs hiding a features.
Can’t wait for the tiger to go to 4.0 because the transmission always fails and can’t be repaired in the field
Well the AIM-7 weapons F and M seem to behave in a rather odd way from time to time, seemingly unintentionally.
no worries, the T-34s and Shermans will have similar problems
also remember when the german army proudly used all their Puma IFVs on a NATO manoeuver and every single one broke?
No matter how much simualtions you make, how meticulous you are during productions and how many missiles of the same type work, there is always a chance for a failiure that no one expects with virtually any reason.
No, that really wouldnt be fun. Finally get yourself into a firing position, you press fire and… dud…
If its RNG based. Then bad luck happens. Imagine being in a Sea Harrier FA2 with only 2 AMRAAM and they both fail due to random failure. You are now in a 10.7 aircraft at 12.3
1 in 5 games someone will make it to one of the caps before breaking down 👍 also the spawns are hours away from the points now cause that’s more realistic
time to add fuel to ground and naval vehicles
and would russian tanks even be able to leave spawn due to a lack of fuel?
I mean generally all weapons have some weapon failure percentage rate, but the topic originally is about the thrust vectoring system. I’m just pointing out that it’s a mistake that because one missile’s TVC sometimes fails, others should fail as well when there are even different thrust vectoring methods that varies in efficacy.
efficiency doesn’t change the failure rate
method does though
manufacturing and QC are the only things that impact Failure rates, or rather a Mean time between failures
and I’m saying that with 4 years of experience in Indistrial Repair and Maintenance
To my understanding some thrust vectoring systems are not made to be operated below certain speeds. MICA for example is manufactured and designed to work at 0m/s launch speed from ships and vertical launch SAMs.
So a thrust vectoring method that’s more efficient at 0 launch speed is less likely to fail at low speed launches than one than needs a higher launch speed. I’m not sure about the R-73, but allegedly SRAAM needs some kind of launch speed to operate effectively?
Yes