JF-17 Thunder Discussions

[Sniper175]

Actually.... in regards to ground vehicle damage model. If you damage it below a certain percentage it will be a mobile kill and or cause weapons to be disabled. :thumbup:

[RPY Variable]

 

Already discussed and no, it is not quite normal if a single rocket, less powerful than other anti-tank weapons, destroys the tank.

 

Again already discussed.

 

Just to be clear, are your saying that a direct hit from a AT rocket that has a shaped charge won't penetrate a tank?

 

And when you say "less powerful than other antitank weapons", it doesn't matter if it is less or more powerful than other weapon, the only thing that matters is if it is enough.

 

[SpaceKraken]

I hope that these rockets won't be nerfed into a laser guided fireworks. Of course they probably shouldn't one-shot an Abrams through its front armor, but hitting it from sides, rear or top should cause a lot of damage.

 

In DCS, a "disabled" vehicle starts burning and blows up after some time. This is what i expect to happen with an MBT when it's side armor gets hit by a rocket. Or 2 rockets, but not any more.

[shagrat]

Just to be clear, are your saying that a direct hit from a AT rocket that has a shaped charge won't penetrate a tank?

 

 

 

And when you say "less powerful than other antitank weapons", it doesn't matter if it is less or more powerful than other weapon, the only thing that matters is if it is enough.

 

 

 

The term "a tank“ is very broad.

It can (not necessarily, but optional) destroy an older tank with no reactive, or composite armor, say T-55, M60 Patton.

A couple hits may damage a modern Main Battle Tank think M1A1, T-80U, T-90 or Leopard 2 with composite armor designed to lessen the shaped charge penetrator's effects. Still a lucky shot in a vulnerable spot (engine compartment from above, a top hatch, etc.) could disable it, but to reliably incapacitate a modern Tank it would at least require a couple hits in roughly the same spot.

IF(!) the penetrator reaches the crew compartment, though, the crew is out of the fight, for good. Yet, we need to take into account, that DCS has limitations to reproduce such detailed effects. So the approach Deka Devs want to take now, is a pretty good compromise. We still get an effective weapon against light armor but not an overpowered one shot T-90/M1A1 killer, that does not exist in real life.

[Terrorban]

No, you're suggesting that it should be a photon torpedo. Again, comprehension - you did not follow from the start.

 

I never suggested that.

 

You're not comprehending because you did not follow. And yes, all we HAVE is explanation about other weapons, and the manufacturer's blurb.

 

Again, you are argueing the performance of one thing based on how something else performs.

 

That's right, DCS does not simulate these. What it does do IN GAME is encourage a choice of armament caused by the weapon's own behavior, among other things.

If you had 16 rockets in one pod, each of which as powerful as an AGM-65 IN GAME, would you not take that pod over the 65s? I think that's not realistic for reasons that are hopefully obvious.

 

Now you are beginning to compare the rockets to AGM-65s. Deka already said that the rocket will not one hit kill the MBTs.

 

These are laser guided, so they hit the vehicle directly, from the air up top. Do not know why you claim that MBTs are immune to anything lower than an AGM-65.

[Harlikwin]

 

 

Already discussed and no, it is not quite normal if a single rocket, less powerful than other anti-tank weapons, destroys the tank.

 

 

Alot of AT weapon "performance" depends on where it hits, most tanks have crap top armor (this has steadily been improved from WW2 to today, but still its usually thin).

 

You can likely (mission)kill an M1 with old school M72 law rocket if you hit it in the right place. Again, from the top of the tank its very easy to kill if you hit the engine compartment, or the ammunition stowage on modern western MBT's or the roof armor on most older MBT's. Either one of which basically means the crew will bail since the tank is now "inop".

 

Of course DCS doesn't model this level of detail. So you have "hit points" or whatnot.

[SFJackBauer]

This is what i expect to happen with an MBT when it's side armor gets hit by a rocket. Or 2 rockets, but not any more.

 

That's the issue, "by a rocket". There are different types of rockets, and there are different amounts and configurations of explosives in said types. The correct assumption should be that there is an appropriate ammunition for a certain type of target.

 

For example, in a HEAT warhead, a key factor to its penetrating ability is the diameter of the shaped charge. All modern anti-tank missiles (Hellfire, Vikhr, TOW, Javelin, Brimstone) have a diameter of 130mm (Vikhr) to 180mm (Hellfire, Brimstone) and carry a similarly weight charge (about 10kg) to be able to punch through 800-1200mm of RHA equivalent. How would a rocket of a smaller diameter and a smaller warhead have a similar performance? Why would someone even bother developing those larger and heavier missiles in the first place?

[L0op8ack]

about MBT armor

 

[GGTharos]

Context, please? :)

 

 

I can guess that the values here are essentially 'percent of armor' for whatever value the armor is on the tank :)

[Harlikwin]

Context, please? :)

 

 

I can guess that the values here are essentially 'percent of armor' for whatever value the armor is on the tank :)

 

Yup thats what it looks like. I assume thats how DCS actually models aspects.

 

So from the top multiply whatever armor value by .15 and from the front by 2.x.

 

I'd also assume HE-frag damage is different in game from HEAT/AP damage.

[razo+r]

Not really. You can one shot MBTs with HE just like you can with APFSDS.

