I mean that’s different because the 530f is pulse no?
My concern is that Gaijin simply doesn’t seem to care. It feels like selling a car to customers with the rear tyres deflated and no oil in the engine, but the bodywork looks fine. Instead of fixing the small but important issues that make the car actually work, you just hand it over anyway. And if the customer complains, you can still say, “Well, at least I gave you a new car.”
It has been nearly 5 days since the launch of the update, if they where going to make changes, why not do so during the Dev sever?
to be fair it is kinda america’s fault for not having more public information on their missiles (which they shouldn’t anyway)
Effort is diverted every year due to the very rapid rate of the October-December back to back Updates, causing things to be fairly rushed to meet deadlines which constrains how much can be done for the non-game breaking issues. So to some degree it’s expected at this point.
Things should be back to normal in the lead up to the 2nd Major next year, or so.
2 Likes
When are we getting a jhmcs change for aircrafts that use it I think only the new f16 has a proper one
not really
more like the devs fault for artificially nerfing said missiles without any sources and refusing to give them reasonable turn performance
3 Likes
It usually takes them way longer than that to make major balance changes lol, try a month or even more.
Regardless, fixing it’s radar should be easy and quick fix that they can implement it. The reason why it feels so annoying to play sometimes is that the plane only has 1 thing going for it and that thing is currently bugged.
If aim9x block 1 is added sure block 2 would be very potent as it has the 2 way datalink from the aim120d.
1 Like
Improving how the missiles behave and giving more of said missiles. Much like su27sm gets the su35 dual racks f15ge should get mrml, and after that fix the aim120, now sure the f15 might not match it FM wise but it has more missiles, that’s how the su30sm works right now.
3 Likes
I am tracking your progress and we will see your performance in a Golden Eagle.
Meanwhile: still bugggggggged xD
3 Likes
It’s still ends up fairly lacking in terms of kinematics in comparison to its counterparts. The main advantage to it is that it’s cheap and can be remanufactured from the existing Sidewinder inventory.
It doesn’t even have better performance than the AIM-9M, as it (the AIM-9X Baseline(LRIP production lots), Block 1 & 2 missiles) shares the Mk. 36 booster. Of the Navy variants of Sidewinder And the way it improves range is that it lofts, has lower drag and has a longer battery life.
The Block II (AIM-9X-2, it and reliability improved counterpart the AIM-9X-4 are functionally similar)
The Block II PLUS (AIM-9X-3) sees revision to the motor with a Highly Loaded Grain motor, so closes the gap up somewhat but still struggles.
The canceled Block III Sidewinder would have moved to a 6" motor section but was too costly, and likely to take to long for the time taken with little actual performance improvement.
The issue to some degree is that it’s counterpart 5th gen missiles either out turn it, or out-speed it (or both) while having similar range so there is no area where it maintain any sort of useful advantage, so the best it’s doing is guaranteeing a trade at best.
3 Likes
I’ll be brutally honest I’m don’t entirely care about missile data, but a lot of your claims seem to just be slightly misconstrued but i could be wrong
I don’t know where you got the aim9x being comparable to the 9m, almost every aspect of the missile other than the motor and the warhead are new, thrust vectoring, new fins and seeker new additions to help with maneuverability. as well as some probably classified software that sadly we will probably never get to know.
It being comparable is up for discussion a large amount of people consider it comparable to the IRST in overall performance with some slightly different criteria.
Also this was just my own personal annoyance just how my brain works sorry, but even just looking at the aim9m and x you can tell their different?
9m
9x
last note how did you find that pdf on the 6" motor section that was a really interesting read
I mean specifically in terms of Delta-V(the amount of work the motor can do), due to the reuse of the propulsion section, caused by the increased mass and induced loss of impulse control due to the TVC control module replacing the fixed rocket nozzle.
So basically its going to be at best more of the same (if not slightly worse due to increased weight) within the AIM-9M’s engagement profile (the larger available Gimbal angle, and TVC module provide better ability at higher angles, but not much over existing TVC missiles like the R-73, or SRAAM. and the lack of a HMD on the F-22 will constrain HOBS opportunities anyway), where other 5th gen missiles provide significant improvements in important metrics like time to target for a similar engagement in comparison to the AIM-9M.
Further considering that the -9M is currently implemented as an AIM-9L with IRCCM flags (when we know there should be a significant improvement) They likely won’t do much with the -9X as a “gaming convention”.
The IRIS-T is hyper focused on dogfight supremacy(think high off-bore minimum range), ASRAAM High speed(minimize time to target, and thus ability to react), MICA- somewhere between the two, the -9X is focused on range, and covering off the lack of ECCM effectiveness of the AIM-120 at short ranges.
