both camms feel pretty bad to use against munitions
Yeah, known issue
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UntlNGV5ZdSU
But Gaijin is being Gaijin
5 months ago
yep…
Shouldn’t have brexit and get IRIST by now while the dev not fixing this damn thing LMAO
Getting sources and reporting those sources for CAMM is quite tricky, but I know core issues include things like, well:
Let alone the launcher itself
There is also an issue regarding CAMM-ER being extremely slow iirc, CAMM and CAMM-MR are both subsonic at the same ranges, despite the fact that CAMM-ER should have double the range. Meaning that CAMM-ER is not really a kinematic upgrade like it should be
But TLDR:
CAMM cant actually hit targets, especially smaller ones like drones and missiles because it just misses, that trumps any other issue imo
Aster-30 also has problems hitting drones, we just haven’t bothered reporting that yet but was on our to-do list. I don’t mean to make it into a competition of who suffers more, but the context of the conversation was that Panther said the Aster-30 performed better than Buk which wasn’t true. All of these missiles should be fixed, and afaik, only the Buk is the only top tier SAM that doesn’t underperform. But it is also true that the Aster-30 has the most open reports demonstrating a significant amount of underperformance in terms of kinetic/maneuverability. Aster-30 for example, is missing 50km in kinetic range.
Sure, Buk is definetly the best ARH SAM at the moment.
But between Sky Sabre and Aster-30 I know which Id want to use and its not the Sky Sabre
The number of CAMM reports will probably double when they add ASRAAM, its just that CAMM cant really be reported at the moment
thats also not forgetting the Sky Sabre reports as well
Besides the maneuverability, I thought the CAMM was performing as expected btw in terms of speed/range? It outperforms the ASRAAM’s scenario, which is understandable as it contains lower drag due to the radar seeker head. I’d be glad to be proven wrong.
im not sure on CAMM, but CAMM-ER should basically double the range, but it doesnt, it should have a 45km range but is barely M0.8 at 20-25km
Kinematics and maneuverability is sadly not something that can be reported with CAMM/ER, as developers say it is just as they want it do be.
I have tested it multiple times, but i was unable to make them turn 50G, devs say there is no issue.
Kinematics are also not reportable, as without sources this is considered more than fine.
Yes, it takes 25s to get to 14km, the missile is subsonic at that point and then another 65s to get to 25km.
2 Likes
Yeah unfortunately I have come across similar issue where some missiles never hit their maximum G load, and that’s not enough for developers even if you demonstrate it. I suppose one of the few ways to get CAMM fixed might be to find the battery time and hope it is less than 65 seconds.
That’s pretty absurd, should be about Mach 1 at 25km rather than Mach 0.3, since missiles just fall out of the air generally below Mach 1 and is unable to hit their targets.
1 Like
Yes, it is.
And for the same of clarity, target plane did not maneuver at all, it was flying in a straight line, so when the missile is turning, it is even worse.
Im not sure here, but battery time might be corerct here. The thing that is problematic, is that the devs decided it needs to use it whole to get to its max range. So they made it lose the speed astonishingly quickly.
1 Like
So i went, and decided to check it
0.8s, engine start
Max speed at 4.8s
5.0s, missile is already slowing down
Mach 2,5 at 7,4s, missile traveled 4,5km
Mach 2 at 10,7s, missile traveled 7km
Mach 1,5 at 15,5s, missile traveled 9.8km
Mach 1 at 23,5s, missile traveled 13km
37,5s, missile starts diving at the target, mach 0,73, 16,9km travelled
the dive keeps it at 0,7 mach
After 58,3s, the missile hits the target 21,8km away (the launch was when the target was slightly over 25km away, going towards the tank battle zone in a straight line).
2 Likes
So what are you testing?
Not testing anything per se, just showing how terrible at holding speed this missile is.
I understand the frustration but at the same time this is all happing at altitudes way lower then 10km which is the flight altitude of the CAMM-ER. this means at these lower altitudes it has a harder time accelerating and has more friction with the air which all put togther heavilly decrease the range of the missile.
Now I am not saying that the DEVs has modeled this correctly but I feel like the best way to test this is have a target at 10km alt or something along those lines to give it a fair test.
First of all, that is a base CAMM, not CAMM-ER.
Second, where did you get data that 10km is its flight altitude?
Ah my mistake thought you were talking about the ER variant. tho they still should share the same flight altitude.
My source for the flight altitude:
That is most likely not normal, but max flight altitude. Nevertheless i will test it later.
1 Like