well… I believe not if I think about his general stance when he shows up in American topics.
(He always shows up and biases American things…)
‘Defeated by a single flare in 90% of situations’ seems a batshit level of exaggeration, IG.
Still, improvement of 9M ‘if it is historical’ seems fine to me.
Interesting piece of images.
Flare rate bias… hmmm…
What the hell are you talking about?
I mentioned that I ‘USED’ AIM-9M, but you shifted the point about defending against it,
You told us that AIM-9M can be defeated with a single flare in 90% of situations
While my experiences with AIM-9M with GR.7 were like ‘press the fire button and get a free kill’
Then, according to your take, maybe YOU might be the one who needs to learn something?
Lame projection attempt fr.
Maybe it would be fine to give AIM-9M improvement, as @Morvran mentioned, AIM-9M can be missed.
Well, it is a missile with an InfraRed-Counter-CounterMeasure feature. It gives resistance to countermeasures, not immunity to those.
But you are always making exaggerations, which makes things unhelpful.
90% of situations? That is beyond regular circumstances.
If you spam IRCCM missiles mindlessly, even Magic 2 or R-73 could be missed…
Yes, AIM-9M can be frustrating since it is AIM-9L with IRCCM
while R-73 gives a drastic upgrade from R-60M, and Magic 2 became all-aspect, along with the IRCCM feature, from Magic 1.
But, your stance, which constantly undersells AIM-9M, won’t help either improve AIM-9M or the discussion itself.
Damn bro, no need to take it so personally.
I never knew that Correcting underselling bias can be personal. /s
Anyway, back to the topic, if it is historical, I am fine with buffing the AIM-9M itself.
Just… don’t exaggerate things or shift the points.
Sorry, but your skill issue fighting Aim-9Ms is not my bias, it’s just your skill issue.
Tbf, you made it that by basically calling him an idiot.
There is a good bit of historical stuff that needs to be added to stuff in game. I wish they would focus on fixing that rather than releasing nerfed weapons just because people demand seeing the name of the weapon in game.
Oh, no no no. I just wonder why you want to derail this topic into a dirty mudfight.
Your take was simple: ‘AIM-9M can be defeated by a single flare in 90% of situations’
I counter with ‘do you have any proof of it’
Because when I used AIM-9M, it worked fine.
Then Kizvy provided a picture of the flare-bias feature.
And YOU ignore both the image and my take and nitpick things.
Well, Dear Sir Elton said, "Saturday night’s alright for fighting’
But, Eh, honestly, I don’t prefer ‘this type’ of fighting
“Don’t give us none of your exaggeration, we had it with your whining.”
Sarh mode on missile seekers once implemented wpuld be interesting against stealth, since it becomes a bistatic configuration, and the said rcs wont be the same for the missile seeker in sarh mode
In this I do have to agree, though they made some buffs this last major update so I’ll review my stance in the coming days/week.
But previously, in front aspect, the IRCCM didn’t work. At all. The missile would always just got for the flare.
In rear-aspect, it did only take 1 flare and it was fairly easy then to change direction
Then in side aspect they were rather buggy for a chunk of time and either went for the flares or just flew in the opposite direction to the flares. So for a while they definitely were in about 90% of shots, especially with a little range on them. Fired from a Gr7, being subsonic and a bit closer to the target might have mitigated this a little.
Now the front aspect IRCCM has apparently been enabled (which should also improve the side aspect angles too) and they seem to be somewhat behaving themselves at the moment, so they might have stopped bugging out, but there might still be some refinement needed on some changes they made to the seeker shutoff duration a few months ago, though @kensai16 was investigating it more than me. Still some issues with the 9M being 1 missile defeat if nothing else, if the target fires a missiles the 9M will pretty always swap to it for some reason.
But for a while, I did genuinely consider whether they were worth their weight literally and whether I would be better off just ditching them on the typhoon to save weight and drag
It heavily depends on range between the missile and the target, because of the giant FoV of the AIM-9M. The IRCCM (seeker-shutoff) triggers and remains active as long as a flare is inside the FoV, which is also the reason why BOL flares have a serious advantage here as the IRCCM is not triggered by intensity but mere existence of a flare and as BOL flares are ejected rearwards instead of up- or downwards, they remain way longer inside the FoV of the AIM-9M in front- and rearaspect, especially at short distances.
Missiles don’t seem to trigger the IRCCM at all and get detected as a better target (for whatever reason, as they should be registered as flares because of the intensity spike → flare rejection).
