The YouTuber isn’t the point. If you could provide proof and an answer, that would be better, wouldn’t it?
1 Like
they have exactly same lock range on vehicle track
kd88
"opticalSeeker": {
"targetSignatureType": "infraRed",
"rangeBand0": 20000.0,
"rangeBand1": 20000.0,
"rangeBand8": 200.0
"rangeMax": 120000.0,
"rangeSurface": 120000.0,
"fov": 0.1,
AGM-65D
"opticalSeeker": {
"targetSignatureType": "infraRed",
"rangeBand0": 20000.0,
"rangeBand1": 20000.0,
"rangeBand8": 200.0
"rangeMax": 24000.0,
"rangeSurface": 24000.0,
"fov": 0.1,
2 Likes
Yes, for large targets like ships, but for small targets like tanks it’s different, and the video shows it with the locked square = target locked on moving, KD-88A 12 km, AGM65F 16 km, but both missiles have a 20 km structure lock. And with the bug report that will add GNSS to the KD-88/A, we’ll be able to fire the missile with CCRP
The only IR missile that effectively locks onto moving targets at 20 km is not a structure; it’s the CM-502KG
Even if they add GNSS you will need LOS lock, you cannot launch IR Munitions without a lock
Nope thats not how any of this works, they are exactly the same in game because the game engine works the same.
1 Like
I’d like to know how they implement GNSS on the KD-88. The GNSS on the LS-6 IR is buggy. The LS-6 uses GNSS well for high-altitude and long-range flight, but in the terminal phase, the bomb doesn’t use the IR seeker but rather the IOG and continues to hover over the target. I filed a report and still nothing. Anyway, I hope they don’t miss the KD-88
IR and TV ordinance will never go into IOG because they will prefer surface lock every time. Times where it goes into IOG are edge cases where ground is not lockable (some buildings)
Its just literally how the guidance works in this game, it always uses the most active first so laser/tv/ir ->ins/iog->gps tho having gps will replace iog/ins drift with a 7m errror radius instead
It’s poorly coded, that’s not how it’s supposed to work remotely. GPS + IOG < IR seeker. Instead, we end up with weapons that don’t activate their seekers based on the designated GPS weight.
I can’t find the graph anymore, but this video explains how the AASM/HAMMER IR works: GPS+IOG then IR
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xZLu5THiVy1i
The LS-6 flies above the target because there’s a coding conflict, and it never uses IR; it goes IR (TRK) GPSS and then gets stuck in IOG, whereas with the GPS waypoint it’s supposed to dive towards the target and activate its IR sekker.
But anyway, all this to say that the KD-88A’s seeker is already less effective at locking onto moving targets than the AGM65F
1 Like
its not its exactly the same
This has been the thing ever since it got introduced, nothing has changed. There is no coding conflict, it will just always do surface lock because it can
2 Likes
so it seems like since the su30sm2 has a stone age RWR so should the J15T, because as we all know Russian clearly has the bestest goodest avionics in the world and everyone else is worse
4 Likes
Su30sm2 should also get a better one…
1 Like
its (kd88/a) seeker isnt meant to lock really far away anyways, its an MITL with only the seeker being used at terminal range
There’s even a report up for it
2 Likes
Cope retoric here, all the jets that have a good RWR coverage were backed by source, both Rafale and EFT for instance. The Su-30SM2 has a report to increase its coverage up to ±90 degrees with some sources attached, the J-15 has a report that literally goes: “the J-10C and J-15 are new therefore they deserve spherical RWR”…
Like Kizvy said yesterday new =/= spherical.
2 Likes
To be fair, modern jets tends to depend more on their esm suite. I remember someone posting a pic of j15t with some radome on the leading edge, i wouldnt be surprised if its for ecm and esm.
Jets like f35 and su57 have a vast coverage with their smaller arrays that they have essentially a 360 degrees esm. Its just more accurate and longer ranged, more effective against lpi and can even provide fire control
Thing is info is limited, even for su30sm2 rwr coverage buffs, the sources are very few
1 Like
At least they are integrated into reports tho, to try and get them through, blaming the state of the J-15 on the SM2 is copemaxxing.
3 Likes
Well tbh they are kinda in the right with their coping, cause how do you want to provide sources on a 2024 plane from a country which in itself is already incredibly hard to get sources from. (Also considering that guessing of off Pictures as well as calculations is not accepted by gajin). I am not saying that their coping is justified completely, just that the moment the J-15T was revealed that it was over for itbug reporting wise since there literally arent any sources on said plane
3 Likes
then how do they know its wrong
they dont but we cant prove they are either, so its up to them