JF-17 Thunder Discussions

Please do not remove the AP rockets! The tank damage system and overall ground vehicle damages in DCS is not really scientific.

BRM1 rockets are NOT AP, they are precision rockets, that likely carry a smaller HE warhead than "standard" unguided type 90 rockets (hence the range increase from 7km to 8km).

A smaller warhead doesn't negatively effect pk as, rather than used as an area of effect weapon, the rocket(s) are guided to the target with less risk to troops in contact or collateral damage.

The way I see it: A rocket doesn't need to destroy the tank, just disable it. In DCS we have alive or death and I think this is a great compromise for a disable tank.

BRM1 info is difficult to find but this seems close.

BRM1 90 Rocket

 

The BRM1 is a guided version of the heavy 90mm helicopter rockets, used to attack structures, infantry and light vehicles. In salvos, they can prove dangerous to even well protected tanks.=GT via China Defense Forum

 

NORINOC's BRM1 90mm guided rocket uses semi active laser guidance, has a range of 8 km and a weight of 16.8kg. It can even attack some aircraft, like low flying UAVs, as well as be used to attack concentrations of infantry, armored vehicles and high value targets like air defences and artillery. Launched in a salvo of seven rockets, the BRM1 could even overwhelm a tank's Active Protection System, like the Israeli Trophy, to hit the weak turret top armor. A WZ-10 attack helicopter could carry four pods of 7 BRM1s.

https://www.popsci.com/missiles-zhuhai-china-displays-new-strike-arsenal/

For info :-

The standard unguided 90mm Air-Launched Rocket weighs 14.6 to 17.1 kg with a 4.8-5.6 kg Warhead (HE, fragmentation, Incendiary) and adding a guidance kit likely halves this.

By comparison a 9K121 Vihkr weighs 45 kg with a 8–12 kg tandem HEAT charge.

While removing the BRM1's AP may spoil DCS gameplay, if it was "one shot" killing tanks, the WIP Deka BRM1 rocket was unrealistic and it's good the dev's are adjusting it.

The JF-17 has other weapons to deal with heavily armoured tanks.

No, it's a digital combat simulator. The rockets can be left as is right now, but the damage model for tanks should be updated someday.

Anyway, there is a lot that can be improved in the damage modeling of vehicles and weapons (e.g. fragmentation/shrapnel effects).

Okay. From what I see, this is more of an issue with how tanks receive damage so it is an ED problem. If Deka are so fragile to remove the effectiveness of a weapon based on some guy just asking questions. I suppose I will have to hold off on getting the JF-17 on release just in case they start changing too much around on how the people think a weapons should behave. So close to release and the way developers are responding is making me nervous.

Agreed.

Deka seams susceptible to air quackers suggestions.

BRM1 rockets are NOT AP, they are precision rockets, that likely carry a smaller HE warhead than "standard" unguided type 90 rockets (hence the range increase from 7km to 8km).

 

 

 

A smaller warhead doesn't negatively effect pk as, rather than used as an area of effect weapon, the rocket(s) are guided to the target with less risk to troops in contact or collateral damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRM1 info is difficult to find but this seems close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.popsci.com/missiles-zhuhai-china-displays-new-strike-arsenal/

 

 

 

For info. the standard unguided 90mm Air-Launched Rocket weighs 14.6 to 17.1kg with a 4.8-5.6kg Warhead (HE, fragmentation, Incendiary) and adding a guidance kit likely halves this.

 

 

 

While removing the BRM1's AP may spoil DCS gameplay, if it was "one shot" killing tanks, the WIP Deka BRM1 rocket was unrealistic and it's good the dev's are adjusting it.

 

 

 

The JF-17 has other weapons to deal with tanks.

Definitely not a "one shot, one kill" against a M1A1, Leopard 2 or T-90 with HE...

You sure know why shaped charges rounds have the "stinger" on top of the explosive compartment. The same applies here you want the explosion forcing the molten charge through the armor the exact moment all kinetic energy has transferred and weakened the area of impact. Higher kinetic energy (speed) more weakening of the first armor layer.

