Again, kinda proving my point. Aim-9M getting better lock ranges would be the single biggest buff it can get without adding its missing forms of IRCCM.
One of the biggest imbalances between Rafale and everything else bar soviet aircraft is that it has HOBS IR and ARH missiles. Most nations dont have either. Buffing the none-HOBS aspects of the Aim-9M (i.e lock range) allowing for longer ranged shots would help a lot.
Not DOA if it gets AMRAAMs which it was compatible with.
Yes,… but why would you use a missile that is NOT designed as HOBS, in a HOBS situation?
the AIM-9M works way better than Magic-2 in it’s DESIGNED area of use,…
so i feel weird to wanna compare 2 missiles that are made for 2 different approach?
AIM-9M is made for pursuit kills
Magic-2 is made for short range turning kills
still DOA in my PoV, since it’s Flight performances ain’t much improved, and it will end-up like the F4F ICE, only relying on Fox-3’s for good game results.
Again, you are kinda proving my point here.
Typhoon and many other jets DO NOT HAVE ANY HOBS.
We currently lack our ASRAAM/IRIS-T/Aim-9X, etc etc.
So we are forced to use a non-dogfighting missile as our dogfighting missile against aircraft with a dogfighting missiles. Which goes a long way to helping the Rafale be so dominant.
Exactly. Which is why giving it IRL lock ranges would be a huge buff. Magic II has gotten multiple buffs so far that have directly buffed it in its best theatre. Aim-9M hasnt gotten a single buff since its introduction (I think) lock ranges would be a major buff and would go a long wya to balancing the differences between Aim-9M and Magic II.
Again, proving my point here. Ideally, everyone would have Magic II level weapons, but those have been denied.
Off topic - r27
The main method is proportional guidance with offset
Also datalink reconnect is NOT a thing irl
бортовой комплекс САМОЛЕТОВОЖДЕНИЯ, ПРИЦЕЛИВАНИЯ И УПРАВЛЕНИЯ ВООРУЖЕНИЕМ САМОЛЕТА МиГ-29Б (СУВ-29Э и сопрягаемые системы
Check this. Its a bit long and you’ll need to use yandex.
R74m2 uses a different method in order to achieve datalink
Point is r27et and r27er does not have datalink the same way r74m2 does or r77m
MICA-IR would be Asraam/IRIS-T/AIM-9X Level, which are IIR, not IR+IRCCM
The Magic-2 have been designed and made in between AIM-9L/AIM-9M
And it have been designed with a different intent.
From my PoV, you’re willing to integrate missiles 15-20 years more recent to counter another one that is in advance on it’s time, thanks to it’s design?
Fair enough, but if i understand correctly you still can lobe an ET from much greater range via radar lock with seeker lock after the launch.
You are completely missing my point.
Rafale is OP. There are many factors to that. Including the fact it has missiles better designed for the type of combat currently found in War Thunder.
Of course ASRAAM would come with MICA-IR. Though I would still argue that would be far far more balanced than what we have now and assumeing they have lock rnage limits for ASRAAM and MICA-IR. ASRAAM would have notable advantages over the MICA-IR. But that is irrelevant for here and now.
The point is. Despite being vastly weaker than the Magic II in an actual dogfight, the Magic II has once again recieved multiple buffs and the Aim-9M hasnt even gotten its IRL lock ranges. Despite a 3 year old bug report and it apparently being bumped a few times over those said years. The only conclusion has to be that the devs are artificially limiting the lock ranges for the Aim-9M for some reason.
Aim-9M is weaker than the Magic II. And yet even the most basic bug report to buff the Aim-9M, like lock ranges, arent being implemented. Magic II has gotten several buffs this year already
Likewise for the MICA-EM. Its gotten a buff nearly every single major update this year and there are reports from the Fox-3 playtest 18 months ago that still havent been fixed yet.
The Typhoon still has a HUD that is squished and a number of ohter miscelleanous bug reports that have been sat accepted for 6-9 months that havent been touched yet, let alone more major bug reports, but the Rafale just got a massive FM buff from a report submitted a little over 2 weeks ago.
can you see why people are mad about the Rafale?
Off topic - r27
Except it’s not a Phantom… It’s an F-14 which can go toe to toe with F-15s and F-16s if you know what you’re doing. Great RB flightmodel, 700 chaff/flares, Great Radar, best IRST in the game, Anti-countermeasure Phoenix, up to 8x Aim-120s while still getting 2x Aim-9M (maybe 4). Basically a better F-15E/C for RB.
did it get any radar upgrade? If not, then the F-14s dont have that good of a radar.
