shouldn’t be? IRST in game uses all-aspect band, has no difference in different direction, can easily lock 25km target if weather is good.
this should be the ET’s seeker nerf, I remember it can lock F-15 in 15km in head-on, but in game, less than 5
iirc, before they model proper flare, at first release, AIM-9L was one of the most unflareable missile in game.
1 Like
This was massively exaggerated
Yeah, wasn’t aim 9l back then just old magic 2 flare resistance?
Yes, which is still considerably less than the real world AIM-9L had in regards to flare resistance. The real world AIM-9L was much harder to flare than the current in-game Magic 2.
2 Likes
After all, no one IRL would preflare like mad and have third person to stay as aware as they are in game. AIM9L flare resistance is possibly quite strong in terms of non IRCCM, but as WT RN with 32 planes running into each other head on in a 10 by 10 area, that is not going to work. After all there is no point, especially things as ridiculous as AIM9X dodged by Su22 has happened IRL.
You keep saying about this supposed flare rejection capability IRL but I’m not seeing it from the missiles design: “The AIM-9L added a more powerful solid-propellant rocket motor as well as tracking maneuvering ability. An improved active optical fuse increased the missile’s lethality and resistance to electronic countermeasures. A conical scan seeker increased seeker sensitivity and improved tracking stability. The L model was the first Sidewinder with the ability to attack from all angles, including head-on. Production and delivery of the AIM-9L began in 1976.” - https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104557/aim-9-sidewinder/
The only improvement on the design was a going to a conical scan method. Do you have additional information on the seeker head design?
Conical Scan is an improvement over first generation rotating reticle seekers because it not only improves target tracking but also reduces the probability of the missile seeing a flare because it is scanning around a target instead of staring directly at it. Further utilization of this method by adding DSP lets you logically conclude what is or isn’t a flare based off of the returns generated and past returns generated, this is how the Aim-9M works while the Aim-9L is conical scan without DSP. Flare rejection without DSP should be low-to-moderate.
Regardless, i think we can agree the way Gaijin simulates IR missiles is not accurate.
In real life failure rates for missiles were quite high, reliability of the hardware is not a factor in-game.
The design is not relevant to the point - the majority of rear aspect only missiles were more than capable of locking afterburning turbojet powered aircraft such as the F-4 or MiG-23 from front aspect. These missiles rarely decoyed to countermeasures in such conditions when an afterburner was being tracked until more modern flares came into the picture. That is why IRCCM missiles needed to be developed.
1 Like
Seeing how my radar missiles sometimes going “Oh look, a civilian airliner” I doubt it isn’t the case
Well combat capability wise Su-33 is nothing like J-15, it does not even have ARH. It would be a slightly tweaked version of Su-27 (increased weight/canard).
Early AIM-7s are incredibly unreliable at hitting anything in game, which is true to real life lol.
Under what circumstances? They tend to hit things in-game that would be impossible irl.
Define “Early”. AIM-7C and AIM-7D are both pretty useless. Non dogfight AIM-7E isn’t much better.
1 Like
aim 7e (non df) are much better than the aim 7d/c lol
Every AIM-7 and every AIM-7 derivative.
Aim7m’s are actually really good.
In-game they are, yes. In real life they had a relatively poor track record when compared to any 1990 or newer missile design. This is beside the fact that the AIM-7F/M severely overperform in-game having 37,000s total impulse when the real missile had only 30,000s. Gaijin has never gone back and corrected this.
Does bug report exist?
I don’t mind F16s moved down again.
except for the fact that more planes than just the f-16 have 7ms
True, but F15s are just much stronger, 4 7Ms + 4 9Ms, rather than 2 7Ms + 4 9Ls, a worse radar and 60 CMs. To me that is not a 0.3 gap, I mean if 7Ms is nerfed, they can move it down to the Mirage CS5s.