An APFSDS round simply relies on the kinetic energy to penetrate composite armor. HEAT benefits from kinetic energy on impact when done right.

The "stinger" is just what holds the trigger at the appropriate distance from the charge, allowing the metal jet to form properly. It's not there to transfer kinetic energy. At least not in any round I'm familiar with.

Of course the jet itself will have the kinetic energy of the shell plus whatever the shaped charge provides, so the kinetic energy of the shell isn't wasted.

You sure know why shaped charges rounds have the "stinger" on top of the explosive compartment.

I do, it's there to trigger the warhead at the correct distance. This is what slatted and other spaced armors spoil.

The same applies here you want the explosion forcing the molten charge through the armor the exact moment all kinetic energy has transferred and weakened the area of impact. Higher kinetic energy (speed) more weakening of the first armor layer.

Given the kinetic energy already present in the jet and the fact that the warhead action pretty much demolishes the missile, I don't think this speed makes a huge difference. In fact, most modern weapons are looking for top attack trajectories instead of attacking the front MBT armor.

Again, I am not saying each hit will penetrate a MBT armor, but if it hits right (90° angle, good spot, etc.) it can disable a tank with one hit.

That's great - the problem is that you're trying to argue that 'can' is 'the average state of things', when it's not.

As said before, DCS can't perfectly model this at the moment, so they should either tone it down, or add a random chance to disable a MBT with 1 to 2. 1 to 2 hits even with plain HE munition will damage the optical systems, sensors and disorient the crew, even a good chance to damage the tracks and immobilize the Tank.

But what it DOES model is the fact that it takes 2-3 APFSDS hits to take out a tank (tank vs tank combat) and that 90mm rocket doesn't have a snowball's change in hell of matching that firepower. So yes, they should tone it down. A lot :).

There is a certain misconception of invulnerability to modern Tanks, that could not be further from the truth.

There is a misconception of effectiveness of armor piercing weapons, to, in particular weapons whose primary purpose is not tank killing.

In the 90ies estimated a couple hours (can't remember the exact number) for a tank surviving on the battlefield, opposed to a couple days for an infantryman... I know statistics, but the reality behind it is: a Tank is A) a big, slow, juicy target and B) a lot of effort has been put into the design weapons that can disable Tanks.

Tanks were going to get nuked. As for survivability against similar opponents, sure, I'll agree with that. They'll pound each other to death. With things that are much larger than 90mm rockets - and with that in mind, any aircraft doing anti-armor/vehicle work is more likely to hedge its bets with larger weapons or cluster bombs with EFPs, like the CBU-97.

This laser guided rocket stuff is suicide vs. a properly mobilized armored force. You're going to be eating SAMs at those ranges and your weapon isn't fire and forget.

 

 

 

 

But what it DOES model is the fact that it takes 2-3 APFSDS hits to take out a tank (tank vs tank combat) and that 90mm rocket doesn't have a snowball's change in hell of matching that firepower. So yes, they should tone it down. A lot :).

 

 

I disagree. I was always able to 1 shot tanks with APFSDS, from the front, side and rear in DCS.

Who in his right mind would spend the money needed to develop a lase guided rocket that has no AT capabilities? is totally illogical.

It is not a matter of how many Kg of explosive the rockets have. This video shows what only a couple of grams of explosive can do.

90mm unguided rocket DO have HE/AP warhead subtypes, and others warheads.

BRM-1 is based on 90mm rocket, adding guidance component.

Why AP warhead 90mm rocket can not add guidance component, we need a VERY good reason.

As I said, if players cannot accept it, we will remove it, to please players.

In the 90ies estimated a couple hours (can't remember the exact number) for a tank surviving on the battlefield, opposed to a couple days for an infantryman... I know statistics, but the reality behind it is: a Tank is A) a big, slow, juicy target and B) a lot of effort has been put into the design weapons that can disable Tanks.