Side-aspect on the other hand is reliable if fired with a solid lock but extremely suspectible to pre-flaring as it locks and instantly switches to IOG (instead of switching back to SRC while still on the rail), causing it to drift off really fast and in the worst case detect a flare as a target, even if it shouldn’t do that at all.
It seems like they have changed something in the latest patch but I can’t quite put my finger on it…
“Et tu, Brute?” /j
Well, I agree with your reply since I never fired AIM-9M on a supersonic fuselage (Except Tonka F.3 Late, which I only have a handful of playcounts since I disliked facing other 4th gens in uptiers, from F-15C to Su-30MK2)
And my Most experience with AIM-9M was made by Harrier GR.7
Hmm… Sounds convincing. Then that is acceptable information about why guys are complaining about AIM-9M drastically.
Bit off topic, Just… Pangolin didn’t fly AIM-9M slinger, which flies in supersonic, he flew only A-10C and AV-8B Plus, which are both subsonic jets, just as I do with Harrier GR.7. So… his take about AIM-9M experience sounded a bit unpromising to me
Maybe introducing extra features, as Kizvy mentioned, would be a nice way to buff the AIM-9M? Since it is historical, why not?
:D
Yeah, or just fixing what we’ve already got
Lock range (2 accepted reports, including 1 from 2+ years ago), Track rate (Report from 2+ years ago), 35g overload (3 year old report for that one) and then just refine the how the IRCCM works a bit.
Then that leaves Push ahead as a new additional form of IRCCM on the 9M to give it another buff if needed.
Ohhhh, if those reports which covered with dust thanks to Gaijin finally became online, along with some fancy new features
Maybe then we would gonna see fewer topics such as
R-73 too stronk, gib US AIM-9X exclusively, russian bias (While AIM-9M is general standard missile of Western jets but only mentioning US)
Ah, if new AIM-9M comes out, I will def going to spade these SHAR FA.2 or Tonka F.3 Late.
can’t wait to see those.
Yeah… same scrap heap the BOL reports are on at the moment
Currently I’m more often killed by R-27(E)T(1) missiles as they’re a buffed up version of the R-73 with small FoV (and IRCCM). If you don’t pre-flare at a huge distance and change directions to not have it in rear-aspect, it will hit you regardless of what you do at close range. Without a MAW you have nearly no chance of seeing that missile coming and if you only have a small number of flares you have to be economical with them, so pre-flaring is very costly. It’s effectively an ASRAAM-light without the better IRCCM of the ASRAAM and shorter range because of the higher drag. They’re most effective against enemies breaking away from a furball as you get to fire them in rear aspect.
The downside of ETs is that they can’t be carried by the same lightweight pylons that most fighters dedicate to IR weapons. You have to sacrifice an ER, or laterly an R-77, in order to carry one. So yes, they’re a powerful weapon, but it’s hard to say it’s a better choice over an ER or an ARH in most cases.
Also, the long range can be a double edged sword, since it uses the same FoV shrinking IRCCM that the R73s use, rather than the seeker cutoff one that AIM-9Ms use. This means they’re quite easy to accidentally spoof at longer ranges, so your target has to not only be rear aspect, but also not currently being engaged by someone else (Or likely to be during the ~15 second flight time).
They’re powerful missiles, to be sure, and very few people expect them. But it’s hard to compare them 1:1 with AIM-9Ms, which get rails dedicated to them specifically, so you aren’t really losing anything by throwing them at whatever you see.
The R27ET flare resistance is much worse than that of the R73
the only aircraft which shouldnt bring r27et is su30sm, every other sukhoi should give up a radar missile for it
My point is that it’s a bad comparison to the AIM-9M, given that they’re restricted in number (You can carry two max), and it’s restricted to slots that can also be used for just as if not more powerful missiles. So any talk of it’s effectiveness needs to take into account a comparison to the single best SARH missile in the game.
9M / AAM-3 shutoff fills a role that gatewidth struggle to fill, which is side-aspect. Radar missiles thrive in front aspect and are decent in rear aspect, but struggle in side aspect (notching). 9M is decent in every stat and amazing in side aspect. Its also decent in front aspect but struggles in rear aspect. Its hard imo to place IR missiles in a tier list* when they fill different roles and perform way better in situations that the other would struggle in. I’d much rather have something like the PL-8B in a rear aspect / front aspect than the 9M, but I would much rather have the 9M over the PL-8B in side aspect. I’d love for the 9M to come to the MiG-29N so I can use 9Ms over R-73.
*Atleast when you consider shutoff. Ranking gatewidth is relatively easy since they pretty much all have the same seeker.
+But I’d also like to see a 9M buff in some capacity. I don’t think buffing them will make them overpowered.