Yeah, it sucks :(. It could be the perfect continuation of the bomber line.
I hope next update they rework bombing objectives, it becomes unplayable with a team full of bomber, 16 players with a rate of 7 bombers per team and only 4 bases for 2 players, the other can’t do anything, the rework is urgent maybe more bases, other system than bases, instant respawn of bases or indestroyable base
yes, but I don’t see a Direct counterpart(the Listed ships are all American but there are examples that could be used for other nations like Italy the UK, Japan and Germany) as possible (in either sense). As both of the available missiles for the system(S-125 / SA-3) that the Bravyi is equipt with sits awkwardly somewhere between the RIM-2, RIM-7, RIM-8 and RIM-24 and so there isn’t really a suitable counterpart as they are either completely outranged or warhead weight / missile count / guidance mechanism becomes an issue.
So you’d practically have a bunch of existing Ships which swap out the Aft turret(s) for the same missile fits with the main difference being the displacement of the ship and secondary armament;
-
DDG-1 (USS Gyatt, a converted Gearing class Destroyer[BR of 4.7]) which uses the RIM-2, being the closest counterpart(~2,400 vs 2200 Ton displacement)
- and the Bravyi [5.3] is a scaled down Neustrashimy which sits at 5.0 as a reference, so would likely sit at prospective BR of 5.3 with the RIM-2B being most similar to the upgraded V-601, not the V-600 missile it is equipt with, and using beam riding instead of Command guidance techniques for guidance.
-
CAG-2 (USS Canberra, a converted Baltimore Class Heavy Cruiser[BR of 6.0]) uses the RIM-2,
-
DL-2 (USS Mitscher, a converted Mitscher-class Frigate [BR of 4.7] ) uses the RIM-24
-
CL-91 (USS Oklahoma City, a converted Cleveland class Light Cruiser[BR of 6.0] ) uses the RIM-8
-
And I doubt that it would be relevant it but there is also the FF-1052 USS Knox, a Knox-class Frigate that uses RIM-7’s with a 8 cell VLS as its missile armament.
1 Like
Already in game, is called Mirage 2000-5F (not joke)
@Smin1080p apparently the steam devblog for the Su-25BM lost the R-73 wording. Will the aircraft still get R-73s?
as much as i would love it i doubt it is intented, the gajin news side still got the r73 version
No R-73 means we never get IRCCM missiles in a balanced state.
And they’re coming regardless due to us reaching peak airframe performance.
You’re going to have to square that circle, as that doesn’t make any sense. Sure it would be an inversion of what happened historically but we are currently in an AIM-7F / -7M vs R-27ER meta right now so it wouldn’t be the first time that this has happened.
Is that why I never die to radar missiles in air RB?
Also, how is their historical behavior "an “inversion”?
SARH is performing exactly as it should for low altitude targets, and fine for higher alt targets.
Even the earlier AMRAAM Cs see aircraft reflections of low targets IRL.
Also you’re mistaking ground reflection & ground clutter, those are different phenomenon.
Which doesn’t impact SAHRs since their commands are tied with the host radar on the aircraft.
Gaijin has always added A2A weapons to the weakest airframes first for testing, then expanded afterward.
That’s their known behavior.
Without R-73 being added now, on the worst airframe, IRCCM is FAR more difficult to implement.
I bet you were against Aim-9L when A-10 was announced, otherwise there’s a double standard.
There is no attempt to establish dissimilar balance at all, there never has been.
I found this.
Here some copy pasta from some dcs thread when it comes to SARH being confused by ground reflection:
- Inverse monopulse uses a form of polarization (encoding a “direction” into a split signal)
- Reflections of Aircraft do NOT mess with polarization
- Signals reflected from the ground DO mess with polarization.
→ It is unlikely that missiles confuse the ground with the aircraft, but not entirely impossible
Link to the dcs reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/zoa7tu/are_inverse_monopulse_sarh_seekers_immune_to/
1 Like
I kinda doubt War Thunder would ever manage to model this correctly, as some seekers would be susceptible to ground reflection and others wouldn’t. Anyway, continue your discussion.
You worded it better than I could, thank you.
Bit this kind of goes against ur point. As it looks like the Skayflash for example would be able to ignore ground reflections and possibly the aim-7M too, which is not the case in game currently.
Somebody more intelligent and better at research than me could try to bug report all missiles that would be affected. But I feel like that would break top tier pretty badly if that change ever went through.
Either have a fun game, or a simulator. Pick ur poison. Sorry for the spam. Pls no ban.
There’s currently not enough documentation available to fully model monopulse properties.
Missile ships are always a possibility in a major update, but most of the time don’t appear or lack the guided component of their armament. No word on the possibility of seeing more means that while they’re again possible for the upcoming one, it 's equally possible they won’t.
There 's not a whole lot we can say towards possible missile destroyers at present, most evidence we’ve seen points towards smaller ships. But there 's also not nothing:
The OTO 76mm/62 Super Rapide is in the files unused, it was first employed by the Durand de la Penne- and modernized Audace- class guided missile destroyers from 1988 onwards, and on other ships since.
There 's a sensor preset named " Type 992Q ", also unused. It was historically employed by the Royal Navy 's missile destroyers and cruisers from the 60 's onwards, but since the underlying " sensor " of a ship 's radar in WT rarely corresponds to the one used irl it remains to be seen if this has any relevance to possible future additions.
1 Like
Alright.