The problem also comes from the fact that the AIM-9X program is a spiral development program that has deployed advancements as they have matured capitalizing on existing inventory(of the AIM-9M) to lower costs and so are being upgraded as funds allow.
The only issue is that effectively the -9X was intended to be a short term interim development to cover-off the prospective Millennium threat, while a “clean sheet” Follow-on design ( The “Small Advanced Capability missile”) matured.
And as such to reduce costs and risk it would be procured in Blocks, and as the program developed deploy what was funded.
And so with the cancelation of the Block III developments (, no additional appropriations from congress, and the USAF having too many Strike missiles and the AIM-260 on the go to care, also it’s a Navy program anyway so no need to co-fund the development, beyond bumping the production number to better take advantage of “economies of scale” to lower the unit cost. The Navy has so many other concerns prepping to get the house in order for the next war it’s not funny) the program stalled.
Of course they are
The -9X is certainly a generational improvement over the -9M, The issue is that the majority of the improvements simply will not matter for its implementation in War Thunder. I do think that the AIM-95 would have been a better counterpart to the R-73 in game, with the -9M held in reserve to be (more) realistically modeled should it be needed to make up the performance gap at higher BRs.
the problem comes down to the fact that the US has no options that correspond to their counterparts so there will be a significant gulf in performance in one direction or the other, due to the way Gaijin is progressing far too quickly.
“Advanced” google-fu, and seeing if the internet archive (archive.org) can revive dead links I come across.
1 Like
I hope they give him the MAWs system and the same double pylons, as well as the IRIST pod, then it will be possible to leave him at 14.3, and maybe replace the engines with newer ones, then the BR in 14.3 will really be justified, but otherwise his real BR is 14.0 maximum.
2 Likes
as you said reduced drag, but again youre ignorign the biggest advantage, the 2 way datalink, this missile can be short at long range in headons it can be shot inside clouds and it will kill.
iris-t for example doesnt have such capability, and as such the aim9x block 2 will outrange the iris t in headon engagements, this coupled by the fact that its the one of the few reduced smoke motor IIR missiles(i know python 5 is idk about pl-10 or AAM-5. the only other IIR missile which might have datalink is the PL-10 but i cant find any reputable source on it at a glance.
edit: ofc the strongest of all of these will inevitably be the MICA IR, as it has a a datalink also. but its kind of a given mica ir isnt the same kind of missile as these other ones.
afaik theres really not much going for russia, r74m2 which is the latest version of the missile doesnt really have much going for it, ingame it will be fine as i wager there wont be any real difference in how effective IIR is compare to dual band, itll have decent range and maneuvearbility, will likely be equal to the 9x in close range engagements. they might also get an upgraded r27et but im clueless on it and that is probably a better job for @kizvy .
giving aim9x block 1 to the f15ge would ultimately be a pretty dumb idea, because if it comes alone then its just a nonsensical advantage arguably worse than the mica already is, and if it comes with other IIR then its just not very usefull, adding 9x block 2 would juist be overkill and lead to a much worse powercreep than the mica is if added alone, and if its added with other missiles? thats a massive jump of the gun and really not something the game is ready for. fox 3 meta is still too young with way too many unaddressed issues.
forgot to mention that things like most of these missiles have INS capability, but that is hardly a replacement for Datalink
2 Likes
9X is widely regarded as the worst of the IIR missiles.
IRIS-T being the benchmark HOB IR missiles.
Then MICA IR/ASRAAM able to do short and long range and HOB
Python 5
Then the 9X a little outdated by the others standard
PL-10 we do not know a lot about. Russia do not have an IIR missile at this time.
1 Like
solely at face value
By the people who tested and trialed the missile remember the US were part of ASRAAM as were Germany.
Germany decided they wanted a slower missile and went for the excellent IRIS-T
Britain went for reduced HOB but longer range and a faster time to target.
US 9X has not been adopted by Typhoon operators with Italy and Spain chosing the IRIS-T
Despite both being offered 9X
India chosing ASRAAM now the seeker and parts shared with the 9X have been changed for ITAR.
Saudi Typhoons again have selected the IRIS-T when they operate 9X on F-15s
9X is a good missile it has just fallen a little behind but the US doctrinaly is about BVR
real life isnt war thunder. asraam and iris-t are no brainers irl both of these systems have shown to be extremely effective ground launch as well.
and whilst missile prices vary i think some figures put iris-t as a cheaper price to aim9x