Anyone on /k/ play CMANO or even Harpoon ?
>>29702629
Inb4 fiddy-cent shits up the thread with "muh scenario"
>>29702687
I wish he'd come back.
He was fun.
>>29702687
>>29702812
You guys tried northern inferno ? I thought it was a bit expensive for what i thought were just some more missions. I was surprised to find cinematics between every few missions.
Who wins ?
Place bets now
X2 Buccaneers armed with 8 1000lb GP bombs
Or a Gnevy Destroyer and a Spokoinyy Frigate
>>29703676
It was 1 for 1
The moderately damaged frigate couldn't launch any missiles against the buccaneer and got destroyed by multiple bomb penetrations. |
The destroyer launched two SA-N-1b at around 8NM and the buccaneer went defensive before starting its bomb run despite being at sea level. It evaded the first missile but the second brought it down.
>>29702629
Can we request a scenario here?
I want a De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate to get attacked by 3 Mirage 2000 armed with anti-ship missiles.
Fuck I really want this game
But if fucking only it wasn't heavily focused on only Air and Naval warfare, and also Land warfare. And it not costing a fucking FORTUNE.
>>29703973
Yeah the price is a real barrier. It's so obscure that I can't even find a torrent of it to see if it's even worth the money.
>>29703993
There's a torrent of it.
Also it pretty routinely goes on sale on steam for 50%, which is still a lot, but better than nothing.
As to the actual game I wish I had the time to sink into planning all this shit out but I never graduated between spawning two groups of shit and having them kill each other.
>>29704017
>There's a torrent of it.
Through what tracker? I check kat and tpb regularly but can never find it on either of those.
>>29704037
I got it off a kind anon who posted a link on here before.
I personally just bought it on steam and refunded it before two hours.
>>29704055
Hopefully this CMANO thread lures him in and he posts it again, because I'd love to give it a try.
>>29703973
>But if fucking only it wasn't heavily focused on only Air and Naval warfare, and also Land warfare
So you want a space game ?
>And it not costing a fucking FORTUNE.
The database is better than Janes and costs about 2.5% as much as a Janes anaual subscription.
>>29702687
I saved this.
J-20 BTFO F-22 in a straight duel.
>>29703919
Do you want to play it yourself or do you just want to see what happens ?
Either way tell me what missiles / date / range weather / supporting assets
I'll happily throw something as small as that together.
>>29704107
Lrn 2 read it means also have it be heavily focused on Land warfare
>>29704107
>So you want a space game ?
How the fuck did you get this from his post?
I think you may be dangerously retarded.
>Not nuking Oil Platforms with Cessnas
Get on my level plebs
>>29704139
>Land warfare
You really need to work on your English if you think that's what you said.
>>29704158
>EMP wave
kill me
I have this game and would host a torrent. Anyone want?
>>29705245
magnet :?xt=urn:btih:b46a10c39f74335620383c5dbc989c7653218478&dn=Command%20Modern%20Air%20Naval%20Operations%20%5BEnglish%5D%5BPCDVD%5D%5BPOSTMORTEM%5D%5BWwW.GamesTorrents.CoM%5D
>>29704124
top kék
what a shit game... i hope it didn't cost more than 10 bugs
>>29704128
I don't know. I was reading about Frigates a lot last night for some reason so I guess I just want to see how effective they actually are.
Let's do 3 Hornets armed with Harpoons against a De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate. The weather is normal. The Hornets are approaching from a Nimitz class carrier. The Frigate is somewhere in the Mediterranean.
After that, I'd like a simple scenario where a Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate fights a Provinciën-class frigate to the death. Off the coast of Argentina.
>>29704100
The /k/ube rewards good anons. Run the installer and crack as admin.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:80E10AC602B5BB7C86D53021FD4082DC7FCAADCB&dn=CommandModernAirNavalOperations&tr=http%3a%2f%2fbt.rutracker.org%2fann%3fuk%3dcghmZgbUr6&tr=http%3a%2f%2fretracker.local%2fannounce
>>29705214
It's a cessna made in fucking 1957, it'll survive an EMP
>>29702629
Jane's Fleet Command is the closest I've gotten.
(Well technically I have harpoon installed but I'm too lazy to learn right now and I already understand FC.)
I wish FC gave more control over air-combat. Engagements end up looking quite silly in the 3d display (partly as you can't pull a vertical loop.)
