AIM-9M Poll

  • Add AIM-9M to F-16C Blk. 50
  • Do Not Add AIM-9M

0 voters

I am only polling for the F-16C-50 as that is the counter aircraft Gaijin is adding this patch, I do think other nations should have the ability to counter the Mig-29SMTs R-73.

I am interested to hear from everyone what your thoughts are on adding AIM-9M/Li to other top aircraft in return for an increased BR.


With the change to the DevServer as of 9/4/23 ( the gatewidth of the R-73 was reduced to .75. This is the smallest post launch seeker FoV in game, all countermeasures ouside of the gatewidth are ignored.

Example of GateWidth, the Red circle is the FoV pre-launch, the Black circle is the .75 GateWidth as of now. Yellow is the Gatewidth the R-73 was originally on the devserver with (


This is an example of the kinematic capabilities the 9M would bring, it increases the maximum G limit to 35Gs and has a smokeless motor.


Here are two pespective of the same shot, this is representative of the R-73 (


While it won’t be direct competitor to R-73 (never will be)
Smokeless motor and (hopefully) improved flare resistance should help, even if a little


I agree, it would provide an asymetrical playstyle, giving more opportunity for longer/sneakier shots.


with how good the R-73 is on the Dev, i wouldn’t be opposed to the Block 50 getting 9Ms and the F-16D getting Python 3s


The Barak 2 deserves better missiles but the Python 3 is not an option for it because the Barak 2 it didn´t carry Python 3s in israeli service (i mean if they want they can put it anyways) just Aim-9L possibly Aim-9Ms Python 4 and radar guide just Derbys, but no Aim-120s.


For flare resistance, see this bug: // Issues
Once this bug is fixed, it won’t be able to ignore flares like it doesn’t exist.

1 Like

I hope so, but thats 3mo old and hasnt been passed to devs

1 Like

I will vote yes to anything that counter anything russian in this game

1 Like

AIm-9M might be easier to defeat (compared to the 9L) with flares if I understand correctly how it’s irccm works. But the opponent will have to trade speed and positioning in addition to flares

No, IRCCM would make the 9M much harder to avoid. InfraRed Counter CounterMeasure, is the method where a missiles seeker can determine what is a flare and what is the original target. By doing so it increase the missiles pk (probability of kill.)

The 9M would be a substantial leap in technology due to how well it processes data, depending on the variant it could be entirely immune to Russian CMs.

1 Like

I find this unlikely for few reasons

It would be more powerful in the war thunder meta due to people not knowing how to deal with it. From what I know, it’s seeker stops tracking once it detects flares (small amounts of time of course), meaning you could dump flares and snap roll. This won’t always be successful but it’s the best way to deal with such a seeker

  1. The USAF had the ability to test against Russian flares after the end of the Cold War and develop counters based on Russian design doctrine. This was implemented on the AIM-9M-9. It would be nearly impervious to the Russian CMs.

  2. “Not knowing how to deal with it” is a funny way to say unlikely to flare the missile, real life, and much of this game, is nothing like Top Gun. You dont “dump flares and snap roll” to bait a missile. Your goal when defending is to provide as much seperation per flare pop as possible from the aircraft, increasing the odds the missile will not just bite off on the flare but continue tracking the flare until your aircrafts heat signature is far outside its FoV.

Currently the seeker of IR missiles is focused center mass on the aircraft they detect, this is innacurate as the missile should be seeking the exhast as its heat source. This creates a situation where in game the missiles gate width is small enough, that no flare deployed behind the aircraft will trigger the missile to follow. Because the missiles gatewidth is not large enough to detect it the flares deployed aft. Whereas if the seeker was looking at the exhaust the flares on nearly all aircraft would pass through its FoV.


Example and bug report courtesy of @SE_8749236


They track through obstacles as well. Rather annoying

They may have had the ability to do so but it’s theorised that they hadn’t done so. Pretty sure there is multiple evidence defending this claim such as a video of an aim9x missing (not even an early variant)

I know the video you are talking about. Again, its real life and there are vastly more factors at play than if the seeker can avoid CMs. The situation you are referincing occured in the desert. If it possible that the missile had an internal malfunction, never acquired the target, or was dead off the rail.

With the AIM-9X/IRIS-T/AAM-5/ASRAAM, they are all using imaging seekers with vastly more capable IRCCM than was ever mounted on R-73/9M, allowing for a ms by ms imaging and questioning of the target and any CMs deployed.

Great video to show the AIM-9X tracking through US CM systems, different from adversary CMs obviously but showing how capable imaging sensors are against CMs.

1 Like

every nation that used the aim-9m should get it to there respected planes but you want only America to get it because you only play America and don’t want other people to get it. if they were to add it right now i would likely come to smaller nations like Italy, Japan and Britain, before america gets it

The AIM-9M would be power creep, but not to the same scale as the R-73. As long is it is not added on jets of too low a BR I support its addition.

We have no proof it did or that it didn’t. Barak II entered service in 1991, Python 4 only entered service in 1994, so there is a 3 year window it could’ve had used it. IDF/AF is quite paranoid about information so they likely kept it classified.

First of all, the IDF/AF never used the AIM-9M so that is not an option. Second of all, the Derby is superior to the AIM-120C-4 in every single way (except performance at near max range) while everyone is so afraid of AIM-120As right now, so that is a big fat HELL NAW for Derby right now. Python 4 will shit on everything we have right now as it was developed in the mid 90s as a direct counter to the R-73 and thus much more advanced and powerful than it.

we did it bois!

“this is innacurate as the missile should be seeking the exhast as its heat source”

This is not correct, especially with all aspect IR missiles. They go for the hottest thing on the aircraft at the aspect it’s observing the target. If it can’t see the engines. It’s not going to go for the exhaust that heat dissipates extremely quickly after it leaves the engine. It’s going to track on things on the airframe like leading edges and avionics bays.

1 Like