Exactly, it’s like some people indirectly imply that we should wait until planes with the AIM-9X get added first before we get the R-73.
Suck it up and work with what you have, the AIM-9L and AIM-7M is still a really good weapon setup, and now the US has HMD at top tier too.
Burning fuel tanks for tanks now have new effects
did they remove the APFSDS for the BMP-2M?
And Sweden? France? UK?
More than US and Russia in this game.
yup, what are you even questioning at this point? they need the best due to us getting the f14b last match that that effected there 60~% w/r at top tier,… like
But as we should be getting 9Ms ASAP. It would be highly benificial then. Though im fairly certain the british bodge could do it a bit
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 don’t know, why don’t you ask the Americans why they kind of sucked until the German MiG-29As in 1991 made them panic enough to design better planes and weapons? Do we stop the progression of the game just because at one point the Russians were smarter?
People aren’t even asking for aim9x, theyre asking for aim 9m which is still inferior to the r73.
right. and no AMRAAM? also as ive heard the ER is just as powerful as the AMRAAM-A
That spg looks fun
Indeed, with the R-27ET being even better due to it not alerting the enemy directly.
new heli is chinese lol
Vidar looks fun, imma go spend 60$ real quick (no).
They add things for balance, not for era or year of introduction. This arguement blows
Ok, so Where exactly does a AIM-9L & AIM-7M armed plane have an edge over the SMT? Don’t forget it doesn’t only face the F-16.
Uh… what?
If you want to go by dates, AIM-9M is from 1983, and AIM-7P from 1987…
Both of which would perfectly suit the game now that Russia is getting R-73 and R-27ET.
Now that the Super Etendard is here, I wonder about the possibility of getting a certain notorious anti-ship missile…
something for sweden
But… We have for example the 1996 version of the Torando F3. Should be armed with 9M and AMRAAM and should get ASRAAM fairly soon after that too. Those weapon systems totally outclass the R-73 and R-27ET in most respects. But we still only have 9Ls
AIM-9M also has the same gimbal limits as the 9L from what I remember. It’s just has IRCM and slightly more G.