>>29704139
I know that feel.
Land Warfare doesn't get enough love.
>>29705474
Wouldn't it fuck the engine alternator?
Chinese frigates btfo zumwalt anytime. Scenario stands.
Posting image from Oppenheimers Strategic Nuclear War Scenario.
>>29705408
bless you, /k/omrade
>>29705546
>>29705561
do you have more information on that?
>>29705642
Not really.
>>29705510
No, it won't. The alternator would start itself up again due to the momentum of the engine.
>>29702629
>Harpoon
I played Harpoon on the Amiga and it was almost overwhelming. Too much to do
>>29704163
He LITERALLY SAID "land warfare" you absolute pancake
>>29705561
>you will never experience going about things as usual only for everything to suddenly be interruATTACK WARNING RED, ATTACK WARNING RED
I've run a few scenarios of JSDF vs Russia so far. In equal footings, I've had two flights of two F-15J Eagle Plus and two Su-27SM Flanker Bs mutually destroy each other in BVR almost every time.
In a series of gun-only fights between the Eagle Plus and the Flanker B, the Flanker won about 75% of engagements, unsurprisingly.
I know a lot less about naval warfare, but I figured it would be funny to put Japan's newest Atago class destroyer solo against a Kirov class. I can't tell for sure, but I think the Atago blew it's load prematurely on a false radar contact, the Kirov shot down all the missiles anyway, and then the Kirov's missile barrage overwhelmed the Atago and destroyed it.
some classics
>>29707522
oh man that thread was legendary
>>29707522
>>29702687
>>29707522
>F-35 stuff
Oh man. OH man. Read planefag's SHARKNADO scenario playthrough. It's fucking stellar. F-35B's are pretty much death incarnate to Chinese naval aircraft.
>>29707544
>planefag's SHARKNADO
https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/lets-play-the-fool-cmano-saga-of-the-sharknado.370923/
>>29707544
SIDE: USN/USMC
LOSSES:
1x F/A-18A+ Hornet
1x F-35B Lightning II
SIDE: PLAN
LOSSES:
16x C-802 Triple
12x DF-21D ASBM TEL [CSS-5 Mod-4]
8x H-6D Badger
4x HQ-16A TELAR
10x J-15 Flying Shark [Su-33 Copy]
12x J-16 Flying Shark [Su-30MK2 Copy]
32x J-8F Finback B [J-8II]
18x JH-7A Flounder
13x Ka-28 Helix A
1x Radar (China YLC-8)
6x SA-15b Gauntlet [9A331] TELAR
3x SA-16 Gimlet [9K310 Igla-1] MANPADS
4x SA-20a Gargoyle [5P85SE] TEL
6x Su-30MKK2 Flanker G
13x Type 022 Houbei
3x Type 035B Ming
4x Type 035G Ming
2x Type 039G1 Song
1x Type 041 Yuan
2x Type 052B Luyang I [168 Guangzhou]
1x Type 052D Luyang III [172 Kunming]
4x Type 053H3 Jiangwei II [564 Yichang]
6x Type 054A Jiangkai II [530 Xuzhou]
3x Vehicle (China Type 352 Square Tie)
1x Vehicle (Clam Shell [5N66])
1x Vehicle (HQ-16A FCR)
1x Vehicle (Tombstone [30N6])
2x Y-8J Cub
2x Y-8JB Cub [High New 2]
3x Y-8W Cub [High New 5, KJ-200 Balance Beam]
8x Z-9C Dauphin 2
>>29707651
You forgot to add in the whales the PLAN killed.
>>29707544
I am reading it now, the asshurt it would give certain bloggers is amazing.
>>29707667
>goddammit sonarman wtf you smoking.
SIDE: Neutral
LOSSES:
3x False Contact (Medium)
5x False Contact (Small)
>>29707684
Planefag has a talent for making everything sound just so fucking full of smug pleasure too. There's a sense of satisfaction at just how fucking HARD he's fucking over the PLAN.
>>29707544
>>29707588
>tfw you can mount tanks on planes
I WANT TO BELIEVE IN THE AEROGAVINS
>>29707588
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, PIERRE?! WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?!
>>29707588
I think my favorite part in the entire AAR is "There's no AEW here today. Only Me."