Since 90's at modern warfare, infantry life expectations in combat in Northern Europe environments is 7 seconds....

A MBT is the safest place to really be. As since cold war era when M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger became to west inventory, they got better than T-64 and T-72A armors, and again further developments lead to T-80 and T-90 as well M1IP etc, that survivability ain't just armors but as well all technology and tactics to avoid getting hit.

In the DCS a MBT, or any tank or other armored vehicle, or non-armored, are completely unrealistically presented. A pilot would be incapable to detect those vehicles by using FLIR or A-G radars as all those are in first command to be concealed such manner that only visual or audible detection reveals them. And that means that pilots would need to spot their tracks on terrain or them moving or otherwise located in stupid manner, or simply spotted by ground troops that inform their general position etc. But that ain't easy, as MBT company does very well know all the methods a MBT can be detected and they get not just trained, but as well tested with equipments to show how effective all concealment tasks are to hide those vehicles from enemy detection.

And that is an problem in DCS that virtual pilots has these illusions that they just need to point a targeting pod at general direction and every vehicle just glows in there. Or that future A-G radar just pinpoints all vehicles without problems.

While in reality, a competent military can hide a huge amount of troops such a way that they do not get detected. And you can even very well walk in a forest and hit yourself to an tank, as you can't spot them easily.

It is totally different thing to fight in area where there are foliage, trees, rocks, forests, bushes etc. Than it is on the flat sand desert.

And attack aircrafts can't use radars, radios, datalink or anything emitting devices as their location is detected very likely by the electronic warfare ground units. Laser designators reveals to MBT their directions and actions, why one just doesn't fly to drop a bomb and expect that targeting pod designator is like a silent surprise.

It is always easy to fight against enemy that doesn't know how to fight back, or doesn't have equipment to fight back. And sitting in most armored vehicle is safe place, as it has around it a such a defense that one doesn't get to drop bombs at then or fire missiles so easily as it is in DCS.

Why AP warhead 90mm rocket can not add guidance component, we need a VERY good reason.

 

As I said, if players cannot accept it, we will remove it, to please players.

It doesn't matter if players accept it, as long as it is realistic and probable.

If the AP penetrator warhead can't be used with laser guidance kit, so be it.

It doesn't matter if players accept it, as long as it is realistic and probable.

If the AP penetrator warhead can't be used with laser guidance kit, so be it.

We tested different warhead damage effect, FM and guidance,

BRM-1 AP capability is merged into release code by mistake, we forget comment it after test.

 

And that is an problem in DCS that virtual pilots has these illusions that they just need to point a targeting pod at general direction and every vehicle just glows in there. Or that future A-G radar just pinpoints all vehicles without problems.

 

Here is an image of a Mi-28 UB Havoc A/G Radar with two diferent modes. Red dots are cars moving towards the helicopter and green dots are cars moving away from it.

It seems to me that this radar works just as "DCS virtual pilots" expect it to work and even better.

We tested different warhead damage effect, FM and guidance,

BRM-1 AP capability is merged into release code by mistake, we forget comment it after test.

I genuinly do not care if the rockets one hit kill the big holy grail of american engineering abrams or not. All I want is to be able to attack and destroy medium to light armored vehicles with these. MBTs are useless against jets anyway so no real chellange in taking them out.

So far, you guys are the only ones who offer the AP rockets that can actually damage the vehicles while other modules have rockets that do joke damage.

If you nerf the rockets then it is just time wasted on developing a weapon which will not be used by majority of people.

Saying that, I will appreciate modeling the rockets to their most accurate representation possible.

I genuinly do not care if the rockets one hit kill the big holy grail of american engineering abrams or not. All I want is to be able to attack and destroy medium to light armored vehicles with these. MBTs are useless against jets anyway so no real chellange in taking them out.

 

So far, you guys are the only ones who offer the AP rockets that can actually damage the vehicles while other modules have rockets that do joke damage.

 

If you nerf the rockets then it is just time wasted on developing a weapon which will not be used by majority of people.

