While they don’t, it would be a very marketing move to do.
Well, that just might be it.
1 Like
the new seeker has improved range according to MBDA
it is possible it can anticipate the movements of a highly maneuvering target better, making it more efficient up high, where thinner air limits the missile movements
After all it is max intercept altitude, not the maximum altitude the missile can physically go
As for the 30km range, maybe the missile already had the energy to do so, but lacked the battery, lot of speculation for now anyway
1 Like
I see, I hadn’t even thought about that.
Thank you for your kind explanation.
Tbf, it is not said anywhere. And remember, intercept might be = to max.
1 Like
We know from other examples that intercept altitude is for a rather compliant moving aircraft rather than a hovering helicopter at 20km altitude (which is impossible btw).
1 Like
You may already be aware of this, but I am asking again just in case.
On the official Eurosam website’s Aster 30 section, it states: “For both naval and ground missions, Aster 30 missile and its evolutions (B1 or New Technology)”, and lists the range as “In excess of 150 km”. This description is almost identical to the one for the Aster 30 in the SAMP/T NG section, which I shared in the second image earlier.
From this, can it be concluded that the B1 has the same range as the NT?
I’m not saying helicopter. For example: … to surface missile flying at 20km. They tend to fly straight, so hitting one in that regard is not hard. And it would be effective.
The NT is relatively new, like others have stated, some factors in its software or kinematics could have been changed but are yet to be disclosed. As well, the conditions achieving such range are also not known.
Tangentially you could reason Block 1 and B1NT as the same missile. It’s more the amount of corroborative evidence that’s why some figures are listed conservatively. Some nuances like maximum range can be explored later, and bug reported if necessary.
The system would already do well for range in its listed configuration and capabilities.
Tbf, the max range will be, interesting in game.
Unless the better sourced French side has documents, best the radar will do is 80km. Ofc that is already overkill, but max range will not be used, unless it will spend (assuming it is 120) min 24km in IOG (ARH seekers in game have 16km max range).
1 Like
I see.
Hopefully, more information will be released someday so that we can learn the details.
1 Like
I agree that I do wonder how it would be represented, if plans for it haven’t been abandoned entirely. The range alone makes the powercreep unreal.
last time I heard, plans did not change
We jumped from 8 to 16 to 40, and Buk will be ~75, so, yea, powercreep is fineeeee.
1 Like
I do believe there are intentions to reach Patriot-comparative systems within the foreseeable future. But thats speculation and rumour for now
1 Like
That is for sure. And all that on a tiny, max 2km, map with open spawns and terrain to hide for plane and pop up last second :p
Jumping to MRAD is cool and all, but game is not suited for it.
1 Like
I believe a balance could be reached regarding CAS and AA were more Patriot-like systems added, alongside the anticipated implementation of SEAD (whatever form that takes; Standoff or Anti-rad).
Map limits need to be expanded for ground. These systems are taller than some buildings and are easy to snipe in spawn