>>29708030
> Damn near every single significant weapons system China fields is a direct rip-off engineered by someone else that they either begged, bought, or most frequently just flat-out stole. Even assuming they stole all the right files when they broke into Boeing, that hardly translates into an ability to make those diagrams reality. There's a big, big step between a set of clean blueprints and a machine that actually works. This Ars Technica article on some NASA engineers who tracked down old Apollo F-1 rocket engines and fired them up on test stands to collect scads of crucial data that the blueprints simply didn't show. Ask anyone who works in engineering about this, and they can tell you - institutional knowledge is key to going from the drawing board to functional reality, and China has nowhere near the military-industrial institutions the US does. There is no way in hell the Chinese can just slap an AESA radar, IRST pod, computer and internal weapons bay onto some airframe and hey, presto, mimic what has taken the most advanced technological society on earth far longer to develop. There's a hell of a lot more to the F-35 than just "sensors and some internal bays." Consider the F-117 Nighthawk, and all the funky angles on it - they had a lot to do with it being as slow as it was. It was hardly aerodynamic. The F-35 is a true fighter, supersonic-capable and sleek - and yet it has less RCS than the F-117 and its big angular radar-scattering facets. A lot of terrifyingly complex math went into that - and a lot more, besides, to develop a shape you could cram all the needed equipment into, that was still inherently maneuverable, and yet minimized the RCS as much as it does.
>>29707651
In terms of ships and tonnage sunk in the Sharknado scenario the PLAN had 36 surface combatant losses. Total tonnage was 78,248 tons of metal sent to the bottom. Below is the breakdown from highest tonnage to smallest.
[Ships involved] - [Total active] - [Lost-] - [Percentage Lost]
Type 052D - 12 - 1 - 8%
Type 052B - 2 - 2 - 100%
Type 054A - 22 - 6 - 27%
Type 039A -15 - 1 - 7%
Type 053H3 - 10 - 4- 40%
Type 039A - 13 - 2 - 15%
Type 035G - 11 - 4 - 36%
Type 035B - 4 - 3 - 75%
Type 022 - 83 -13 - 16%
21 Percent of all ships ever built and had their ship-class present in the scenario were sunk.
>>29707544
So the F35 when properly used can assrape any chinese planes? Good to know
>>29708192
eh
A lot of this is simply incorrect
Fat, lazy, US defense contractors think what they are doing is magic that noone else can duplicate, the only thing the chinks won't be able to duplicate is stealth
Also you can bet they have lots of chink scientists, engineers, workers at these places feeding info back to the chicoms
Much like all the jews were doing during the cold war.
>>29710546
>Assrape
Assrape is too kind of a word for it. The gap in jumping from a 4 or 4.5 to a true 5th generation like the F-35 is insane in terms of abilities granted. And we're planning to make this our bog standard plane. It's fantastic.
>>29710756
And yet, not a single fact to back up your assertions. Listen, there's a lot of problems with the US defense programs and procurement, but saying they aren't constantly pushing the boundaries of what's possible is flat out wrong. The US sets the standard for the world when it comes to military tech, the rest of the world just plays catch up. It's why Russia is only getting 12 next gen planes as they try to develop the in-house knowledge and skills while the US is making their next gen aircraft their standard multi-role fighter.
Will China and Russia be a threat to the US in terms of military technology eventually? Of course. In the next 30 years? Highly unlikely. During the Cold War, Russia at least had the advantage of being able to keep their best and brightest working in R&D. Now, anyone who would be capable of that gets lured to the West with offers of high pay and a good life. Those who stay are either morons, ineffectual government workers there for the easy benefits, or so blinded by patriotism they think "CHINA STRONK" or "RUSSIA STRONK" is enough to hold a shitty piece of equipment together.
>>29713293
No, what China won't be able to do is research and development. Actual straight up copying is perfectly possible. The Russian did it with the Tu-4, and they didn't even have blueprints.
>>29713529
Swing and a miss, bud. Copying something is in itself not easy when it comes to high end gear. So saying it like it's a given is just hilarious.
Though agreed, China sucks dick at innovation. It's why they're building two more copies of that beat to shit Russian carrier and if I were in the PLAN, I'm not sure which ship would scare me more as a safety hazard.
in a gun only WVR battle could an F-5 or A-4 (basically, light fighter) take out something like an F-15 or is the bigger plane at that stage more manoeuvrable?
>>29713907
I might as well put my thoughts on the Chinese carriers here, and why I believe they're shit.
