i mean, ur known for lying everytime you type, so idk why you speak of trust now lmao
3 Likes
Here’s the vid, happy?
3 Likes
I wouldn’t say it is easy to flare overal though. As should be evident from the amount of actions that need to be performed. It is easy to make a small mistake which gets you killed because of this.
But, if you know exactly how to flare it, yes you can flare it with high success rate. Unlike something like an R-73 which is heavily dependent on range and aspect (if FoV can not see the missile, nothing is going tot change that). For context, for the same area coverage in the FoV, the R-73 can be about 5x as far as the AIM-9L/M.
I do agree the weird spinning like maneuver done in the video is really strange. Although it can work, because flares are continuously used and direction is continuously changed (consistent with the mechanics). AIM-9M is easily flared still indeed in front and rear aspect because flares are able to linger in the seeker FoV for longer. In these cases flare resistance may even be worse than the AIM-9L as it can not track through the flares in case of afterburner (but I would take the much improved side aspect flare resistance over the rear aspect one any day).
I do not believe AIM-9M is overperforming per se, but it is too strong regardless imo. I think stepanovich vastly overestimates the FoV gating type IRCCM and underestimates the tracking suspension type. I was not very convinced by his statement that only AIM-9X, IRIS-T etc etc would be on par.
The biggest discrepency in regards of the AIM-9M IRCCM performance is probably mainly due to the fact that WT features only a very simplistic flare mechanic, where all flare act the same (only big flares having a higher heat signature, I believe 4.5x that of a regular flare). If a some rise time is added to differentiate between flares, AIM-9M would perform worse. AIM-9M bases its IRCCM trigger on rise time, but if a flare heats up too slow, it may be tracked once it gets up to heat instead of triggering the IRCCM. Russian flares are said to have a slow rise in temperature, whereas NATO ones burn very hot fast instead.
Also according to stepanovich, 2 years ago, Manpads such as stingers use a different IRCCM trigger. They have a dual band seeker and detect flares that way. However currently judging from the datamine files, there seems to be no indication this is actually physically modelled and only simulated. But I can not be 100% sure.
1 Like
It was a silly statement. 9X, IRIS-T, etc… are IIR seeker equipped missiles, some of which are over the shoulder capable. Its a literal generational leap over the R-73A, and afaik the russians never really caugh up until the R-74M and/or R-74M2.
1 Like
True in tank battles the F-16 carries 4 missiles when fully loaded, not 2 like the MiG.
Perhaps the MiG will get a thermal imager, since the R-73 is no longer an advantage, and the enemy was given a comparable missile in greater numbers for the GRB?
1 Like
Funny if he said R-73 counter are 9X IRIS-T and ASRAAM why those isn’t in the game on the same time as R-73 i mean if it really is and adding to Russia only isn’t a bit too unfair? i don’t know where he pull that of about R-73 have better flare resistance than 9M and on par with 9X
Prolly a language barrier, since I refuse to believe he unironically believes IRIS and R-73 are even remotely comparable. IRIS-T and 9X use IIR seekers with much greater rejection towards counter-measures (IRIS-T may be better than 9X at that due to using a Pixel Array rather than a Focal Plane Array), adding to that, both are more manouverable and have greater effective ranges, they both can LOAL and target and eliminate targets behind the jet using them. IRIS-T isn’t even affected by DIRCM due to Home-on-Jam, and it being a direct point weapon, it can be employed in a defensive manner - where you fire it at the missiles coming towards you. IRIS-T also uses an H-Infinity controller rathet than a PID one like 9X and R-73 (assuming it uses a PID controller), thus IRIS is much better at multivariable complex problems like intercepts of any targets it’s fired at.
IRIS-T is a generational leap over the R-73 (in fact Russia did not implement an IIR seeker until R-74M2… which is still in testing, they’re still behind the West in terms of IR missiles), seeing as it was developed in order to surpass it (Germany had R-73 after all and knew everything about its capabilites…). To put it simply, IRIS-T >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> R-73.
7 Likes
I know right? that why i wonder where he pull that from and which R-73 variant he mentioned?
And like i said even if he believes that then why those next gen IR missile still not in the same time as R-73? If he believes that and only put that only to Russia is unfair for me i really not sure who have the wrong idea now
thanks for the informing thread, I probably wouldve been one of those people not understanding how to defeat them and would just complain because of my stupidity XD.
1 Like
How people are losing their minds about an AIM9L with at least some kind of IRCCM, when there also is an R73 in the room, that can score 180° turn kills and are almost unflarable under 1,5km.
Just learn the system behind the AIM9M’s IRCCM. It’s really not that hard, once you get the hang of it.
1 Like
I think it’s people’s lack of knowledge of how to evade the missile and how strong the ir ecm really is on the 9M. I have no doubt that the ir ecm will be adjusted to be way weaker than right now in the dev server but a huge problem is the players as well. Most clips I am seeing surfacing of the Aim-9Ms is the plane is going in a straight side on and popping flares, not knowing that it has inertial guidance . I have no doubt that even if the Aim-9M gets somewhat of a semblance of ir ecm, people will still complain because of the current meta of turn engine off for 1 sec, pop 2 flare missile defeated.
1 Like
Except low rise flares that are used ij soviet jets mostly negate 9m irccm sadly flares are not modeled only difference between all flares is high and low callibre
broken aim-9, again
An Issue that was resolved in the later 9M blocks if I recall.
3 Likes
Maybe, but we do not know what kind of model we are getting of 9M, and it still most likely did not get resolved entirely
The addtion of the 9M (and possible similar/same IRCCM system on the Magic 2 and Python 4) is maybe what will prompt Gaijin to add more distinctions between flares. This also creates a bit of a different dynamic overal however.
Making Soviet/Russian (idk if modern Russian flares are slow-rise as well) slow-rise would:
- make AIM-9M’s, and missiles with similar IRCCM trigger, less effective against them
- make small FoV/spatial seperation type IRCCM (namely R-73) more effective against them.
- overal make IR missiles in general a bit more flare resistant in side aspects (helpful for BR 11.0+ planes against the newer plane).
Also they would need to introduce conditions for IRCCM trigger, because manpads don’t use the same mechanic and should not be affected by slow-rise type flares. I think Gaijin could implement both quite easily.
1 Like
well we can hope that one day flares will get overhaul one day
It is not known what version of the AIM-9M we have in game. Until that is disclosed, we can not be sure if slow-rise type like flares would be effective or not. Maybe it’s a later block solely so that Gaijin doesn’t have to add different flare types.
But considering the R-73 we have is the earliest type (judging from 45° OBS capability), referred to as RMD-1 by some, it should be fair to say we also have an earlier block AIM-9M.
1 Like
Irony is, if slow rise flares are implemented then they would be largely useless again missiles like the 9L which shouldn’t be breaking lock from a reheat plume anyway. This would largely impact some nations over others as well.
The effectiveness of slow rise flares against 9M was a bug not a feature. You don’t want a slow rise time, that leads to less IR emissions for the limited time the flare will be in the FOV of the seeker increasing the chances the emissions from the engine will be more intense than the flare.
4 Likes