Even if gaijin actually implements proper rolling airframe missile flight mechanics, it would still be a buff for Mistral, Stinger and Type 91. Especially considering these NATO missiles have proper PID control systems and closed loop control feedback loops, so the big post they claimed proved all rolling airframe missiles cannot make use of their full potential G load doesn’t apply to missiles that are not SA-14.
With proper rolling airframe missile flight mechanics, Mistral, Stinger and Type 91 would be very solid kinematically. Easily capable of intercepting and hitting targets flying at speed and in high G turns.
20~22G overload, 6.5Km lock-on and Optical contrast mechanics would make for a pretty consistent threat, though the limited size of the missile means performance won’t quite be to Strela levels, it should nicely cover the ranges between that of massed HE-VT and proper Tactical level SAMs in a layered defense.
If this is a thing about the BR going up due to improved efficiency, there’s practically no end to options to mount them on and thus fine tune their selection of ammo and go that way.
To some degree Model changes are slightly different to changing some numbers in a config file & C&P 'ing lines from others to enable functionality.
As they probably don’t have much of an internal modeling team anymore so need to slot work-task to correct the model into their pipeline (which is probably on a fairly long lead time so they don’t need to pay extra for a quick turn around), even if they would be fairly minor changes.
Ok? That doesn’t somehow change the fact that Western MANPADS are erroneously impacted by mechanics that they shouldn’t be due to an incorrect arbitrary decision, simply because 5 minutes weren’t spared to even try to google patents.
It was literally the third result in my search that found the POST seeker’s Patent, which directly listed those for the FIM-43’s guidance mechanism (which is functionally the same as the Igla, though using a Redeye as a baseline argument in the article would have tipped more people off as to what was happening), which then was referenced by the improved Stinger set. it took me all of 5 minutes to actually find.
You can’t just delete vehicles that already use Stingers. Making this buff go through would put many of those at BRs where they get outranged probably even more than at the moment.
If it was needed, all that would be need would be to simply limit their ammo to to the FIM-92A, and go from there returning various variants until balance was achieved. As it would not benefit from the Lock-on range extension, Optical-Contrast mechanic and lose the FoV reduction IRCCM.
Further IR SAMs should use a SAM-bush tactics and are obviously a shorter ranged option to prevent pop up attacks and where they are most effective.
Alternately they could just drop the BR of proper SAMs to encourage Layered Defenses to actualy pose a threat to various levels of Guided CAS.
They could do many things but they won’t.
Realistically FIM-92K with those buffs couldn’t exist below 10.7 at the very least, even on gun-less platforms like Ozelot.
They have pretty thin armor and it’s not like CCIP + Rockets doesn’t handily deal with most launch platforms so it’s not that much of an issue if you see them first.
That’s not really true, even at 9.7 BR there are a number of platforms fast enough to get in and out of MANPAD range while conducting an attack. The only change would be requiring high speed CAS to actually plan their approach, instead of just loitering and looping over the battlefield. Dedicated attackers without that performance will have sufficient flares to decoy the NATO missiles if properly employed.
given strela would still out preform them in multiple aspects I disagree, unless you have suddenly realized that strela doesnt belong at its current BR and that it should move up to the same point as those post buff stingers
