This is a response to (AFAIK) the largest player organized poll on the forums.
They seem to miss the critical element of the poll, which is that both are equally ahistorical, but one is a direct nerf.
Do we have any sources to show that the PL-8B’s multi-element is closer to Seeker Shutoff as opposed to Gatewidth or is it just all for nothing?
This is poll btw IRCCM type on the PL-8B [Poll]
You can try to use some Patent/Research paper regarding multi element seeker as source
I have been trying to find one that specifies the PL-8B’s capabilities. I may try to get into contact with a technical university soon to ask if they have any papers that aren’t available on the internet.
There’s a paper called Simulation and Analysis of 4-unit Infrared Guiding-head’s Anti-jamming Principle. One of the author came from the Eighth Institute of Airforce so it’s reliable.
Spoiler
Section 2.1 of the paper outlines the 4-unit infrared guiding-head’s anti-jamming principle. It have both seeker shutoff （main） and gatewidth (about 1°)
you can use this to fold details
Spoiler
This text will be hidden
My bad
i love how everyone wants objectively worse IRCCM on a good missile this makes no sense
Thank you, I’ll be using this in the report.
seeker shutoff is better for longer range IR missiles which PL-8B (if it gets the upgraded booster) will benefit greatly from it.
How is gate width the better IRCCM in the game? If you pre-flare, it just kills the gate-width IRCCM missile.
Does anyone know where this came from? I want to see the rest of the source to see if it has any information I can use to polish up the report.
Gatewidth is inferior to suspension IRCCM. Everybody knows this.
Why are we even arguing for suspension IRCCM? That’s not what it uses IRL. It should be for the time being a copy-paste TY-90 seeker until they model the more advanced features of IRCCM. If they modeled it accurately, it would effectively be gatewidth with it’s own algorithm for rejecting flares (not suspension, suspension is the weakest algorithm you can have for this type of IRCCM). If they really wanted to model it accurately, they would have to have the algorithm simulate what the multi-element array is seeing on the gain/return and making decisions based off that data.
Thanks, shame it isn’t a valid source. No worries though. I should have the necessary stuff by tomorrow.
That would make it incredibly strong and almost impossible to flare. There’s a reason both this missile and the AAM-3 don’t have their IRL seeker capabilities. The game isn’t ready for it, at least not until defensive countermeasures, EW, and jamming are properly implemented.
not that hard actually, if given 1.5 gatewidth, it can be flared like AIM-9M in most situation unless within 2km
It isn’t, just that in game they need to manually make the FOV larger so that it doesn’t ignore flares as much as IRL, most missiles with suspension use gatewidth as well anyways.