Its rear aspect, but even 1955 AIM-9B has 4km IR lock range. So this change is way off. Totally out of proportion.
3 Likes
I feel like it is also going to help with intercepts at close range which IRIS-T really struggles with, since it can only guide so many missiles at once, I’ve had SAMP-T/BUK intercept all 8 PARS missiles from 5 to 6 km range, it’s insane.
But at the very least they should program some logic for both aircraft and ordinance, with aircraft having greater lock range, 4 km is just baffling bad for aircraft, 10 km needs to stay for it.
1 Like
It is not rear aspect, you are making a mistake here.
The seeker keeps its lock ranges that it has now, it will not be active tho.
After it is activated, it goes back to its old lock ranges, so around 10km all around depending on multitude of things.
Just like the case with the Leopard 2A7V Armor, surely we didnt improved it since the Leopard TVM Tests
1 Like
Was it really necessary to make it perform even worse? Already taking heavy creative liberties in fabricating whats real and whats not among plenty other very fun things like mi-28 magically dodging every missile or the gimped interception rate.
7 Likes
the problem is that mi28 thing that slap ir missile should have limitations of only 2 missile at time so 3 fired irist should do the jop and should not be instant should take from 5 to 10 seconds and that mean should work only at like 10 seconds distant like 4km is limit where it should hit you if you Crose 4km range because it take time to blind ir missile
Well, guys, I do hope the thing they’re trying to do is to fix IRIS-T from locking onto each other, sky, hyperborea and Santa Claus himself. I really hope it’s that.
But… It’s not a problem that requires attention. It doesn’t affect it’s plane killing potential, only potential to intercept munitions.
1 Like
And that’s why they should’ve left it alone, at least they could’ve tried to code some logic depending on the target, this nerf seems completely unwarranted and as always, no sources for the nerf.
Grave mistake my friend.
Dear gaijin, please stop coding, we’ve had enough.
1 Like
It’s all so tiresome, you can’t really balance this missile, Gaijin must’ve been grinding their teeth out when they had no choice but to add it to the game.
But seriously, is it so hard to change the lock range on the fly depending on the type of target? The game can tell which is which…
No no, it is balanced. Underperforming even, especially at close range. The thing is - if cas isn’t forced to change their ways the missile is underperforming.
The thing is that IRIS-T can not be multipathed, but for that it pays with being a low energy/relatively slow missile that can be just wiggled away and still allows you to ripple your FnF A2G munition before you need to react, unlike buk and ASTER/CAMM.
2 Likes
Remove Kh-38 and we wouldn’t need systems like IRIS-T. I have zero sympathy for adding more broken systems to Russia and then lamenting it’s too hard to balance.
1 Like
If they are nerfing IRIS-T from 25 km lock range to just 4 then, Kh-38 should have its lock range nerfed as well, since IRL it has worse thermals than early T-80s, this is what <270 mk looks like.
This is what Kh-38MT would see in reality according to the brochure that was dug up, Gaijin thinks they are putting 3rd gen thermals on a missile lmao.
So the lock range should be a few kilometers at best, and it would only see smudges at anything past a few kilometers, since it was only designed to hit factories and ships anyway.
9 Likes
Is there a cover for this? Please and thanks
1 Like
This was found last year, I don’t know who has or where it was found but it appears legit as there was also another page covering the ML specs, I think it came from an expo in China or India?
It was posted in the Kh-38 thread originally.
1 Like
Zhughai airshow china 2024
1 Like
Yes that’s it, thank you.
Honestly the treatment Russia get in regards top quality of Thermals is outrageous T-90M and T-80/72 are using versions of an old Thales sight.
Every tank in NATO should have massively superior optics
6 Likes
It’s offtopic, but I’ll say it anyways.
I think PUMA should have recieved 3rd person thermals due to how it’s system works. That’s probably true for some other machines as well. (0 of them would be soviet though, that’s exactly why to everyone reading and even to me the sheer thought of it feels like herecy)
Thermal imagers-wise, I mean, it was talked about for a looong time - there’s no way in hell industrial complex that is struggling to produce a single modern tank is capable of strapping TGP level thermals onto expendable missiles.
5 Likes