The AGM-114Ls are a MMW Radar seeker. They’d be practically undetectable by planes and Helis while having quite an extended range.
Pair this with the info regarding turret modulation as well as the NGSRI and/or SABER, and this absolutely would be a perfect new top tier vehicle. I get you, and others, want the SLAMRAAM- but quite frankly if this won’t cut it, that one won’t cut it either. At least this has more than the Mk. 1 eyeball and has a valid radar seeking warhead.
But even with the extended range, won’t the AGM-114Ls be extremely slow and have poor maneuverability (in Gaijin’s eyes)?
Relatively; but they are perfect for Heli slinging since they can loft and thanks to the MMW Seeker shouldn’t exactly be chaffed easily, or at the very least shouldn’t be picked up by RWR. The SABER/NGSRI would be better for aircraft.
It currently uses XM1211, High Explosive Programable (Is just probably M789 w/ programable fuse) & XM1198 HEDP-SD (M789 HEDP w/ Self Destruct set for 2000m)
~50mm of flat penetration @ 200RPM (25mm@ 60 degrees) doesn’t seem so bad (superior to PGU-20 past ~ 400 meters) So is a slight improvement over the GAU-12 against light armor at all ranges (since PGU-20 is APCR it doesn’t fragment, though with 6x (1800 RPM * 2/3 (occurrence in the belt)) the effective fire rate) since it will reliably pen IFVs and light armor at all distances and expanded angles.
Now that Gaijin have revised large caliber HEAT performance, the next thing to do would be look at separating HEAT-F / HEDP shells from HEAT hopefully into an entire overhaul of how the CE damage model works entirely, to move it away from the fact that the most important performance indicator above all else is explosive mass.
I just hope that Gaijin decides to do something at some point soon. Even if it was the MIM-46 or a captured Pantsir / Tor at this point.
Cannon wise its slightly worse imo mainly due to the velocity, but the lack of the LAU-68 is a massive downgrade anti-armor wise, given, you know, 19 Hydra 70s in the can.
Yeah and when you pair the hydras with a proper sight for ranging ive easily got kills past 1km with them against MBTS
LAV-AD is a crazy vehicle some times
I’ve always struggled to aim them properly due to the offset, and lack of assistance from the scope, I wish they had the M151(10lb HE) / M266 (17lb HE) as an option in place of the M247 HEAT so they could be slightly more forgiving against light armor.
For me its the rather quick drop they have, always shooting low off the cusp, but I find them great at close range as a sort of a uppercut against the sides of MBTs.
Never done such myself, always forget to re-range my sight when trying to use them.
Add it to the suggestion page & just see what happens
Ive tried, and it wasn’t accepted. I have a feeling it has to do with sources. But. Maybe with some help I’ll try again
What is the range of this missile?
It appears to have better air defense capabilities than the LAV-AD and XM975.
Why are we responsible for finding sources? Isn’t gaijin responsible for making a good game with realistic game play?
It should be on them to find sources and implement a balanced vehicle for their player base. If a bunch of their player base wants a vehicle added to the game, they should oblige.
Stating our sources aren’t good enough is a lazy excuse to put forth minimal effort by their developers. Don’t they have the resources to invest on research of their own? They should just implement the vehicles their fans want to see in the game.
I don’t know. I don’t really have any idea.
But on a fun note… Increment 3 live fire tests are now for 2028! (Boooo). Long after this vehicle will become obsolete…
And also, the Army is halting the use of Hellfires on the side. They wear too much and are a hazard. That said, they aren’t currently replacing them with anything. Units just can’t use the Hellfires.
Also, it’s appearently at Eurostatory??? So if anyone in Europe at the event wants to do me a favor and dig up some info that would be great thanks.
Might want to ask in the following topic, it had someone taking photos.
Going to have to do some reading, but happened across this Patent relating to FIM-92B control system to make some determinations.
but yeah, its absolutely a little more complicated than the bang bang schema the Igla uses. Or the earlier FIM-43 (Redeye) & FIM-92A.
