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.
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
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.
Well since I was relying when someone said it should be an identical “copy paste” TY-90 seeker, you can see why I said that lol.
It’s already one of the best seekers in the game lol, and putting it on a top tier aircraft and on a better missile platform would be crazy effective, hence why I said that would be a poor choice balancing wise.
Due to some unexpected events I couldn’t post the report yesterday but I will be doing so later today after I finish fully translating these papers.
Here’s the first one I will be using, courtesy of @Yamahagi
And the second one which highlights it even clearer
http://www.yygx.net/cn/article/pdf/preview/9006.pdf
Thought I’d let you guys read through it if you’re interested
Ended up using a different source which was more explicit, but it’s finally done.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/feYAdZ8bJTaH
If they don’t at least accept that these are valid sources (as they have done with previous reports) than I don’t really know what to do next
This is unfortunate, it appears they still want us to leak classified documents about the exact nature of the PL-8Bs IRCCM.
As for the cropping it was removing blank space from the weirdly sized PDFs, not sure why they want to see blank space.
Anyways here’s the sources again incase anyone can make some use of them
http://www.yygx.net/cn/article/pdf/preview/9006.pdf
http://hwjs.nvir.cn/cn/article/pdf/preview/10.3969/j.issn.1001-8891.2012.05.012.pdf
Man, this is really annoying. I really hate the bug reporting system
