9L's are poorly modelled

so per Gaijins own cited reference:

“Second, unlike the AIM-9 models used during Vietnam, the AIM-9L was hard to distract, even with purpose-designed countermeasures.”

so why are they so easy to flare, even when chasing an afterburning engine?

(this applies in both sim and RB. 9L’s can be flared away when within 1 mile, chasing an afterburning engine)

1 Like

and for those of you wondering, the same sources cites an 88% hit rate, and an escape chance of virtually zero in rear aspect if launched in parameters, even when turning the AB off.

Please link cited sources

it’s literally on WT wiki

  1. Not usable to fix anything
  2. all IRCCM in game is heavily underperforming

88% hit rate in testing or in combat?

this is combat performance of the missile with pilot interviews cited in performance.

The problem with combat it doesn’t really represent the other aircrafts situational awareness even if its underperforming might need more that combat reports to get gaijin to buff it

Better source for you


RAF Tests with Jaguar.

TLDR. If the target is on full reheat, then in rear aspect. flares should do pretty much nothing. In side and front aspect. They might do something, but you’d probably best still throttle down.

The biggest issue. The game looks at engine temp, not the giant jet of flame coming out of hte back of the aircraft. This is why some jets like the F-5C seem freakishly good at evading missiles but somethings like the Harrier seem to eat missiles easier. Its because the Harrier is hotter than the F-5C on full reheat.

Total overhaul of IR seekers is definetly needed


Well you know they are heavily nerfed since their first introduction to the game because some players were complaining that they are overperforming

Stinger IRCCM is very underperforming

Stingers should ignore all flares no matter what since its a dual band seeker having IR and UV

1 Like