First of all, the air group would be tiny. They could probably hold a max of 30 or so fighters. Wikipedia says 36, but that includes only 24 fighters, with the rest being helicopters A Nimitz could, if stuffed to capacity, hold somewhere in the realm of 90. If one carrier can feasibly hold 3x the aircraft, that's probably a good indicator right there of how well things will go.
Second, and this is probably the big one, is that it isn't CATOBAR. Our friends the Brits suffer this same problem. While yes, you might be able to launch fighters, you aren't going to be capable of much more than that. And that is most certainly a bad thing. Without a catapult you can't launch larger aircraft, which means you are either not going to be able to launch force multiplying aircraft, or you won't be able to launch very good ones. These include many all important things such as Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, tankers, and electronic warfare aircraft. To say that these multiply force is to not cover anywhere near the whole picture. Without any one of them, aviation assets are majorly hampered. Without any of them, they're effectively crippled.
The rest is up to crew skill, training, and the procedures on how they run the thing, but I anything I say at this at the time doesn't really mean much. The Chinese are still trying to figure out how this all works, and have borrowed liberally from the US, down to the very colors the crew wear on deck. At the moment, they have extremely few qualified pilots, but that will change as time goes on.
>>29715305
The answer to "could it" is yes. It all depends on pilot skill and the particular circumstances. I will say that given enough of a difference in skill, any plane could theoretically kill any other. Instructors routinely kick asses in the things, or at least they did. However, that isn't to say that the F-15 or F-22 aren't maneuverable. They are, and they will most likely kill an F-5 or an A-4 dead, assuming equal pilot skill.
>>29705408
What version is this? I found a torrent of northern inferno but the only base game was 1.02 and 1.11 was out just this month and the UI has improved a lot from what I hear
>Most people just shrug and fire twenty Tomahawks apiece at such batteries till they die, but buried deep in my compound-dwelling neocon soul is the germ of a BeauOrds asshole, a wicked spirit that whispers “buy Krag 30-40s,” “two torpedo tests are enough” and “the magazines are reusable.”
I love you planefag
>>29702629
I had harpoon, but I never got it to work right, so I deleted it.
>>29704152
No anon, actually you're retarded and possibly autistic. He was mocking how you phrased your statement, as it sounded like you're complaining that it somehow focused too much on land, naval, AND air operations.
/a/ here, can someone run a scenario for me?
1 Yamato class battleship vs 2 Kawasaki P-1s outfitted with an anti-ship loadout. This usually means harpoons but I mean, BBs are pretty slow, maybe they could hit them with mavericks?
How realistic is Jane's Fleet Command anyway?
I've started beating the reasonably complex missions (Falklands, Main campaign) and now I'm wondering whether it's useful as a lazy simulation or if it's just a game.
p.s. the number of Exocets Argentina has in the Falklands mission is obscene.
>>29718362
You don't even need to run a simulation. A harpoon has a range of over 60nm and the Yamato had garbage AA capability even by 1940s standards.
>>29718362
I doubt the Yamato would be sunk, but it'd be hurting.
>>29718408
I want to see if the harpoons or mavericks would have enough juice to sink to sink her, she's pretty fucking big. It would be 16 of them since P-1s can carry 8 each.
>>29707522
>they dare any imperialist to try and catch them
Sides gone.
>>29718423
2 Kawasaki P-1s with a full anti-ship loadout could easily sink two Yamatos.
This isn't even a debate.
>>29718784
I'd just like to know the facts or as close as we can get to that in CMANO.
Like when the P-1s detect Yamato, what range they fire at, how long the attack takes and that sort of stuff.
>>29707588
holy fug, I did not expect this post to be so funny
>Besides, sneaking in to bombard airfields with guns at night is what the JAPANESE do, and I'm a god-damned AMERICAN!
>fuck it, I'm a Journalism major
>The Chinese can add, subtract, and find differences (imperialist_interceptor_missiles + 1 = ASMs to buy)
>>29718882
Planefag is kind of a master of shit like this
>>29718882
Ask him about DF-21s:
>Of all the horrible works of destruction wrought by the sinning hands of Man, nothing has made the world shittier than the Dong-Feng 21 and all its bastard progeny. Most weapons do their worst work in wartime, and their best in peacetime - the Dong-Feng 21 inverts this dynamic to the detriment of all mankind. Its existence is a feeding trough for every knuckle-dragging shit-flinging simian of an armchair 'expert,' a mighty dildo-shaped obelisk for them to dance around while smacking the ground with bone clubs (because BVR is for pussies.) Its Mike Spark's wet dream made manifest on the materiel plane. It is hands-down the worst thing ever.
