it would still have less range than buk m3 while having the same missile count. but it can also use ir missiles ig. samp/t is better than nasams in every way.
My bet is 20 minutes of waffling about the Leopard 2 and Apache with some “eh well c’est la vie” sprinkled in to boost the video length. The unique stuff comes in the second and third video which will come out a week and a month later respectively.
PAC-3 CRI then ig. Do you know how many PAC-3 MSE the new launcher can carry?
bold of you to assume that he will not make an extra video for every single vehicle
Will the open source version of the Dagor Engine be updated with path tracing support?
Anton Yudintsev: Probably by the end of the year.
12 MSE per launcher , 16 CRI per launcher . i think it can also do 8 CRI + 6 MSE per launcher.
It would be cool if they added the Typhon launcher, that one can take 4 SM-6 each.
8+6 seems like a really good loadout especially when there’s 2 launchers
wait there are land based SM-6 ? damm ig they can add it along with 40N6 for s400 (4 per launcher)
What’s the Russian counterpart for PAC 3 CRI? Or will 8 SM-6+ 24/32 PAC 3 combination be unmatched?
And what does that mean? Please explain it to me, I don’t understand it.
If a 3rd player ran an MML with MHTK missiles they could take 120 to deal with heli launched AGM and glide bombs. With 3 out of 16 players you could pretty much just shut down any air launched attack
Path Tracing is a more adwanced version of Ray Tracing, which looks more realistic but is also more damanding for your computer
they can add s400 with 9m96 (40km max range) or 9m96e2 (120km max range) each s400 launcher can carry upto 16 of these both are arh , tvc missile. as for the bigger missile each s400 launcher can carry 4x 40N6 missile (huge missiles with a range of 400km . it can also use them in mixed configurations. 4x9m96 instead of 1x40n6. 9m96 is highly maneuverable missile. 40n6 wont be that maneuverable , but all of them have TVC and are arh.
I can actually answer that. Basically all planes pre FBW can pull more than their official G limit. It fell on the pilot to manage their Gs. For example, there are documented cases of F-4 pilots hitting 10-11Gs in vietnam. The 1.5X safety limit for airframes exist for precisely this reason, they don’t want the plane to suddenly snap when they exceed their say, 7.5G limit (I don’t remember if that’s the F-4s limit, just guessing). Gaijin multiplies that official safety limit by 1.5 as well to get the rip ingame. The F-14 pulling 9.2Gs IRL just means it was exceeding its safety limit, it doesn’t mean Gaijin needs to multiply by 1.5 to increase the rip. Also, the 1.5X is just a structural thing, Gaijin doesn’t just give planes 1.5X their possible instant turn rate IRL.
What should be the next medium-ranged radar missiles to be added into the game when not factoring in IIR missiles? (Long range missiles being Meteor, PL-15, R-37, AIM-174B, are not included in poll)
- AAM-4B
- AIM-120D
- MICA-NG EM
- R-77M
- PL-12A
id say PL-12A as a Chinese 120C-5 counterpart. they need a stopgap missile. a 120D is not needed, but 120C-5 fixes are. R-77M is counterpart to AIM-120D-3 F3R and AAM-4B doesnt really seem like a huge priority since Japan has other options
Would be interesting to see if J-10C comes with PL-12A, but what other options does Japan have besides AAM-4B?
120C-5, they still buy lots of AMRAAMs
This is the first I’ve heard of it. If they did use AIM-120Cs then I would think they would ask Gaijin to add it to their F-15 no?
I only see sales of AIM-120C-8 as of now but not sure if this is for their F-35 or F-15s.
Maybe @WreckingAres283 can clarify.
Its Gaijin
F-15 = F-15.
If they wanted to, they could easily give the F-15J(M) Aim-120C5s. But its likely being held with Aim-120B / AAM-4 specifically to keep it at 13.7 and be largely on par with the other 13.7 F-15s.
Just look at the F-16I. Only reason for it to be 14.0 at the moment is C5s (not saying it should be there, but its the only possible excuse for it)