is the AARGM-ER going to have its MMW seeker? and is the regular AGM-88E or E2 AARGM going to be added?
1 Like
Uh… The reason SAL was added to the Brimstone was because the Americans insisted upon. They didnt like the idea of British jets operating with a weapon that lacked MITL. It did also give increased capability to target things that lacked the necessary RCS profile it was designed to destroy. Things like a specific room of a building or infantry.
But full strength Brimstones would not have any issues with the context of War Thunder, it is precisely what they were originally designed to do.
And if MMW was so bad, why are weapons like Spear-3 being developed?
2 Likes
meh
Sadly does not matter if the buk had the range it could hit you at the other side of earth given its ignoring ground
I do not get their argument. Humans are kept in the loop for safety, not because the seeker is a bad technology. A tonne of weapons would work optimally without human integration, but have the human element integrated to confirm which lives they’re about to take. These systems could be automated but when the lives of bystanders are the cost of failure, sanity has prevailed and kept humans in chain.
3 Likes
Yep, which is pretty much the only reason these weapons have SAL
2 Likes
First time good news thank you and gaijin (still have to test how much less effective s300 is compared to buk)
Yeah, all issues wich are directly linked to the short range of the seeker and the lack of flexibility of mmwr.
Without LOAL, mmwr would be the worst F&F weapons in game, mogged by even agm65 seekers.
They were developed when more advanced IIR processing was still new and MITL for smaller missles not really common, using mmwr you could match a shape with a target automatically, something that IIR weapons lacked the capacity to do until the late 2000s (for smaller tactical targets).
Spear is litterally reusing brimstone seeker, and MBDA srill uses mechanical radar on every single seeker it produces.
By that logic, mechanical radar are better than AESA and PESA just because MBDA still makes them?
No, they are just convenient and still somewhat decent, so they still get procured.
We get back to the issues, MMWR lack range to be used in war thunder without LOAL, but adding LOAL would add it to every other weapon wich uses it, braking top tier GRB.
Imagine if the brinstone would be added with 6km seeker and no LOAL, you guys woukd start crying like babies.
Do you have anything useful to add instead of assumptions and suppositions?
So the short range of the seeker and lack of flexibility are what makes mmwr usable only with LOAL?
That’s exactly what i wrote
I feel like economy of scale evades you, alongside the myriad benefits mmw seekers provide over IR. Even present day solutions.
Well… That is what we want them to add.
You fire at a target using IOG or the SAL, and then when it gets within 9km, it locks on, allowing the launch aircraft to disengage.
At hte moment, we have Mode 1 which is SAL only and way weaker than anything else in the game.
There is 2 kinds of LOAL though.
There is the simple kind, where the missile just flies to a specific location, and if there is nothing there, it just hits nothing and then there is the advanced kind where it flies to an area and then searches for a target. The former would not be OP and is what we’ve already got via MITL. The latter would be very strong.
I dont think this is true. There was a variant of the ASRAAM called the Typhoon designed for A2G, but it lost out to Brimstone. Brimstone entered service in 2005, ASRAAM entered service in 1998. If anything IIR was functional and capable before MMW was.
Your statement was
“No one is developing MMW weapons anymore”
Well, that is wrong given that many modern weapons do use MMW.
2 Likes
It is an undeniable fact that the dissatisfaction with Nuclear Thunder—particularly regarding its anti-aircraft guns—stems from the AI bot algorithm, which Gaijin Studios has treated with kid gloves for years, or has reluctantly implemented only to the bare minimum because investing in it does not directly translate to revenue.
The reason this fact remained hidden was that in standard random matches,
AIBot units were either extremely few in number, deployed solely to drive away respawn campers, or used only as elements that had no significant impact on the overall outcome, regardless of their presence or absence.
At most, the only ones who were truly troubled by this issue were the CDK creators who were using the CDK to produce interesting PvP or PvE missions.
However, with the release of nuclearThunder, elements that relied on the use of AIBots suddenly emerged, resulting in the crude nature of the AI algorithms—which had previously been ignored—being laid bare.
We were left with a farce: radar that could track targets while ignoring obstacles; missiles that hit no matter what evasive maneuvers were taken; and, after adding an interception algorithm to anti-aircraft guns, the emergence of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns that could detect missiles and bombs without even scanning the radar, perfectly intercept any weapon, and race at top speed.
Furthermore, since operational doctrines for attack and interception differ from country to country, if combat were to begin with both sides starting under exactly the same conditions—as if on a “ready, set, go” signal—it is inevitable that one side would gain an advantage or be at a disadvantage under those conditions. For example, the Soviet Union and Russia, in order to defend their vast territories, designed aircraft with long ranges, prioritized the development of self-propelled anti-aircraft guns to escort ground forces, and focused research on long-range missiles capable of intercepting distant enemies. In contrast, the United States and Western Europe prioritized securing air superiority through overwhelming air power, along with thorough electronic jamming, satellites, AWACS, and special forces to secure air superiority through overwhelming air power. Given these differing weapon capabilities stemming from each nation’s doctrine, it is as clear as day that if both sides deploy the exact same number of weapons in the exact same positions—as if mirroring each other—one side will inevitably gain the upper hand.
I’ve digressed quite a bit, but the bottom line is that Gaijin should develop smarter AIBots. This isn’t limited to anti-aircraft guns; tanks that would normally charge straight ahead without batting an eye even when shells land nearby or they take non-fatal hits should instead use trees and terrain to evade enemy attacks, choose to retreat when they sense they’re at a disadvantage in combat, or panic when ambushed; and simple, lifeless aircraft should coordinate with their wingmen to perform “satch-weave” maneuvers, or using air-to-ground and air-to-ship missiles—in short, I expect the development of bots that are on par with human players. I’ve had more than enough of AIBots that are of lower quality than those in ArmA 2, which came out over 15 years ago.
3 Likes
The context is war thunder though.
The target is tanks. Not people or buildings.
MMW Brimstones would be very effective. If what you said was even remotely true, we would have Mode-2 Brimstones for the past 18 months
What is the best missile at short or medium ranges
Agm84H or agm65G
Especially the case now that blankets like Nakidka and Barracuda are making their presence known on modern battlefields, which will only see improvements on into the future. MMW is significantly harder to counteract.
1 Like
New weapon with old seeker by a company who only makes obsolete seekers … wow what a breaktrough.
All the mdoes you listed are just LOAL, there is no problem adding LOAL to mmwr becouse they are mostly mediocre, the problem is with adding LOAL to everything else that can actually be effective outside blind firing and hoping god the 3km seeker find something that isn’t a barn.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the algorithms and procedures involved with Brimstone and derivatives. Or even really just stand off munition practices at all. Modern stand off weapons do not track the target for the entire flight time in the vast majority of cases, it is inefficient and causes design considerations to be necessary that are unfavourable. You will see active tracking generally only begin in the terminal phase.
1 Like
How to tell me you know nothing about MBDA without actually telling me you know nothing about MBDA.
Sweet, tell that to Gaijin, weve been stuck with SAL only Brimstone 1s instead of our MMW Brimstone 2/3s and Spear-3s for the past 2 years
2 Likes
They will be very effective if they are the only one to receive LOAL.
They will be barely mediocre if IIR weapons get theyr LOAL capabilities.
Imagine launching 8 LMUR on the spawn each one with 12km seekers and using the last one to scout SAM positions and direct the next salvo.
Meanwhile with brimstone you are just blind firing with the wirst range seeker on top tier and slow ass missles.
The only saving grace for brimstone is that they are on the EF2000, wich can basically direct fire a volley of those and get out of the way without the need to fire over cover.