Yet none of them has Aim-9X yet or other planes has their best ones not to mention Aim-9X wasnt even in service by the time F-20 was cancelled so you’re just empty talking.
‘’The AIM-9P, an improved version of the J model, has greater engagement boundaries, enabling it to be launched farther from the target. The more maneuverable P model also incorporated improved solid-state electronics that increased reliability and maintainability. Deliveries began in 1978.
The AIM-9P-1 has an active optical target detector instead of the infrared influence fuse; the AIM-9P-2 added a reduced-smoke motor. The most recently developed version, the AIM-9P-3, combined both the active optical target detector and the reduced-smoke motor. It also has added mechanical strengthening to the warhead as well as the guidance and control section. The improved warhead uses new explosive material that is less sensitive to high temperature and has a longer shelf life.’’
İt doesnt give any solid data but rather claims it has more agility and can lock targets from further away.
İncreased lock range and agility can be explained because of new seeker head but still doesnt change the fact that Aim-9L is better then Aims-9P models.
I mean, regarding the AIM9P4, you can test that yourself, Take out something with 9Ls and something in a testdrive with 9P4s , the Aim9L is better in every aspect possible
Even 11.3 would be fine the Viggen D is there and it has similar weaponry and a radar with TWS and also a decent ammount of flares, 11.7 should also be fine, but a lesser F-16 has no place being in the same BR as the F-16.
It’s just a matter of when to use R-60Ms to be effective. If used when you know it has it’s at it’s highest lethality, then you might think differently. Sure, it has it’s fair share of cons… but it’s a Gaijin thing.
That’ doesn’t mean that munitions and vehicles have to be historically correct because Gaijin. And you know that Gaijin’s WT is Gaijined and is not historically correct unless in Pages of History
F-15As were introduced in 1972; F16s later. AIM-9P was introduced in 1978. AIM-9X (Block 2) in 2008. You can do the rest. IDK why you would subscribe to the sequence of the historical precedence of the F-20’s retirement and the introduction of the AIM-9X, yet not be open to admit that the Gaijin’s F-15A, F-16A, and F-16C can accommodate the AIM-9X and it was just a matter of Gaijn’s balancing to make them fit the Battle Rating system.
I’m not convinced. I’m still on Gaijin’s version of AIM-P4s for the F-20 Tiger Shrak so I can be convinced it is worth US$70.
I guess you failed to read the part that “…the P model has greater engagement boundaries, enabling it to be launched farther from the target.”
What official reports are you talking about anyway? I’m interested in the fact you claim that AIM-9L is better than AIM-9P models. I got my information from USAF. My claim is traceable.
And why would the USAF give solid data? To you? Surely you gotta be better than that. Further… If you’re making the argument that Ls are Better than Ps because you got your information at Gaijin’s wiki and compared table values, you will need to understand that the information there about the AIM-P4 and AIM-9L have been Gaijined, because they have to rely on public document and adhere to their game balans. At some point in time, they might have to update that because they have better information and until then, will your argument and reason against me be “empty talking.”? or
Yet it doesnt say anything about how much did range improved over Aim-9J and how much better then Aim-9L.
Sadly USAF doesnt actually support your claims that lacks proper information considering they are the ones who made this missile for Export market.
Here, in case you can read there is actually proper information for Aim-9P series. Let me gibe you quote actually:
“ Force)
The AIM-9P-4 is an incremental development of the AIM-9P-3, with an all aspect seeker using some of the technology developed for the AIM-9L. In comparison with its cousin, it is less agile but still a very effective missile. The AIM-9P-5 is further improved by the addition of a counter-countermeasures capability. The wide range of types which can carry the P-3/4/5 suggest that the gas coolant is carried on board, as with the L/M.”
“ Originally designed specifically for export, the AIM-9P has found itself in use by the US Air Force in recent years. The AIM-9P is a simpler, less expensive Sidewinder, without many of the advanced electronics and seeker features of the AIM-9L and AIM-9M. There are several flavors of the AIM-9P, depending upon the needs of the receiving country and what the US is willing to let them have; they are all based on the AIM-9B/E/J series, and many are in fact rebuilds. The AIM-9P1 has a laser proximity fuze for increased reliability; the AIM-9P2 adds a reduced-smoke motor to that. The AIM-9P3 adds a more advanced warhead, improved guidance electronics, and faster-actuating control surfaces. The AIM-9P4 replaces the seeker with one based on (but not quite as advanced as) the AIM-9L/M. The AIM-9P5 adds IRCM resistance similar to that of the AIM-9M.
Now tell me, how does Aim-9P4, a missile that is rebuilded based on Aim-9B/E/J without advanced electronics and features can be better then Aim-9L?
Unlike you i dont throw claims that contains a basic knowledge.
