Yet the standard Python 3 has less range then the Aim-9L due to its size and drag. It wasn’t “made” for range, it was made by Israel as an indigenous option for export and homeland defense. The PL-8B was modified to meet the modern requirements of an IR guided missile. Sure headons weren’t ever something to ever occur, but it occurs in war Thunder. This is an advantage of the missile and you are overlooking it. It’s better than the R-73 thanks to it’s acceleration, and although it’s not thrust vectoring it still pulls quite hard even with a minor delay, but the range and distance covered is the main thing about this missile. Was it intended to ever be used it this way? No. But that absolutely shouldn’t mean you don’t use it in this way in War Thunder, especially when it’s the most capable missile in the game for this type of use.
It has a high amount of acceleration and a fast arming fuze from the Python 3 (the booster isn’t much different. It’s just a longer burning motor that has no sustainer and still has more range.)
The next feature is the seeker, which is one of the key attributes of the R-73 that made it the most effective headon missile in the game for the time. It’s vastly superior to a regular IR seeker or suspension IRCCM seeker.
These two attributes make it the new best IR missile for this scenario by default.
the gatewidth is a real IRCCM method, though 2-element missiles like R-73 also have both gatewidth and shutdown IRCCM, just worse than multi-element, they choose to give only one, and both for multi-element missiles.
they didn’t add Python-4 and PL-8B for “being op”, but now it’s just a normal missile, similar to PL-5EII
Creating spam reports will lead to your account being banned on the CBR site. Do not make reports with the same sources over and over if they have already been rejected.
There are appropriate ways of asking for a second opinion on a source, or you can report a comment if you believe it needs a second look too. Spamming however is not the way to go.
how about the IRCCM part. Current PL-8B should share similar IRCCM to other multi-element seeker missiles like FIM-92, which also matches what you said in CM Covert Disclosures No.3.
current PL-8B isn’t stronger than PL-5E II, shares similar IRCCM and similar range, a bit better mobility but less acceleration
it uses quad-element dual-band seeker with rosette-pattern image scanning, shares same IRCCM to Stinger, TY-90, or Python-4 (not in game yet for same reason). I believe all this information can be easily find.
That’s amazing, considering that your “”“”“Bug Reporting Manager”“”“” seem to routinely ignore circumstantial evidence and then somehow pass completely vague nonsense like “Bro look Fox has da manual turret it shouldn’t turn so fast bro please nerf bro”, if you think the community shouldn’t behave the way they do maybe tell your bug reporting managers to stop acting like the way they do?
As I mentioned above, there are mechanisms in place where you can ask for a second review of a report or report a comment within a report if you believe it has been acted upon incorrectly.
The Python 3 may not have been intended for range but the PL-8B was specifically modified for it. The PLAAF wanted a longer range IR missile, they did the upgrade knowing they were sacrificing OBS capabilities. The entire purpose was to be able to get the missile to 4+km fast.
The Tracking suspension is better for this kind of work, that’s why it should be added. Just because the PL-8B is supposedly good at XYZ specific scenario doesn’t mean we should limit its capabilities to only be good at that scenario. For every 1 headon where gatewidth is useful there will be 10 range shots where it is a massive nerf. There is no need to artificially hold back it’s capabilities just because it’s good in 1 specific aspect.
I agree with the velocity and propulsion, but that would mean within 2km launch, any off axis launch or even no off axis will result in a miss cause it over runs. I’d still prefer R73 cause it just requires u to turn less especially against significantly better turning opponents like trying to out turn a SU30 with a mirage is painful, but I managed any how with MICA, not that this is IR but without TVC, range isn’t gonna help that much especially as NATO jets can spam flares.
Do you have any books or sources on the gatewidth IRCCM? The only thing close to FoV reduction I’ve heard about is this:
FoV Effects
But that has the seekers FoV smaller as a hard stop, it is not adjustable. The seeker is able to gimbal on it’s mechanism but the FoV is the same. To change the FoV, that requires a change to the optical system inside the missile, the seeker construction I’ve seen have no way of adjusting the that, they are fixed components.
I could be wrong, which is why I would like some sources to read about it.
gateWidth is the instantaneous FoV of the seeker without stuff like the sidewinders expanded acquisition mode, which is more or less a rapid area search more than a widened FoV. Other ordnance has the ability to increase or decrease FoV, some just has a very small FoV to begin with.
Ultimately the concept is simple, a smaller FoV and discriminatory wavelength detection to focus on that closer to airframe emissions.
