R-27ER complainers when they realize that they can just fly low
I’m sorry, I don’t think we’re ready for AIM-9X…
That’s scary.
1 Like
for me its not scary actually the R-73 is capable of that too soo… this types of things didnt scare me because i know what those things are and how can i try to defeat them in game because in game would be really different from what they are in real life, guys you need to understand that is impossible to replicate the exact same performance that the missile have in real life and implement it in the game. guys stop taking this missiles like they would be added like they are in real life because thats not gonna happen.
That is true. Based upon some RAF docs i’ve seen posted on the Forums before. What Aim-9Ms are like currently, is much closer to what Aim-9Ls were like IRL. (Flare resistance wise)
1 Like
yes i know, i think that i see those documents before, but and i can say too that is correct because i have information from english pilots that fought against the Argentine pilots in the malvinas (falklands) war that claims that the 9L was a really deadly missile, the countermeasures didnt do anything to the Aim-9L. am from argentina and i know argentines pilots that knows british pilots and they told me a lot of things about the war and how the Air to air combat was in that war.
1 Like
Yep, they were really good:
those are the best docs I know of. TLDR. If the target is on any kind of reheat, flares shouldnt work at all. In rear aspect, flares will work, but you’ll have to break hard.
1 Like
Currently AiM9Ls at about 1.5 km rear aspect hit at least 50% (even more in my experience) of the time even when the guy who’s getting shot at cuts afterburner and flares. It isn’t that far from the 69% figure that is the average of what is indicated in the paper.
Consider also that many planes have higher caliber countermeasures, so against missiles without IRCCM they are more effective than regular flares.
Those tests in the Jaguar were against large calibre flares iirc
So only the R-73 is allowed to do this? Only Russia is allowed to have anything close to this?
Russia, the soviet union, or any other post-soviet state does not have anything close to the Aim-9x that isnt some liscense produces or imported IRIS-T, MICA or similar
R74M2 according to basically any available info still doesn’t use an imaging seeker.
If you are speaking maneuverability, then we have missiles in WT right now that arent far of the r-73
1 Like
While the R74M2 doesn’t use an IIR seeker, i think it’s still a very potent seeker.
Not the best obviously but a lot more flare resistant than what we have in game.
It’s a seeker developped around 2015 so it’s still pretty modern.
We know it’s a multi-element , dual band seeker.
The missile probably has the same kind of IRCCM of the 9M (suspendend tracking) as well as a really small IFOV (multi element seeker). The dual band is still not implemented in game.
So the missile is probably very good IRCCM wise.
The only limitation is long range detection capabilities and longuer range IRCCM (compared to older IIR seeker (2000 tech); compared to the most modern ones (MICA NG/ ASRAAM BLCK 6 and even PYTHON 5) it’s really behind)
Yes, but its a seeker developed in 2015 through a phase they were struggling to get a domestic supplier after they lost theirs previous supplier in 2014. And the seeker they had before was not exactly amazing either. Like its 90s seeker technology. And not cutting edge 90s tech given Aim-9R was cutting edge at the time.
So its probably a 90s seeker head with firmware/software upgrades to try to give it some of the unique features of later missiles.
Edit: manouvering wise its offcourse a seperate game, but if someone were to ask me wether id want to fire a Aim-9R or a R74M2 in terms of IR seeking capabilities, id be unsure which to pick
From what I’ve heard, there’s a lot of different versions of the 9M and 9X that are between the 9M we have ingame and the 9X that is stupid OP. I’d be okay with any that are on par with the AAM3.
Question though… Whenever anyone asks about new missiles to counter things, everyone always screams “OH US MAINS CRYING AGAIN” “WOAH IS ME US MAINS”
Those same people… Can we please get a justifiable reason Russia has the 27ER at the moment? Every where I read, the ER is better than the 120A and B except that it requires the plane to keep the lock. It’s miles above the 7F/M and every other counterpart in the game at this moment. Why are you guys so soft “Oh, yeah… I guess I can agree it’s not needed” whenever the ER is brought up? I play both. So I’m not a crying main on either side. I want a legit response to the utter hatred that seems to come out of you when someone asks for a missile to counter the 73 or ER, but the puppy response when the ER is brought up?