İmagine those informations are compeletly classified and USAF itself never published any solid data about Sidewinder family…
Maybe the reason has something to do with… ahhmm… the military sensitivity of the information on public domain? But you said it yourself.
So why persist that the AIM-9L is better despite the USAF saying has " greater engagement boundaries, enabling it to be launched farther from the target". Is it because Gaijin made a table that conforms to their Battle Rating system?
Where do you suppose the people who you quoted got their information from? Public documents published by… the Rushans? or maybe the USAF themselves? So your “claims that contains a basic knowledge.”? is actually coming from “official and statutory sources” rather than publications by “random people”. You rely on the data from people who got their information from the USAF themselves.
Suffice it to say, the USAF’s official description of the AIM-9P is complete for the purpose of conveying appropriate general information. USAF doesn’t require hard factual data to convince a WT player that the performance difference between munitions of the same pedigree is convincingly significant to warrant re-classification of a war vehicle for the purpose of playing video games. Unfortunately, it is beyond the comprehension of some of players, and want to rely specifically on hard numbers fabricated by story tellers rather than rely on what is de facto from an official source.
I guess you failed to comprehend again. I did not claim that the USAF supports my claim. Let me make it clear - er. I claimed : "The AIM-9P4s are my preferred AIM-9 for Gaijin’s F-20 Tigershark. Or maybe this will elude you once more. Well in that case, I give up. I can’t explain any further
Mkay. So we judge the missiles under optimal launch conditions?
I mean its nice and dandy what is said online, but is it reflected in game? You can go on about AIM-9P4 being better for as long as you like; at the end of the day its older AIM-9J missile body with AIM-9L seeker.
Brother the P4 is simply worse
It has the exact same seeker as the Aim9L however:
It does less fin AoA, it has less fin wing area, and it has less
Δv, its worse in every metric possible.
Sure maybe irl the P4 has some advantages, but in WT its just worse .
P4’s advantage over Aim-9L is the reduced smoke motor, its just Aim-9J with L seeker plus reduced smoke motor but for some reason our guy keep insisting it has better range and agility then Aim-9L.
To each his own, but to my experience, back in 1994, I recall reading an article why it was the prefered AIM9 by USN F18 and F14 pilots because of over the shoulder encounters. They found it to have higher turn rate over a faster AIM9L. Your zero information about my official and authoritative source is your empty talk.
That’s why it’s called Gaijined
There are subtle things not said in the tables that you guys haven’t even considered like
lower inertial mass which translates to (take a wild guess, there’s two benefits)
less fin AoA means it close matches turning characteristics at reduced weight
how can Δv be less with improved solid rocket boosters?
Like I said Gaijined. How much worse? Worse could be an overstatement; you cannot say it is under performing; you cannot say it is ineffective; you cannot say it’s a bad option. The best thing to say is statistically less albeit a negligible disadvantage over the AIM9L.
Your failure of comprehension is legendary. Do you need interpretation of “enabling it (AIM-9P1) to be launched farther from the target.”
What will you use for argument against my proof? Your numerical data sheet made by… Gaijin?
I keep saying that Gaijin has to follow a criterion of putting in numbers so as to keep in line with their battle rating necessities. This is at detriment to the degree of realism which is out of scope for this thread. The F-20 Tigershark is good, but not in it’s right place for BR as perceived by most players and content creators and I share their sentiment. For the price you pay, how statistically can you be enjoying your purchase at being at the lower end of your BR?. So between the Tigershark and the Raam Segol, I had to go to the one with better value for me as a WT player, until the hype settle down cause I’ve been disappointed with value I put in this game.
being able to aquire a lock from longer ranges than a aim 9j doesnt mean that the actual kinematic range of the missile was improved. and they are comparing it to the aim 9J not the L
So you’re basically saying the reason why you’re claiming Aim-9P is more agile then 9L is because you read article back in days and saw some pilots claimed that it is better then 9L?
There is a reason why pilots testimonies and claims doesnt consider as truth and thats because its not accurate all the time, if we go by that Logic DM53 should have 2000m/s muzzle velocity cause some Leopard crew claimed it was able to achieve that speed while in reality it can reach 1790m/s.
İm curious, can you actually read and understand what article is trying to explain?
You have zero solid proof that states Aim-9P has range advantage over Aim-9L, article itself clearly explains it has range advantage over Aim-9J because of improved seeker that was developed for Aim-9L.
Either bring Solid specs that shows Aim-9P4 has better kinematic range,agility and speed over Aim-9L or stop embrassing yourself.
In game its just 9J with 9L seeker
So not better there
IRL the seeker are different but should only be slightly different
But I’ve heard of it using a smokeless motor but nothing about better pull
So probably not better IRL