Funny bit is that the FIM-43 and 92A neither used bang bang from the start, the FIM-43’s own design documentation talks about how the system is purely prop nav with variable fin control.
The following explicitly states that not all of the lift comes from the control surfaces, wich practically sinks Gaijin’s entire argument.
The desired-direction lift and quadrature lift ( the resultant force component in orthogonal direction due to the moment no longer being balanced caused by rotating frame of reference and motive fins being recessed at that instant)
which result are also shown in FIGURE 9. (US3010677A, see above)
Actually, the lift force generated by the wings is only a fraction of the required lift force. The remainder of the force is provided by the fuselage.
So at a reductive level yes, the Igla and the Redeye work effectively the same way (implementation is slightly different due to differing mechanization). For the Improved Guidance & Control section of the Stinger it has an additional set of oscillating, and Feedback inputs as to avoid building excessive inertia which it would then need to overcome.
Prior to the invention set forth in the hereinafter cited copening application, control of a rolling missile was effected by utilizing fixed incidence, variable area canards or wings which were extended into the missile air stream at a certain point in the revolution of the missile, as described (see Figure 9, above) The present invention constitutes another means for accomplishing the control of a rolling missile and is an improvement over the system described and claimed in (US3010677)
The servosystem of the present invention utilizes variable incidence wings or control surfaces as did the system disclosed in the above mentioned copending application. However, this invention provides an air vehicle such as a missile with a pair of fixed wings or canards and a pair of variable incidence control surfaces or canards which are continuously dithered or vibrated so as to provide instantaneous movement due to the elimination of the initial inertial force.
So the fins are strong enough to make it pull significant AOA (and thus generate body lift)?
Not, exactly. What happens with the Redeye is that in the instant when the paired set of control surfaces (one set of planar surfaces that can deflect), need to change orientation (Imagine the procession of the target the plane of wings though image 2, 3 & 4 of the series of five rotational states in Figure 9; or basic trig “Sin(ref and signal phase)” being of opposed magnitude ), due to the target falling behind the plane of the control surface they are suddenly commanded to change their defection to the opposite limit but until that occurs they are deflected to some degree and so generate lift in that direction for that half of the rotation for some period of time as rotates around its axis.
Due to the fact that as a rolling airframe it has to pick some rate, and either Clockwise or Counterclockwise rotation (and it does vary over the flight), the time it spent with surfaces deflected out of the desired plane of maneuver, either against or with the direction of rotation causes the net change to be towards the direction of the point of intercept, but due to having non-limited inertia and no method for fin AoA feedback it doesn’t take the shortest path, but a curvilinear one.
(in a sense its like one of those very basic line following robots with two wheels that students program where if it sees a Low return the wheels rotate in opposite directions, and once it sees High it reverses the motors and so can follow a path by oscillating backwards and forwards with the sensor and line’s width determining pathing)
The Stinger on the other hand has two sets of Planar Control surfaces (once deployed one set is fixed at some AoA, the other can freely deflect into the airstream) this allows it to use the fixed surface’s inherent lift generation (and implicit moment coupling) to allow it to maintain the rotation and thus control surface effectiveness and not need the motive surfaces to provide the moment coupling.
By dithering the motive surfaces, what is happening is that its avoiding the onset of the sustained inertia of the missile, by minimizing average out of plane rotation, because commands are no longer continuous (full deflection over a half rotation), but discrete inertial kicks in the more correct net direction of the target.
The relevant exerpt is as follows
Due to an oscillator, described presently, in the electronic portion of the guidance and control section 12 which causes continuous motion or dithering of the control surfaces 14, the motor 41 is sensitive to very small signals from the seeker section 11 since the dithering action overcomes the inertial effects of moving control surfaces 14.
Part of this is due the fact that the surfaces cycle around ~250 times a second, and the missile body rotates at approximately 14~17Hz or so. and actuating at much higher rate reduces the apparent inertial forces significantly.