For those that are unaware, all aircraft in game generally get a rather generous 1.5x G limit in their flight model when compared to their IRL max loadings. This makes them more comfortable to fly, especially the ones who would be constantly ripping wings without this boost.
Meanwhile, Gaijin’s argument to avoid buffing the Stingers and analogues to what has been researched as their historical 22G pull, is that the missile does not seem areodynamically capable of it. Leaving most nations without credible air defense around 9.0-10.0. Even fully loaded jets can quite easily juke the current low G missiles with simple maneuvers, often without seriously interrupting their attack runs.
Well, if they’re so hung up on that, seems to me the simplest interim solution would be to simply give Stingers and their analogues 1.5x their current G loadings. So that would be 15G for all Stingers and the Type 93s, and 18G for the Mistrals. This would boost missiles equally to the boost aircraft are given (In defiance of their structural limits), and should make them far less easily avoided with simple manuevers. These still wouldn’t be easy kills, 15/18G won’t save your from poor firing solutions, and many CAS aircraft would still be able to exploit their poor lock range and hit them from outside it.
Before anyone brings it up, there’s no reason to boost other, higher performance IR SAMs like the Type 81 and Strela, as these missiles already pull hard enough to be unavoidable with a good launch. And I don’t see a need to buff aircraft missiles in the same way, as early missiles are more or less balanced around being consistently evadable, and later missiles don’t need any help hitting targets.
Ultimately, I just want SPAA to be actually competant at shooting down CAS, rather than just being easily evadable food for them. And since Gaijin refuses to go to the full 22G limit, perhaps a moderate option in the interrim would be more palatable.
1.5x is not on top of their airframe limit, that’s on top of the MANUAL limit, and the manual limit is never the airframe limit.
1.5x was chosen because that’s typically how much airframes can handle above their manual limit before they break IRL.
Gaijin isn’t avoiding buffing anything because Gaijin doesn’t buff/nerf. Gaijin is still researching Stingers and that takes time. On top of that, next major isn’t even out yet.
As for 9.0 - 10.0 not having SPAA, try top BR. SPAA hasn’t been effective at top BR in over 8 months. The only way to kill CAS in top BR is with a fighter.
There are a lot of issues, this is already bug reported, and all we can do is be patient as they continue their research.
22G irl yes and it nature of MANPADS it should be deadly against low flying aircraft and helicopter (see what they did in Ukraine) this game make it so weak can’t even lock on heli more than 2KM but made TY-90 perform well enough
IIRC, that was Gaijin’s argument. I can’t recall where I saw it (I remember it being somewhere during the King of Battle Update prelude), so feel free to correct me/provide a source if someone finds it.
This is not done to make aircraft more comfortable to use, it is done to be realistic. The maximum allowable g in the flight manual is just that, the maximum the pilot is allowed to pull, according to air force rules. It is not the g at which the aircraft’s wings will snap off, or the maximum instantaneous g capability of the aircraft.
All aircraft are designed with a factor of safety in real life. In the United States this is specified in law as 1.5, meaning that whatever g the manufacturer allows the pilot to pull they must design the aircraft such that it will not experience structural failure until at least 1.5 x that amount. Many other countries also use a 1.5 factor of safety for aircraft, so that’s what Gaijin use as a baseline.
For example in WW2 Britain used a factor of safety of 2.0 and this is what the RAF Pilot training manual says about it:
This also seems to assume that all 3 MANPADS present are single channel (which to me means they can only use either their X axis fins or Y axis fins) rather than both at the same time which seems like a pretty gross oversight on the part of the missile designers when they could benefit from dual-plane guidance for a significant part of the missile’s flight
Further more, the stinger missile specifies 4 control surfaces
Which means that under any circumstance it should always be able to apply some turning force to the missile. The only variation would be between single and dual plane as the missile rotates to give all four fins and ideal angle vs only giving 2 an ideal angle
Unless I’ve not noticed something fundamental about the control surface design (they don’t appear pitched so I assume they react like any other control surface with variable angle of attack)
I’ve made a report about the MIM-72G’s launch range against Helos. I found evidence a test occured against a helo where it achieved a hit at 8km range. MIM-72G uses a similar seeker as the Stinger so anyone interested should check it out.