IR vs IIR, yea minimal…
1 Like
Are you having a seizure?
3 Likes
No he is having a skill issue
1 Like
So the kinematics, advanced electronics, infinitely better seeker head, way better off-boresight, and so on is “minimal” Because the G-meter and 10km mach 1.5 launch range is similar? ( edit: Idk the specific parameters for what Warthunder uses for range, point is that its high and fast)
Brit main here and I’ve spent most of 2023 fighting F-16s and Mig-29s in the Tornado Gr1 and Tornado F3. So what Im about to say is not coming from a soviet perspective.
No they are not. The biggest difference, is seeker type. That alone puts these 2 missiles in different area codes to begin with. Then the Aim-9X is generally just more advance.
Now, Aim-9M is still not finished. Its flare resistance is still too low, its missing several IRCCM capabilities and has massively nerfed lock ranges (still uses AIm-9Ls lock ranges, even though its was about 5x longer in the Aim-9M)
As for R-27ER. This is a symptom of how they have “balanced” all missiles to have the same low alt performance and the fact that everyone flies at low alt. Aim-120A is probably the best counter at the moment, but we’ll just have to wait for that.
4 Likes
Afaik the Aim-9M we are currently having is one of the earliest variants, but while seeker head and so on might improve with later models, afaik the G-loading will remain basically the same untill later missiles like the X or other potential additions.
iirc later iterations increased the g-load to 40gs
I wish they specified which missiles variants we had instead of the general name, makes things a lot easier.
The main bug reports I want addressed is:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3jdZd8ZGSdlK
and
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PX7CKrwWNGdr
The second one is huge, especially in a Gripen with no effective BVR. Just being able to fire at about 10-15kms instead of 3kms would be maswsive.
Based upon these docs for Aim-9L. :
the flare resistance we have on the Aim-9M is about what we should have for the Aim-9L and I have to beleive the Aim-9M would be much higher.
But yeah, G-loading probably wont change too dramatically. Though as a Brit, you can keep Aim-9X. I want my ASRAAM :P
2 Likes
Id love to see info on that, but i do not recall such being mentioned anywhere.
You know why that can’t happen because.
Our guy thinks all Soviet/Russian equipment is a pure paper tiger. The evidence?
After the MANPAD post. It does put massively in-doubt everything else and whilst I think the balance is mostly fine between Aim-9M and R-73. It does make you question the performance of Aim-7/Skyflash vs R-27ER and what sources were used to code both and whether we had the same kind of nerfs or buffs akin to the Stinger Nerfs
5 Likes
yes, you guys are giving me one… Yes the X is more advanced… How much of those “advanced features” do you think gaijin is ever going to implement… Both missiles use thrust vectoring, both have comparable range. They have different seakers because sidewinders work differently to their russian counterparts. The effect is and will be, the same… Other than data, these two missiles have been tested extensively in DCS. Would you compare war thunder to DCS ?
In the end of the day, can you look at air rb and say " yea this is totaly fine, everything is working as intended and has some sort of balance" Come on …
Look up difference between IR and IIR seekers…
1 Like
I would not use one game as evidence for another. It might be useful as a tertiary checker or as an alpha for things to add to WT. But it should be used for coding/modeling the weapon system in WT.
If nothing else. The gameplay is dramatically different.
You tell me… lol. IIR is just less likely to be fooled
This is factually incorrect. Soviet and American missiles use broadly similar seeker types up to the Aim-9M. After which America like the rest of the world, moved towards Imaging seeker heads.
The post soviet states have yet to make the move over to imaging seekers with the exception of imports afaik. Russia has yet to demonstrate them having one, not odd given they struggled to replace their old supplier
The only thing I question is why this post riled up so many people.
People can’t post actually decent detailed evidence to explain how Stinger and Mistral should perform, just “G overload” numbers and “Xg maneuvering target” which is obviously just not as detailed as the info they have on Igla.
To my knowledge not a single bug report about AIM-7F/M has ever pointed out it doesn’t have enough range or overload, only that the missile behaves strangely sometimes or how it has a more advanced form of proximity fuze.
You only need to go into the MiG-29 and Su-27 threads on the forum to see neither planes are implemented correctly and have some pretty serious undermodelling.
It’s just a conspiracy to imply there’s any favouritism bar the evidencial one.
which is what I said, (should havea added a “these” before “sidewinders”)
but you just elaborated more on that… Cheers…
i would say that the biggest code difference is the iog-dl
1 Like
What I can think of is the hypersonic Kizhal missile. IAW Russians “super weapon” capable penetrating any air defenses.
Till some UA dudes blasted a few with Patriot. Reportedly because their speed was noticably lower then hypersonic.
So I would not say pure paper tiger, but some paramaters are qute a bit optimistics.
1 Like