>Do not take this statement lightly, for I have trod /k/, the weapons board on 4chan. For all its recent pretensions, the board originated as a place for anime dweebs to argue over katanas versus kunai in Naruto. These are people who would equip the Air Force with Extra 300s, using open cockpits so the pilots could fire 1911s. There's an F-35 argument bingo chart in circulation. Unironically quoting Pierre Sprey is the fucking free space. I've listened to them wank over diesel subs, over supercavitating torpedoes, over Russian Aquaman - and nothing, but nothing has fed these retards more than the god-damned Ding Dong.
>>29719023
>>29718882
>Nevermind that there's no damned targeting network for it - and anything they do have will be so much debris in LEO five minutes after the war begins. Nevermind that early-warning systems can't tell the difference between a ballistic missile with a conventional warhead and one with a nuclear one, making their employment tantamount to a game of nuclear chicken with the USA. Nevermind how Tomahawks have a longer range by half. It's still used as fodder by every half-baked moron still trying to opine that the most complete form of power projection ever devised short of the ICBM is “obsolete.” When I see the message log recording Tomahawks impacting those hateful pillars of jingoism and Communist aggression, bald eagles explode from my pants in a fountain of patriotism as I weep a single tear of joy.
>>29719030
>No targeting network
Credit where it's due. Chinks have their own NOS and version of STT
>>29718986
>that pic
when did Amon-Ra, lord of the sun, commission a naval ship?
>>29719030
>>29719023
I just got up to that part, lost it at the god-damned Ding Dong.
And in the Chinese version the Chinese win overwhelmingly.
CMANO is just pandering to its customers. It's not actual warfare.
Currently running a scenario where the California and Texas air national guards face off over Tuscon.
CA ANG with their F-15Cs and TX ANG with F-16C Blk 30s
In poor judgement, I set the engagement rules for both groups to confirmed hostile only, which with their old sensors and no AEW or ground based radars apparently means getting within visual range.
That didn't go so well for the F-15s, with two being shot down in the first 10 or so seconds of contact. The remaining pair of F-15s scored two kills before one got shot down, and now the last F-15 has been dogfighting the last two F-16s for about five minutes.
The F-15 has five bursts left in his Vulcan, and all four of his AIM-120s.
Both F-16s are out of cannon ammo and have their full loads of AIM-120s left.
>>29719107
>chinese version
there is none. English only.
>No fucking torrent
What's the point
>there is no AEW here
>only me
>>29719147
>torrents literally linked in this thread multiple times
I doubt you'd even get past the install instructions at the rate you're going.
>>29719154
ty for the spoonfeed :)
>>29719135
In the infernal dance to try and get out to AIM-120 range fast enough to get one off before the other side could, the F-15 managed to score another gun kill before running out of ammo.
The dance continued after that, until the last F-16 ran out of fuel and crashed.
I think I'll call this one a draw and work on my mission editor skills.
>>29707522
>mig-31 gets shit on by F-35
No one is surprised by this right? The thing works by having a giant radar. It's meant to find and kill long range bombers.
>>29719107
>CMANO is just pandering to its customers
You mean for me, the F-20, even with a rookie pilot, is death incarnate to everything from an F-22 to a gigantic underground base that it somehow has to fly through a tunnel into? While having the veneer of credibility to let me pretend my insane fantasies are actually credible military scenarios?
Fuck it, that's the price totally justified.
>>29705303
Time to figure out how to torrent or whatever.
>>29719047
Not offically
>>29707522
This is a bit disheartening actually, and i'm a USAUSAUSAboo.
Is like playing a game with godmode on
>>29719023
>the board originated as a place for anime dweebs to argue over katanas versus kunai in Naruto.
/k/ BTFO
>>29719206
>CA NG had the only jet in the air at the end
>draw
found the texasfag
>>29702629
I play CMANO very infrequently
Problem with the Chinese losing in scenarios is that the Chinese database is incomplete and guesstimation at best. Of course China is partly to blame for that, since they do not release any official data for their inservice systems, and everything needs to be guessed by the dumbed down export variants that they offer in trade shows.