[Fried Rice]

haven't seen it anywhere and don't think it has been mentioned. Will the jf17 include NVGs in dcs? I'm assuming it will, just making sure.

[RedKite]

haven't seen it anywhere and don't think it has been mentioned. Will the jf17 include NVGs in dcs? I'm assuming it will, just making sure.

 

Yes, NVG's are available, you can see them in my Preview video :)

[shaHeen-1]

Just a technical point on the side: BRM-1s are laser guided missiles, not rockets because they can steer and guide.

[shagrat]

That's the issue, "by a rocket". There are different types of rockets, and there are different amounts and configurations of explosives in said types. The correct assumption should be that there is an appropriate ammunition for a certain type of target.

 

 

 

For example, in a HEAT warhead, a key factor to its penetrating ability is the diameter of the shaped charge. All modern anti-tank missiles (Hellfire, Vikhr, TOW, Javelin, Brimstone) have a diameter of 130mm (Vikhr) to 180mm (Hellfire, Brimstone) and carry a similarly weight charge (about 10kg) to be able to punch through 800-1200mm of RHA equivalent. How would a rocket of a smaller diameter and a smaller warhead have a similar performance?

May be not one, but 2 or more in close proximity to another. Laser guided 90mm rockets are pretty new

Why would someone even bother developing those larger and heavier missiles in the first place?

Because laser guidance for multiple smaller missiles was not developed when these missiles were a thing. Also improvement in munition design etc. the first AT weapons exploded on impact, later they improved considerable by timing the explosion for the shaped charge with the optimum delay to penetrate more/deeper into the armor. Better, smaller CPU for more precise guidance, faster response... that's what I can come up with, out of my head and not researching. ;)

[Manuel_108]

I have a question regarding the sounds of this module. The engine sounds are great from what I have heard so far, internally and externally, which is arguably the most important part. However, in the real JF-17, especially during startup, does one not hear anything at all from inverters, cooling fans or the ECS etc.? Are all these things completely silent?

 

I'd imagine that you hear some humming from the electronics at least, like in EDs F/A-18C for example, or the A-10, or the Mi-8, the Huey etc.

 

In Jabbers Video, everything is silent until the engine start, you can't even hear any clicks from the switches. Perhaps his sound levels were too low for the purpose of the video but in the case that they weren't, are the sounds final or will we see additional sounds and improvements after release?

[drPhibes]

Just a technical point on the side: BRM-1s are laser guided missiles, not rockets because they can steer and guide.

 

 

Aerial rockets converted with guidance kits are often classified as guided rockets (case in point, the AKPWS).

[Dusty44]

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

 

BRM1 could even overwhelm a tank's Active Protection System, like the Israeli Trophy, to hit the weak turret top armor.

[Terrorban]

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

 

BRM1 could even overwhelm a tank's Active Protection System, like the Israeli Trophy, to hit the weak turret top armor.

 

 

Don't bother man. Seems like these guys will only believe the words straight from the chinese military's official statement. Since this will never happen, they will continue to compare it with american weapons and then say that it should underperform by giving some random unrelated statistics.

 

 

There are arguements going on about pretty much any weapon which is outperforming american ones available in DCS.

[falcon_120]

I thought we have a consensus already and feedback from DEKA. Front impacts will have close to null effect while top and rear impact will be really effective right? I think it is a good state, even fun from the tactical aspects of planning a good attack.

[Matchstick]

If Deka's plans come to fruition and they are able to do the upgrade to the Block 2 airframe, I wonder if they'd consider making it a separate model so players and admins have the option of choosing which they want to use ?

[Jester986]

Don't bother man. Seems like these guys will only believe the words straight from the chinese military's official statement. Since this will never happen, they will continue to compare it with american weapons and then say that it should underperform by giving some random unrelated statistics.

 

 

There are arguments going on about pretty much any weapon which is outperforming american ones available in DCS.

 

That really isn't the point. Yes they can take out light and medium armor. Yes they can overwhelm active defenses. Yes a single lucky hit could kill an MBT. It just doesn't make sense though that a weapon of this size could reliably one hit kill a modern MBT whether its American, Russian, German, Chinese, or Israeli. And no one is doubting the performance of the SD-10 either, just that the Aim-120 is known to under perform. Other missiles were as well to the same degree but now we will have one accurate missile in a sea of inaccurate ones. In any case can we agree to disagree and move past this argument and just be hyped about what looks like will be an awesome module?

Edited December 3, 2019 by Jester986

[Jester986]

I thought we have a consensus already and feedback from DEKA. Front impacts will have close to null effect while top and rear impact will be really effective right? I think it is a good state, even fun from the tactical aspects of planning a good attack.

 

Sounds like a win:thumbup:

[Matchstick]

What would typical rocket attack range and altitude be ?

 

I'm wondering if we would expect to have the angle to explicitly target the top armour of tanks when attacking with this weapon (the APKWS has a CEP of < 0.5m so my first guess is this will be similar)

[shagrat]

What would typical rocket attack range and altitude be ?

 

I'm wondering if we would expect to have the angle to explicitly target the top armour of tanks when attacking with this weapon (the APKWS has a CEP of < 0.5m so my first guess is this will be similar)

The point is when you lase from above and fire from a 35° dive at maximum range it will likely hit the top armor... aka higher probability for a good hit.