The double standard when talking about the Brimstone's capabilities

[HondaCivici]

Here’s also a fact, Mavericks perform terribly at ranges greater exceeding the 7km, this is because it’s motor doesn’t last that long, and it doesn’t have a sustainer resulting in a significant drop off in speed over time. This is why mavericks can take upwards from 40 seconds to over a minute for some launches. By that time, the enemy could intercept, smoke, get into cover/concealment, or die. The KH38 doesn’t suffer from this issue as it reach a higher speed and maintain that for a lot longer than the KH38. It can hit the target a lot faster. In addition of being high explosive which is a lot more reliable at killing targets than a heat warhead. That is what makes the KH38 deadlier than the mavericks

Sharing the spreadsheet doesn’t make you smart nor give your authority. You need to understand what the values mean, which you clearly showcased time and time again to not be the case.

The F16C only carries 6 mavericks not 8. GBU don’t count as standoff as you need to be at ann extremely high altitude while maintaining a point lock.

The SU34 is better at CAS because it can carry 6 reliable agms where as the F16 can carry 6 mediocre agms. The f16 is multi-role jet. It is bad nor is it excellent at cas, it is decent.

---

Groms are unique because it is the first GNSS munition to have an engine. This means that you don’t need to be at a certain alltitiude or range to release them as the Groms can do that it self. The rest of the GNSS munition are dependent or the platform speed and altitude. Though there are really good at keeping it’s energy.

I probably should just make a list of the things mavericks struggle at compared to the KH38 because I’m getting quite tired of educating you on the same thing again and again.

[AlvisWisla]

@HondaCivici Making false accusations against people reads as: So people that understand the spreadsheet don’t understand it, and those that don’t understand it do understand it.

I said stand-off, not Maverick.
8000 meters altitude is not “extremely high” and you need that altitude for Pantsir, TOR-M1, and ITO-90 regardless.

I’ve been using AGM-65D/Gs longer than you, so you cannot lecture me on a missile I already know about.

[tripod2008]

@AlvisWisla

Here’s a fact: KH-38 and Maverick have the same target acquisition ranges as proven by testing and a well put together spreadsheet

For now sure, but I’m building a report that should finally correct the Mavericks (and other US contrast seekers), exchanging a somewhat reduced lock on ranges (between 25~75% of what they are now) for an inability to area track and thus restore Contrast Seeker behavior. I have other sources that back this up too but Gaijin have previously refused to change the hardcoded values to even approach an accurate depiction.

@AlvisWisla

F-16C have superior CAS loadouts to F-15E/I.

Depends on if it receives the GBU-39/A as they can effectively be used as an rudimentary area weapon since they have significant magazine depth. It’s a shame that neither the SDB-II and AGM-187A aren’t also being added. But i guess that they are being witheld for an F-15E Late, Advanced Eagle prototype or F-15EX

@AlvisWisla

of F-15E/I if you bring the A2G loadout equal to that of F-16C.

You do know that the LAU-88 / BRU-61 and AAM carriage on the wing station aren’t actually exclusive right?

[AlvisWisla]

Appreciate the work, Tripod.

I also was more talking about IR guided GBU which would be mostly equal to F-16C’s laser GBU.
And IDK about Mav position at this time and compatibility with AIM-120s.

[Ritsu_Kuriaki]

But actually KH38ML is also powerful and it could even launch at about 16km… Meaningless to delete all fnf missiles.
Better give brimstone the same guide mode as KH38MT

By the way KH38MT even doesnt exist in the real world it is not realistic, right? @gaijin

[tripod2008]

The GBU-15 (and many other US IIR stores) uses the same WGU-10/B as the IIR variants of the AGM-65 so their tracking performance will be similar.

[Ritsu_Kuriaki]

British Bias!!!, thats the most brilliant joke i heard this year XD

[AlvisWisla]

Nation bias is indeed a joke at this time.
Though there are genuine concerns people have.
China bias if they got Singapore and/or Indonesia.
British bias if they were the only tech tree to get ARH AGMs.

[Ritsu_Kuriaki]

never mind, im hoping gaijin could give british player a brimstone with IR guidance and same range as mavs thats enough

[Ritsu_Kuriaki]

yeah but British Bias is the worst joke XD

[Ritsu_Kuriaki]

Guess what!! We got the most brief introduction of KH38MT!!
Reeeeeally impressive XD
why? beacause it doesnt exist at all

https://wiki.warthunder.com/Kh-38MT

[ex3333]

That will make things much worse.
it’s impossible for gaijin to model contrast seeker correctly.
Currently they made the track distance of EO weapons elevation angle and weather related to simulate the performance of contrast seeker, and it worked quite balanced
In the game, the lock range of the weapon in is about 50% of the datamine range which means 3km for maverick A,6 for maverick B and 11 for maverick D/G.
Look at FLIR of AA can’t track target at 4km because of a little piece of cloud and performance of laser GBUs, this is gonna be disastrous.