2 Likes
No sim gameplay??
L
The issue is that there is none. Unless you want to nerf the IRCCM of the first 9X into the ground, pretending its not a imaging ir seeker. At which point you still have the issue that its more maneuverable.
The possible intermediaries are both prototypes, and in general thats a no-go.
Weird, I’ve seen mentions of more advanced 9Ms that are better than what we have ingame at the moment and also “stage 1” 9X that isn’t that advanced? Like I said, I’m going off what I’ve seen on these forums in the AIM9 thread.
This is far too misunderstood, the mechanics of IIR seekers, in fact all of advanced IRCCM is not understood by the community. IRCCM in its many advanced forms is very good at getting at the target it wants to hit. Plenty of video evidence for all.
This is a reasonably accurate chart at the development of IRCCM:
This is a representation of the seeker filters seen on early IRCCM, crude as it may be by today’s systems it was fairly effective, especially rosette scan. The seeker would filter heat information through the pattern presented, attempting to identify sudden blooms (flares) and maintain acquisition of the initial heat signature.
On the left hand side would be representative of an AIM-9Ls IRCCM, while on the right is closer to a Stingers IRCCM. With the AIM-9M it had several developments as it aged, however the variant we have is likely AIM-9M-6 with suspended tracking and frequency modulation, allowing for accurate detection of flares.
The R-73 was benefited by having a rosette/crossed array seeker, all documentation leans towards the crossed array. Which is an advancement on the rosette seeker by having faster pattern recognition and frequency modulation. I cannot confirm any true spatial perception at the fidelity K_stepan inferred, I would only expect this on IIR. This is a representation of what a crossed array seeker would appear as:
The sophistication of the IRCCM in game is already at a level where you should not expect to flare the missile unless prepared for it to be fired at you. If you were to respond late or incorrectly it would hit you, this is made all the more lethal with the AIM-9Ms smokeless motor, dramatically reducing the situational awareness afforded to the pilot unlike the large plume left by the R-73.
Imaging InfraRed Seekers
90% or better, that is the odds that an IIR equipped missile will successfully resist your flares and reach you, and this is a cautious estimate. The IIR seekers process is entirely digital and using its advanced algorithms allows for much better study of its performance in both simulated and live fire scenarios. In a hypothetical where you are facing this seeker type your odds are low to none. IIR seekers benefit from FoV shrinking similar to the R-73 but have more precise knowledge of what your aircraft signature is, and will be able to process and ignore the flares with the highest accuracy.
With all this in mind, remember that the IRCCM in game is toned down from reality, but that the jump from simpler IRCCM currently seen and what an AIM-9Xs IIR seeker would be is a truly massive leap. Similar to that of an R-60M and an R-73, you would likely get very tired of being unable to avoid certain doom.
This rough summary of IRCCM is a brief intro into the fascinating and largely overlooked history of missile evolution, with specific emphasis on counter-countermeasure systems. This is a simplification and generalization of many facets however it will be sufficient to understand what asking for AIM-9X entails. To get a better understanding and start your own research refer to the articles and video below, be aware a more sophisticated understanding of IRCCM will be mathematically intensive.
Sources:
- Countermeasure Systems - David H. Pollock
- The Flare Detection in the Two Color Crossed Array
Detectors Infrared Seeker - International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 – 8887) Volume 81 – No.4, November 2013 - Infrared Target-Flare Discrimination using a ZISC Hardware Neural Network - G. Labonté , W.C. Deck
Videos:
Broad explanation on various IRCCM types:
AIM-9X testing:
The seeker shown in this video is representative of spin scan:
7 Likes
Later Aim 9M mostly improve IRCCM from what i remember, and baseline 9X is way better than anything we have in game. I was talking about 9x block 1 as seen by me saying “nerf the IRCCM of the first 9X into the ground”
I would also want to point to " Expendable Countermeasure Effectiveness against Imaging Infrared Guided Threats" by C. Viau.To a layman like me it seems like a nice breakdown of different flare and IRCCM types.
As well as going over how IIR seekers could be defeated: by deploying spatial flares in a rear chase scenario
2 Likes
BOL IR being spatial flares would mean that they should get a buff in WT against AIM-9M, no?