Correct and the TY-90 seems far too maneuverable right now for what it is, its more maneuverable than Magics at lowspeed which is dead wrong. maybe if it was meant to be a late TY-90 with double delta control surfaces it would be more logical, but the TY-90 is certainly overperforming right now with its current 3D model.
That part of the internal report?
That answer is a may rather than conclusive because they’re still obviously researching the missile.
We actually don’t know for sure what Igla overload is. The source 10g is came from is just study guide. Due to one study guide Tor’s 9M331 was held to 16G, R-27 to 30G instead of 35G, and I have one study guide stating that Strela-10 9M37 overload is only 3G that is of course complete nonsense.
Another thing to point out about the TY-90 is that its seeker VASTLY outperforms the seekers on other heli-borne IR missiles in-game, or really ANY IR missiles in-game, which is… questionable… seeing as its literally from the same timeframe as the mistral and stinger
- TY-90 in service 1990
- FIM-92 in service 1981, FIM-92E 1995
- ATAS Block 1 (FIM-92E for air to air role) in service ~1996
- Mistral in service 1988
the seeker is the exact same as the stinger right now
IF they(the great individual actually) aint fixing the sparrow’s seeker. I have less hope for the phoenix that has less sources.
Literally its we wont because we wont
4 different sources that say guidance under PD has hell alot more range.
-2m^2 figure comes from the APG-66 performance document and the line for the F16 lines up with the document figures.
This launch envelope should be from the 7M as 7F has lower values.
The red line is the 45km max range(independent of RCS value which shouldn’t be the case either way) and green is for the seeker range (40km for a 2m^2 target)under 200watt CWI guidance.
Actually 5 sources total with the recent one including a firing test of the 7F at 48km.
And of course, he closed the topic 3 hours after my last reply.
The biggest advantages with PD guidance are longer range, FM thus range to target is known and no missile warning. Why no missile warnign? Because the Sparrow homes on the main radar’s STT signal, and this one doesn’t change. It’s CW illumination that gives the warning. But with this you can’t change track from PD to pulse. But why would you use pulse, a single chaff removes all track.
The funny thing about this is that before the report was closed was that I could fire sparrows up to 53km(which is how I could determine the RCS of several planes) and the 45km limit was still there. I now can’t fire beyond 45km at all lol.
Uhm… no…
Most notably, the TY-90 has a track rate of 40deg/s, almost 4x that of the stinger and 2x that of the Mistral. Its one of the primary reasons why the TY-90 is borderline unflareable in-game, since it manages to keep targets within the flare ignoring “inner FOV” much better than any other missile in-game, and until the R-73 was added, was the highest track rate in-game barring the SRAAM and its (frankly ludicrous and questionable) 100 deg/s
I also highly doubt the TY-90 has similar/better flare resistance to the A/FIM-92B and onwards (Stinger POST) seeing as the Stinger POST uses a quasi-imaging (rosette) dual color (IR/UV) seeker, which would mean 1980-1990 China had better seeker tech than the US/France/USSR, and we all know that isn’t true, unless these TY-90 are newer variants from the 2000’s which would make more sense, but then also puts into question gaijins balancing decisions by making only the base ATAS, if not maybe ATAS Block I available to western nations while allowing all chinese helis the equivalent to ATAS Block II
1 Like
trackrate has no affect on flare resistance only 3 things ingame do
Rangeband ratios
FOV/IFOV
bandmask (seeker shut off)
the first TY-90 entered service in 2006, the program didnt start until 2000
Track rate does have an effect on flare resistance, particularly when IFOV is a thing, as it allows the seeker to track the correct target with a higher degree of accuracy which makes it less likely for flares to fall within the IFOV. Its a pretty simple concept…
simple concept in your head I guess but not how it works ingame, unless maybe the missile is right on top of an erratic moving target maybe, but from my own testing with custom missiles I couldnt get trackrate to impact flare resistance at all, atleast nothing hit something that wouldve hit if the flare resistance was better
Wiki says it was revealed to the public in 2004 but had already been in service for some time before that, and that newer variants with dual band (IR/UV) seekers and IIR seekers started appearing around the mid-2000’s.
Could be wrong tho, seeing as chinese weapons development is pretty obscure/convoluted and info is not exactly easy to translate either.
TY-90 and stinger have had vastly different flare resistance in-game despite rangeband ratios, FOV/IFOV and most recently bandmask being the same. Thats a pretty commonly known and easily observable fact.
ah wiki is weird sometimes, it was probably shown off at Zuhai earlier but afaik didnt enter service until 2006
I don’t know about that, maybe anecdotal since stingers you often fire front aspect and are more likely to be flared or cases of stingers missing last second since their maneuverability is god awful ingame being blamed on flares etc. Because I use both stingers and TY-90s a lot (mostly machbet with stingers and ofc Z-9WA (my beloved) for TY-90s) and I’ve had both easily flared frontally and side aspect gets flared a decent amount for TY-90s, stingers I cant say since side aspect shots usually result in a miss from maneuvering anyways…
its hard to compare since targets doing basic flaring maneuvers can just kinematically defeat stingers. Hopefully the autopilot rework for stingers results in a maneuverability buff
Is there an section on the Redeye in that document?
No just the text in the stinger section I’ve already posted.
SA-14 is Strela-3. Igla is SA-18.
Ahh apologies I thought we were talking about the strela.