[Serasvonvictoria]

Before you accuse our impolite,you should learn more about what AlvisWisla did.But you don’t care,moreover,you and gaijin are glad to see person like this.When a truth is revealed,the lie must be created buy someone to prevent more people to know,because gaijin isn’t willing to face it.

[MightyBaozi]

The rules must be followed, no matter what the other person thinks/has previously done. It is well written in the guidelines that you need to respect other members.

[Serasvonvictoria]

In short,gaijin’s rule can endure the lie,but can’t endure the truth.If the rule can’t guard justice,it’s not worth following.I can obey the rule,but one day,gaijin’s prejudice will anger most people.

[MightyBaozi]

I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here… To avoid off-topic please just PM me and we can keep the discussion going there.

[tripod2008]

@ex3333

it’s impossible for gaijin to model contrast seeker correctly.

They already have 80% of what they might need implemented it’s just plugging values into one another until a threshold is met.

And they have already had them implemented in game well enough when they were initially implemented they were not capable of locking onto the ground, which is a Boolean value in each missile’s “.blk” file

In its most abstracted form all they need to do is flip the Boolean, and use a generic range cutoff ( can be based of known specs for the tracking gate of the seeker against a generic target at the optimal aspect angle)as they already do instead of the existing arbitrarily balanced range cutoff , which could be achieved with a some total required change of two lines of code for each missile that was impacted. That’s how few changes are needed.

@ex3333

In the game, the lock range of the weapon in is about 50% of the datamine range which means 3km for maverick A,6 for maverick B and 11 for maverick D/G.

As seen in the prior post that is exactly the issue, we have data points to the fact that that the AGM-65B should have an approximate range of 3~4.5km, and the -65A half that against “tactical” sized targets (T-62 was used as a stand in for a generic tank type target), which impacts the early systems / airframes (F-4, F-5, A-7, A-10A etc.), and range could be restored by the IIR or CCD Seeker (3x the range of the -65B) variants that most later airframes also have access to.

@ex3333

this is gonna be disastrous.

It won’t be as bad, as any potential shift in overall effectiveness can be accounted for by Shifting either IR SAMs down, or the impacted attackers around in BR depending on where things settle.

The report itself is still undergoing construction, as it’s quite complicated and has soultions with varying levels of abstraction are being proposed alternates if a truly dynamic range (apparent Target size vs tracking gate minimum & aspect ratio) is not feasible, based off said study and statistical analysis so things can be more or less hardcoded to better fit the data if nothing else.

By the way these ranges are for the point track of a moving target so to a point its not so much as a nerf, but a change which again is fairly neutral in impact and effectively eliminates a major source of user error in exchange for some variants losing some range.

There is also proof that some Variants (AGM-65F & -G) had a pilot selectable axis independent correlation seeker mode for attacking specific points of large targets (e.g. Ships & installations). which may solve issues relating to missing targets entirely targeting the centroid of the bonding box instead of the 3d model and so would reliably miss some targets from most angles outside a release from a fairly steep dive.

[ex3333]

“The preferred munition against armor was the AGM-65 Maverick missile.The typical attack profile of an aircraft carrying the electro-optical Maverick (AGM-65B) started with a 30-degree dive from an altitude of between from 10,000 and 15,000 feet; the aircraft then fired a single missile at two to three-nautical miles slant range from the target.” --Gulf War
Air Power Survey

I read that testing document before,and i don’t think it reflect the performance of the seeker, we can’t prove that the missile is launched at “max range” or “optimal range”.

From other sources the missile can be fired at 3NM in combat and more in certain condition,like what it does in game.

Man,look at PAVEWAYs, look at stinger,mistral and chaparral.You really think gaijin can fix this?

[tripod2008]

@ex3333

i don’t think it reflects the performance of the seeker

It’s a different document that literally states the size of the tracking gate for the AGM-65A & -65B so we can work backwards to figure out the ranges, the math’s not that hard and they even provide rules of thumb for the ranges so there isn’t really a need for anything especially complicated, those graphs are just for use as visual aids to help explain the intent of some of the alternate proposals to give Gaijin options.

That data can then be used to calibrate the various other seekers based on the relative performance to known values, it won’t be perfect but it would be far closer than the current implementation.

@ex3333

You really think gaijin can fix this?

There are a number of reports that have been accepted, so it’s up to Gaijin at this point.

• Paveway II / III / IV (All) - Laser lock range too short.

• JDAM Battery life incorrect

• (Photo)Contrast range extension for POST seeker FIM-92 var.

• FIM-92 Stinger have incorrect lock range

• Implementing accurate limits for FIM-92 maneuverability.

[GothFemboyHooter]

If i can use ccrp to lob a dumb bomb 4-5km and kill an spaa i think a gps bomb will do fine. You obviously have never actually used anything other than mavericks or kh38s to kill an spaa, been hand held a little too long.