what do you want done to the irccm?
Yup, very capable missile. And thats the 9L. Can imagine how hard Aim-9Ms were to defeat IRL at full strength.
1 Like
They could consider adding the additional forms of IRCCM the 9M had (even just one might help)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3jdZd8ZGSdlK
But I reckon they should just start by giving the 9M better lock ranges.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PX7CKrwWNGdr
1 Like
As Morvran said earlier its IRCCM isn’t quite right and its guidance isn’t telling the missile where to go correctly
probably not care for flares much at all. With 9X and even stronger missiles like ASRAAM I’m surprised nobody tried developing a towed heat decoy or something similar to a radar decoy
Back when they tested missile seekers against their own flares, thought the missile was flare resistant then found out that soviet equipment had “dirty” flares that fooled the seeker
don’t remember which missile, however it did happen. Therefore i don’t fully trust papers that compare the seeker against self made flares
"In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said ‘I love that flare’.
"Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.
“I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/us-syria-russia-dogfight/index.html
9x missed
Probably because they wouldnt work. 9Ms liked ignoring towed flares for live fire exercises.
BOL works by literally hiding the aircraft from view in a massive IR cloud.
2 Likes
Honestly communist low quality production accidentally becoming a strength checks out, there’s more than enough examples of shoddy workmanship being better than perfection throughout history to make this plausible.
half a mile is 800m which is pushing it in how close you want to fire a sidewinder, especially in a dogfight with all the advancements and thrust vectoring that’s still knife fight distance.
AIM 120 doesn’t care for flaresand would have been fired in a different position to the sidewinder
2 Likes
air deployable sun to hide your planes thermal signature
pilot switched to amraam instead of using another 9x despite close range which should tell you something
also like i said, i won’t be trusting western sources on efficieny against russian flares if they did not use them on their tests for above listed reasons.
thing 1 didnt work, try thing 2. pretty simple ngl. Its an IR missile from a carrier launched fighter so there’s always the chance that there was moisture in the seeker head, During the falklands war the royal navy kept the seeker heads in ovens to keep them dry to avoid this so 30 years on its still a possibility for water ingress
yes. 9x didn’t work because of flares, try amraam instead.
yeah there was totally moisture in there or any other non sense reason that people make up because they don’t want to accept some things about western tech
“too low range” “pilot was dumb” “moisture in seeker” “missile malfunction” all these things im hearing… you know what, lets model the moisture in seeker head as this is clearly a problem with this kind of missile. Or maybe follow reality
Immediately after the Syrian Su-22 fighter jet dropped its bombs, two American F/A-18E Super Hornets, flying from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, engaged, firing a AIM-9 Sidewinder – a short-range air-to-air missile – at the Syrian plane from about half a mile away, two US officials told CNN.
But the Syrian jet deployed defensive flares, causing the US missile to miss its target. The US pilot proceeded to fire off a second missile, an AIM 120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, which hit its intended target, downing the Syrian warplane and forcing its pilot to eject, the officials added.
notice that this was said by officials to cnn
what next, conspiracy about how cnn is lying and made up everything…
1 Like
Im not one for blindly defending equiptment based on where it comes from, that’s just poor show.
We cant tell for certain what happened without footage and a recovery of the failed missile. I was just stating possibilities.
I don’t take military officials at face value.
sips tea I’m not even gonna start this is not the place.
yes, clearly your keyboard general opinion matters more than military officials talking about what actually happened
(only because you don’t want to believe it)
So? All western sources are defacto wrong and can’t be trusted?
All Western tech is bad because soviet propaganda that is 100% reliable says so?
Of course no weapon system is 100% infallable. But to unilatereally says that all western weapons are bad because western sources claim they are good is just a none-starter.
3 Likes
theres more than enough occurences in history where officials say one thing when the opposite is true.
likewise
nice strawman arguments
I never said “all western sources are defacto wrong and cant be trusted” i said im not trusting western sources on hit probabilities if they tested against western flares rather than opfor flares for above listed reasons with how the flares differ
strawman, never sent any soviet sources or said that soviet sources can be used against western missiles
try to argue without strawmanning
instead of making up things about what i said, quote directly
yes yet here it is unlikely considering the circumstances and the situation otherwise following exactly what the officials said
there is also no secondary motive
TY-90s
AIM-95, which should have been added instead of the 9M anyway. Then the moaning about the AIM-9M vs R-73 being OP could have been completely avoided.
1 Like