This is the missile’s flight distance, not the launch distance. Show me more.
but what matters is the missile’s flight range, it doesn’t matter if you fired it from 100 km away if the missile only travelled 50 km. The point is that 60 km kills are common, and there are plenty of people who don’t know the basics of air combat
Well, that’s their problem. They’ll be catching meteors and R37s.
But for those in the know, nothing much will change. I wouldn’t even use these long range missiles in the game. They are useless in close combat at 20 km, where conventional current missiles will show better results.
It depends, but generally speaking, the maps will also have to be expanded, ECMs will have to be included in the game, and it will be a different kind of game. But debating this now is pointless new missiles have already been denied in the next update.
Still, even within more typical ranges, say 20-30km. The Meteor is going to have an extremely fast travel time, as it will be maintaing mach 3.5+ the entire way and its launch conditions wont really matter much. A target at those kinds of ranges is going to have a tough time defending. It’s also likely going to be a C&P of the MICA seeker.
again it easily could due to being dual pulse, because that can effectively make the NEZ the distance it can travel with only the first pulse
What difference does it make what the speed will be if it cant turn to the target? Too high a speed reduces the rockets maneuverability in dense layers of the atmosphere.
This will be the worst update ever. If they do it. The current maps are perfectly for combat even with these missiles. 100km from spawns is fine.
No reason it would be any less than AMRAAM
But no one launches missiles at 100 km. An air battle will begin, on average, at around 35 km. And launching from respawn or runway after reloading, a meteor, or an R37 won’t do anything. You need speed and altitude to launch. At low altitude, you wont even get 2.5M.
Not really with Meteor. Booster will get it up to Mach 2 and then Ramjet to Mach 4. If the ranges were more like 40-50km, then the target would still be in LSZ even with poorer launch conditions
Dude, you can’t fly at 4M at a altitude of 2,000 meters with rocket with this size and power. To accelerate to such an altitude, you would need fuel equal to that of a ballistic missile, and even then, not all ballistic missiles can do that. And secondly, even if we assume that it can fly at that speed at that altitude, it won’t be able to any turn.
Launch altitude and speed. This 60% of the rocket’s speed and capabilities.
Sure, but then if the target is dumb enough to be flying that low, then I can just close the gap significantly and punish them with a massive altitude advantage.
My average operating altitude is 25-30k ft.
If AIM-260 is meant to be a counter to PL-15, won’t it have some similar figures about its characteristics like speed and range?
Where’s that from? Somewhere reliable enough to use in a bug report? I’m a bit surprised even that amount of information is known publicly, considering how tight-lipped the US seems to have been about AIM-260 in general.
1 Like
IIRC Fakor 90 gets fairly close to Meteor’s claimed performance in game. Nothing else is really close though.
WHAT ABOUT CHINA
Tale old as time
The TT of copy paste petty vehicles.
How would meteor perform within 50-60 km?
Since ARB is Arcade now due to air spawns, we have more than enough speed (starting at Mach) and can easily climb to start spamming missiles from 100km away. If we brought back ARB and start on the ground (like we are supposed to), it’d be a different story. But nope, “much realism” players wanted to play Arcade.