Really?
Hu? They are the easiest ARH to defeat.
So an F-14 at 14.0. Not sure it would be all that good
the report you’re giving is comparing a study from AIM-9L un-chirped to the in-game AIM-9M, on the basis that AIM-9M have improved seeker compared to AIM-9L
(sadly on reports, we have no access to sources)
and it have been accepted “as a suggestion”
But from what i’ve seen, early AIM-9M does use the exact same AN/DSQ-29, with the add-on given to be IRCCM system.
i don’t know what is the exact AIM-9M variant we have in-game, but unless the AIM-9M in game is a M-8 or M-9, using guidance section (WGU-4E/B), and AOTD (DSU-15B/B), the value are currently correct.
weaker in turnfighting,… not weaker in straight chase configurations.
It uses F15 radar components which gave MRFP and other modes.
Highly Doubt.
It’ll be okay, just okay.
is it our fault, if bug report we make are accepted and done?
MICA-EM was and is still kinda faulty since introduction,… we’ve made reports, and it’s Gaijin devs who decided to implement changes.
No. its 2 sources.
1 for Dechirped Aim-9Ls and another that states the Aim-9M had similar lock ranges to the dechirped Aim-9Ls when the RAF evaluated the Aim-9M. Flame has explained the sources used before, but CBA to go looking for them after nearly 3 years.
Aim-9M is “dechirped” in a similar manner to how the RAF modified the Aim-9L
Over in the Tornado thread I’ve alluded a couple of times to a previously unknown British modification to the AIM-9L. Now that I’ve got a bit of time I thought I’d write a proper explanation for what it was.
As a bit of background: the AIM-9L seeker produces an acquisition audio tone whenever an IR source irradiates the detector cell. The pilot can then fire the missile in boresight mode (where the missile will just fire and try to lock onto whatever is in front of it), or press a button which will cause the seeker to attempt to the lock onto the the target and then uncage before launch (like we have in game), the latter being the normal mode of operation. In the case of the Tornado F.3 the button the pilot pressed to lock the seeker on was known as the “Target Acquisition Enable” (TAE) button.
The absolute minimum IR intensity the AIM-9L can detect is 15pw/cm -2 , but it needs about 35 pw/cm -2 in order to track a target reliably. It seems that when the AIM-9L was in development the Americans were concerned that the pilot couldn’t easily tell from the audio tone what the IR intensity of the target was; so the pilot may end up firing the missile without a strong enough return for it to track properly. They therefore implemented the “chirp” system into the missile (so called because it made the missile make a chirping sound when locked on). Basically (I’m simplifying a little) when the pilot attempted to lock the missile onto the target before launch the seeker would be repeatedly driven off-centre from the target, meaning that the target needed to have an IR intensity of about 70 cm/pw -2 before the missile could successfully lock on it, as the seeker wouldn’t be looking straight at the target. This would ensure that if the seeker had managed to obtained a lock it would easily be able to track the target after launch (because the IR intensity required for lock was much higher than that required for tracking).
The British decided that the chirp system “constitutes a very conservative confidence factor”, and that it wasn’t even needed because the pilot could use the sidewinder seeker symbol on the aircraft’s HUD to determine if the missile was tracking properly before launch. They therefore set about developing a way to remove the chirp system from the AIM-9L so that they could lock and fire it at greater range.
This is where the Tornado F.3 STF 113 de-chirping modification comes in (a proper British bodge job). They worked out that by modifying the wiring inside the LAU-7 missile launcher they could trick the AIM-9L seeker into thinking that the missile had already been launched (even though it was still attached to the aircraft) meaning the seeker could be made to lock-on to targets without the chirp system coming into play (as chirp was disabled as soon as the trigger was pulled). This modification to the launchers enabled the Tornado F.3 to lock onto targets with the AIM-9L at much greater ranges than other AIM-9L equipped aircraft could. According to the Tornado F.3 tactics manual the lock on range of the AIM-9L was essentially doubled under some conditions (which makes some sense as it now only needed half of the IR intensity it previously did in order to lock on).
I’m aware that this sounds like bit of a wild story, so here is the proof to back it up.
no,… this title goes to the early AIM-54’s.
AIM-54C’s are a bit harder to defeat, you need to pull 0.2G more than AIM-54A/B ^^"
Well, i concede. There could be made a point that Vympel might’ve done something to Russian made R-27s but that’s just pure and meaningless speculation.
