Get ready for another month of pending XD
1 Like
Yea, a week and im asking for its removal, then im adding the fuze source and another week
One a related note - has GJN explained why the ADATS has to be designated as a tank destroyer? It isn’t even that effective at killing tanks compared to some of the high tier soviet SPAA.
2 Likes
Air defence anti tank system
I know that’s what it stands for…but it’s primary purpose is Air defence. 50% of the name is “air defence”, so it’s literally up to GJN to decide what they want to designate it. Of course they designate it TD so that it screws with US/UK lineups.
They keep adding new Russian SPAA, and buffing it (strela is still broken at 10.0), without adding or fixing broken vehicles for other nations…
Well when ADATS added for the first time it was a really good tank destroyer considering missiles was behaving differently and top tier tanks wasnt as armed as compare to latest ones.
So i understand why they did it like that but in recent environment it can change to Spaa actually.
1 Like
Even then - why not just nerf its anti-tank capabilities instead of leaving us without a top tier SPAA? It’s stuff like this that just cements my opinion of GJN’s bias towards certain nations.
I don’t think this is a good argument, since there is also an “Air Defence” in there. In fact, ADATS was a response to the Canadian Forces Low-Level Air Defence (LLAD) program. It never played the role of an anti-tank system in real life besides during tests.
1 Like
Snail simply not wanted you to spawn 8 missiles that theoreticly can pen any tank for spaa cost.
1 Like
İ dont know man i dont have answer for that, i dont think gaijin have it as Well.
Not that you could kill tanks with the ADATS considering how the missiles jitter about in 50m jumps making hitting them impossible.
You could in the past, before the missile changes.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151011165904/http://www.aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Events/710/10)%20Ronnie%20Fleming.pdf
Model Based Design employed in LMM development presentation by Ronnie Fleming, Technical Specialist,
Guidance, Control & Simulation, Thales.
I don’t know if there is anything useful here, maybe this:
In terms of LMM airframe characteristics these have similarities with Starburst. Rather than conducting extensive wind tunnel tests to generate LMM aerodynamic data the legacy Starburst aerodynamic data has been used as a starting point from which LMM aerodynamic characteristics have been derived.
About the conference where this was presented: https://web.archive.org/web/20151023064455/http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Events/710/Trials_Modelling_&_Validation_Conference_Programme.pdf
From what year is the LMM presentation?
Also it is nothing new, as LMM is verry simmialr build wise to Starburst, or at least its early version was. Current LMM is thiccer, longer, has bigger canards and deploy additional 4 fins in 1/3 of its lenght
1 Like
15 november 2012
So far from its first flight in 2019 (the version we have now first dates to around 2019)
Yes i know the missile started its life in 2011, im talking about the version integrated and launched from a stormer
I guess im going to say PID then
Seems Stormer HVM will be replaced in the British Army by a URO VAMTAC with Thales RapidRanger in the near future
Imagine it will be a similar setup to what’s used by Malaysia and Indonesia, but the fact it’s listed in Medium Protected Mobility suggests we might have it on VAMTAC ST5 rather than the lighter VAMTAC LTV
1 Like
