Videos statements / claims alone are not accepted forms of sources by themselves. The brochure sadly is not specific. So those alone wont be sufficient.
The reports themselves would typically be directly updated and answered if there was news to share.
the leopard 2 DM rework does not have a report where we would see the progress
If there was something to announce regarding any DM rework, we would share that.
Simply because one of the promotional documents doesn’t specify F-15A / -B / -C / -D / -E, but instead go “F-15” it doesn’t count?
Are two supporting Secondary sources, somehow not sufficient proof anymore?
Sadly yes. Something for example can state “Tornado” on a source and be referring to GR.1 / GR.4 and not F.3. The sources are currently not sufficient as I have explained. Further material should be gathered to confirm the information, then it can be submitted for reconsideration.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
So we here do have a lord of time himself then xD
Thanks for the update!
And what of the reduced signature which is already a functionality in-game?
1 Like
ASRAAM was the programme initiated in response to the R-73. The reason the US gave for pulling out was that the ASRAAM programme was behind schedule.
So they pulled out, to develop a missile with inferior performance, that entered service later than ASRAAM… Good job America!
The real reason America pulled out was likely political / lobbying pressure to develop an American missile instead of buying a foreign one, with the delay just being a convenient excuse.
3 Likes
Thanks for the information.
with 30% of joke, I thought ASRAAM came out directly from SRAAM :/
lacks of knowledge I guess :(
Unfortunately, bug reports remaining unaddressed for such long periods of time eventually leads to palpable frustration among players, specially those who spent time and effort making these; this eventually leads people to end up expressing these frustrations and bringing out these bug reports in vain attempts at drawing attention to them in hopes that they may be fixed at last.
That is why, as long as bugs may remain unfixed for months and even years, it is pretty much inevitable that someone may end up bring them up even on this topic.
1 Like
Nah, SRAAM was a way earlier project.
ASRAAM was the IR counterpart to AMRAAM, the US were to design a replacement for the AIM-7 and the UK and Germany were to design a replacement for the AIM-9 which both nations were meant to put into service, but of course the US pulled out of ASRAAM largely due to lobbying from the US defense sector and immediately issued a contract competition for a new IR missile, Hughes won and then got bought out by the loser Raytheon and we ended up with the AIM-9X
Germany pulled out likely for financial reasons as well which left Britain solely in charge, the Germans used their experience from working on the ASRAAM program to make the IRIS-T, which uses the same seeker as the ASRAAM and 9X however the missile body was designed to fit better with Germany’s aims for the missile, which was shorter ranged and a hell of a lot more maneuverable
2 Likes
Not really, no doubt the experience gained on SRAAM helped with ASRAAM (they are kind of the same shape aerodynamically), but technologically they share nothing in common.
2 Likes
An occasional bring up its fine, however when simply responding to one question starts a spiral of several different directions worth of reports, it becomes outside of this subject matter.
Sending a PM is more than sufficient to gain attention to a report, should there be anything possible to do with it.
1 Like
ASRAAM on the tornado or even the jaguar would be so damn funny
1 Like
IRIS-T uses a different seeker to ASRAAM and AIM-9X
2 Likes
The SRAAM project was mothballed (not cancelled as they wanted to continue development but because of budget cuts couldn’t) and so when the US wanted to develop a replacement for the AIM-9 it was kind of an obvious partnership, the SRAAM was very much a starting off point, and the ASRAAM took 15 or so years to develop, so while the final thing shares very little with the SRAAM, the project was vital to the ASRAAMs success.
Sucks for the Americans that they didn’t want it, took them 5 more years to develop their own which is at best equivalent, at least the Germans made something that is better in many aspects, though that too was a joint project between many European countries.
Yeah, the seeker changed on the ASRAAM just after the Germans dropped out, my bad, the Germans wanted something more reliable at very short range while the British wanted a missile with more range to it, different seekers were better for those two different requirements
1 Like
Yeah, sometimes even I can’t help it, but believe me, I try my best not to be spammy, hahah.
Otherwise, I would practically bring 2-3 bug reports every day… but I don’t want to be THAT insufferable :P
Specially lately, I have been meaning to bring up the lack of spall liners on Chinese MBTs, which were reported in December 2023 and accepted in March 2024, bu- NO, NOOOO!
3 Likes