The best example why China loses the naval clashes in the game vs. fucking obsolete Harpoons launched from Superbugs is simply that the minimum engagement altitude of the naval HHQ-9A/B has been taken from the land-based export variant FD-2000, which gives it mere 25-50m. Of course it wont be able to defend against sea-skimmer and hence it will be entirely defenseless except for its CIWS or point defense missile systems that would be easily swarmed.
This is an issue that has not been adressed, and also cant, since the Chinese never release the true figures. Land-based SAM often have higher minimum altitudes than sea-based variants. For example, the land-based Aster-30/SAMP-T has a minimum engagement alt of 50 meters compared to the sea-based variant of (theoretical) 0 meters.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/aster-30/
The land-based HQ-9 equally has a 25-50m minimum alt, since it is unlikely that anything would fly that low over ground, even with terrain following mode of cruise missiles and tactical fighters. The sea-based variant HHQ-9 is likely a completely different beast and there are some footages of PLAN training that indicates that HHQ-9s can intercept very low flying sea-skimmers. But for the devs it is: No official data = no change in the database entry.
With sea-skimmer intercepting HHQ-9s in CMANO, Chinese navy destroyers like the 052C and D would have no problems shooting down incoming Harpoons from at least 80 nmi, since they can easily spot them (and the HHQ-9B has an ImIR seeker). This would completely turn over the entire scenario's outcome. Now, they have to rely on the FFGs to do that job in a mediocre way
>>29720893
And this makes it kinda funny now: China also operates S-300FM with 48N6 missiles onboard their two Type 051C AAW destroyers, and in the database, they are capable of intercepting missiles as low as flying 2 meter over surface. And that, at 110 nautical miles.
In scenarios where the older and actually less capable 051Cs (since they do not have Aegis-styled combat management systems and no four-faced AESA radars) replaces the much newer 052Cs and 052Ds, the PLAN comes out much better in CMANO. Thank Russian constant propaganda of their systems providing 'true'-data that is useable and accepted by the devs.
So, this leads to the core problem: CMANO devs fully take Russian data to be granted, no matter how outrageous. In this game, it seems, having the military industrial complex that is boasting about their product the most makes you "win a war".
Well they didn't shoot down the last TX ANG aircraft, it just ran out of fuel and crashed because I told the planes to kill each other and didn't give them airfields to go back to;
>>29720960
shit meant to reply to >>29720790
>>29720893
And not to forget; the HQ-9 series carries a 180kg warhead. More, actually, than their dedicated Anti-Ship-Missiles like the YJ-83 (C-803), which carries 165kg. For comparisson, a 48N6 from the S-300FM carries a 150kg warhead.
So, the blast of a 180kg fragmentation warhead would knock out a sea-skimmer even if it flies above it at 25m.
But that's not important, as literally all naval variants of long range SAM have lower minimum engagement altitudes than land based ones.
When it comes to aircraft against ships, should you always spam missiles instead of trying to efficiently allocate them?
>>29718784
I don't think they could sink it. The armor would likely prevent that. They'd completely fuck over the top side, but it wouldn't be in danger of sinking.
>>29702629
how does the skjold class corvette perform in this?
>>29720945
>So, this leads to the core problem: CMANO devs fully take Russian data to be granted, no matter how outrageous. In this game, it seems, having the military industrial complex that is boasting about their product the most makes you "win a war".
It's not about military industrial complex. It's about militaries with modern combat experience. China has ZERO proofs of their military efficacy in modern warfare besides their zerg rushes in the Korean War. It's a complete mystery so we have to assume conservative data not inflated manufacturer's data when talking about China.
>>29720893
>>29720945
>>29720998
>it doesn't count because CMANO developers do not take unsubstantiated internet claims at face value
>>29721913
You act like USN numbers are at all true either.
RIM-116s official range is '''''9km''''' but in RIMPAC 2012 quietly performed an engage at at least 15km. Shit's classified.
>>29720893
The mimimum engagement altitude has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
It has to do with the strange EM envrironment near the surface and how it effects seekers. Its a question of signal processing capability.
>>29721989
Never mind the nerfs they gave the F-35 compared to what was said about it.
But generally speaking what occurs is two things- One, either overstatement for propaganda purposes or understatement to hide actual capabilities. This leads the CMANO devs to have to guess.
