Seeker shutoff seems a bit counter-intuitive
Would basically make it easier to flare (the same way you flare an AIM-9M; Though maybe “that’s the point”)
But if we go by the IIR seekers that we already have in the game such as AGM-65D etc, they all just have small FoV (0.1)
We’ll have to wait and see. Having 2x Forms of IRCCM would make sense though, it could be gate width but switches off the seeker but for far briefer intervals when it sees a flare (or just for the first few seconds of the flight), if combined with push ahead, it could be very potent to flare but not quite as insane as IIR would be
iirc, isn’t there used to be a time in War Thunder that AIM-9L can lock more than around 4 KM?
That was what I was told by a developer. Clearly engine temps play some part in the band at which you get detected, but to defeat the missile only the ratio between the two matters.
Yeah that’s not right, this is AIM-9L’s capability against IRD’s;
Rear aspect shots (less than 10°) at MIL your chance to flare the 9L is at best is 42% at worst 20%
Wasn’t this test against a Jaguar?
That would mean that in game it should easily track targets that are defending when fired in rear aspect.
This is what I specifically remember from the Harrier manual.
Yeah and that decoy graph has 10° from the stern “no decoy will occur”. It describes (due to aspect) the seeker FOV will be completely encompassed by the Harrier so no IRD’s will enter the FOV in order to decoy it and the seeker can’t move quick enough to capture them.
The no decoy area marked is exactly the same as the AIM-9L performance from multiple other tactics manuals, area in red it will always decoy, 10° stern it won’t;
AV-8B’s manual lists Litening II at 445 lb though
Will be interesting to see (in terms of “dev behavioral science”) if they use the additional evidence from my report or if they will make them all 240kg
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/k091OhJj9cVl
Interesting
Yeah and that’s the same for most planes is it not??
Yeah that is what this behaviour is describing
Harrier isn’t meaningfully different here other than some advantageous angles where the nozzle can’t be seen, but even then the airframe will still provide lock.
Rear aspect less than 10° - ignores IRD’s most of the time
Greater than 10° - always goes for IRD’s
Reheat - always ignores IRD’s
Well yeah didn’t say it was magically immune to IR locks.
More on the note of how it seems to be much more difficult to defeat IR missiles in the Harrier compared to other aircraft even with afterburner.
Despite it IRL decoying them very easily.
Thrust to IRD ratio is what matters and means as you slow down in a defensive turn the Harrier gains thrust and such it lowers the value between the two reducing the likelihood the IRD will work. But the whole IR mechanics really need a rework, they don’t fit with any primary source materials presently. And my understanding is thats currently a game limitation.
Gotcha it is what it is for now.
Pretty much. We have reports in for it all so its just waiting for the game to catch up.
I never recall having any issues with 9L trying to lock, but in all my tests, Aim-9M and Aim-9L seem to lock on at the same ranges, its really wierd.
There is an incident described in “Sea Harrier over the Falklands” where Sharkey Ward’s [assumed to be Aim-9L] failed to lock onto a target he was diving towards which turned out to be Harrier Gr3s and the fact he couldnt get a lock made him realise that they might Harrier Gr3s and not Dagger/Sky Hawks and so aborted the attack.
Probably because they have the same seeker head other than the irccm, the range band values (distance to lock) is the exact same between them.
9L
9M
Yeah, they are, but Ive never been frustrated with the 9L lock ranges (though still think we should get Dechirped) but I am constantly by Aim-9M and I have no explanation.
Maybe it’s just what they are facing at their respective BRs / what I’m firing from
