A Stinger missile does the same damage to an Abrams that it would to a Black Hawk if it hits does it not?

Are you asking for an arbitrary resistance? Because either way it seems like the result would make one vehicle more powerful than it needs to be.

Fair call. Would a Javelin have been a better analogy?

So if I eyeballed a Javelin and hit and air target.......what would happen?

Okay now THIS SPECIAL JAVELIN that does fire (AKA forgegun) hits a helicopter.

Theoretically a fire ball and twisted scrap, remember this is ordnance designed to bust tanks and aircraft are all generally far far less armored since they need to fly and heavy armor runs counter to that
Hell did you know a harrier jet isnt even bullet proof to small arms fire

Only hes talking in theory and asking what the charge of a javelin would do to an air craft so all your rambling about "it wouldnt go off because" is moot since it doesnt address what hes asking IE how much damage, theoretically, would an anti tank weapon do to an air craft which is significantly weaker

While I see your points I do not understand why ADS need more durability when they have the abilities of Mobility, Flight, high DPS, and moderate shielding and armour.

In most other FPS the fire power and flight capabilities of a helicopter is balanced by the lack of durability of the vehicle. A dropship is not designed to be a sky tank, and is specifically designated as a medium aerial vehicle.

I mean slight buffs could be given to Gallentean resistance types, and Caldari resistance types, for the hull as long as those same buffs are applied to all tech 2 vehicle hulls in future.

Also you guys to realize that there is a fragmentation warhead that is used in javelins that is very similar to fragmentation methods used for killing aircraft. Though mostly this is used for killing anything that isn't armored while it would still technically work just as good killing most commonly engaged armor targets.

Javelins are not suited for jets due to the short range though and slow speeds but things like gunships and helicopters are more than plausible targets as long as it has a strong IF signal to which just about every helo in the world has. I mean this is no different than shooting a javelin at a tank on top of a hill.

and ultimately if you expect it to do something out in the field you just created a demand for another contract; Things can get developed if they persistently become an issue to soldiers.

Slight problems.

Javelins are pure IR.

How would a helo pilot know he was being locked onto and fired upon? Unless he saw the missile separation he wouldn't know to launch flares and if you're using a top down attack he's just as prone to must humans to not looking up. His war is beneath him usually. As proven through the entire cold war, lack of training and experience does not make a technologically superior position immune to technologically inferior methods in hands of highly experienced personnel. So the whole agility argument goes out the window soon as a chopper pilot is caught idling somewhere to probably gun down your friends across the street.

Also the IR signal from a helo is near the engine exhaust which on most helicopters is on the top or the tail rotor. The fragmentation warhead was specifically designed to frag against very soft targets not penetrate so even a near proximity causes it to go off for max effect.

Finally Structural Paneling made with Aircraft Aluminium Grade is strong enough from most directions of impact to set most detonators off.

There are exceptionally very few helicopters that can eat an anti tank munition anyways, the HInd being the only one off the top of my head due to the compartmentalized firewalls.

Also if you want to attack a chopper, you do it from the top is the best way to do it. total lack of armor and generally that is where the engines are located.

RPGs shot down quite a few choppers and they're slow and have NO tracking or accuracy and a similar type of anti tank warhead.