 

Saying that, I will appreciate modeling the rockets to their most accurate representation possible.

I agree with this wholeheartedly; in my opinion removing them would be a big mistake. At most a nerf should be in order, but I see no reason why they should be removed from the game entirely. If some players don't want them, they can either not use them or leave it to mission makers and server owners to leave them out. I for one can't wait to use these things :)

We tested different warhead damage effect, FM and guidance,

BRM-1 AP capability is merged into release code by mistake, we forget comment it after test.

LOL forgot the Ctrl+/ hammer?

90mm unguided rocket DO have HE/AP warhead subtypes, and others warheads.

 

BRM-1 is based on 90mm rocket, adding guidance component.

 

 

Why AP warhead 90mm rocket can not add guidance component, we need a VERY good reason.

 

 

As I said, if players cannot accept it, we will remove it, to please players.

Please do not remove something you have worked so hard to make just because of a small minority of whiny players. If people don't like it, they can just not use it. Simple.

If it needs to be tweaked, I have total confidence that you and your team will make the appropriate changes.

Just so you know, the majority of the community think the BRM-1 is an AWESOME addition to DCS in its current state; it would be a shame to have it removed or artificially nerfed in an attempt to satisfy perpetual crybabies.

I don't even know why this is a debate. Just put in what you know from real data. End of discussion.

I don't even know why this is a debate. Just put in what you know from real data. End of discussion.

yea what he said!

I just want to know how much it is gonna be since it is already 12/2/19 at their end of the world, so that I can gather my change and obtain this module

yea what he said!

 

 

I just want to know how much it is gonna be since it is already 12/2/19 at their end of the world, so that I can gather my change and obtain this module

I don't think their end of the world matters. It's Ed that's gna be releasing the module and for us steam peasants, the update will be even later when steam updates daily.

I don't think their end of the world matters. It's Ed that's gna be releasing the module and for us steam peasants, the update will be even later when steam updates daily.

you know you can switch to standalone and link your steam purchases through the ED website login right?

you know you can switch to standalone and link your steam purchases through the ED website login right?

Why would I when I like everything in one place and managing modules is easier on steam in addition to other tools.

I would love to use the BRM-1 in the game. Obviously if there is a suspicion based on evidence of similar weapons etc that it cannot take out a MBT in one shot (or only under a certain angle) then please nerf accordingly and simulate that if possible, maybe requiring 2/3 rockets or so.

I think we already have that for the GAU-8 where impacts in the front of the tanks are almost useless and you need to target the top or rear right?

Please do not remove something you have worked so hard to make just because of a small minority of whiny players. If people don't like it, they can just not use it. Simple.

If it needs to be tweaked, I have total confidence that you and your team will make the appropriate changes.

Just so you know, the majority of the community think the BRM-1 is an AWESOME addition to DCS in its current state; it would be a shame to have it removed or artificially nerfed in an attempt to satisfy perpetual crybabies.

ED or Deka dont need "remove" nothing, but that can be change with ED implement realistic damage models and armour phisics on vehicles on a future. If ED simulate properly them, can be see more dificult shut down tanks and other armour targets. A example, now some vehicles has "inmune" to 5.56, 7.62 and 12.5 mm rounds.

Why are people trying to hold the proper simulation back just because the other modules are underdeveloped in that sector? Why not go to your favourite module devs and tell them to improve their product since the competition is moving forward?

Why are they coming to Deka and telling them to tone down on the simulation because they say it is not realistic enough without providing and sources or document evidence?

I thought Deka wanted to sell this module. Removing features to please people who are probably not even going to buy the jet is not going to gain them any good reputation.

I also do not like how these devs are so easily convinced by a few guys on the forum enough to force them to remove features while so many are still asking to keep it.

I seriously went from being really excited about the module to if I should even bother getting it because deka might be spooked into removing even more functions and features down the line. It is unecessary headache I can avoid by not getting this module if they are so easily manipulated.