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.
If you mean Strela I mentioned in my message, I talked about Strela-10’ 9M37
The SA-14’s Systems Operation section may be useful to append to the Stinger report as it describes how the Control Surfaces (Canards) work with missiles that use Rolling Airframe guidance principles(as the Redeye and subsequent Stinger do use), which seems to be the main thrust of the issue with the Q&A response.
The thing is that regardless of the direction the Line of Sight Rate commands there will always be some configuration of the surfaces that will pull in said direction, not unlike a Skid to Turn maneuver due to the ability to use the axial dissymmetry of opposing surfaces to induce a co-planar skid.
3 Likes
Good shout, included.
That would be virtually impossible to actually work with the limited datalink capabilities of the platforms and time. Pretty certain that the Iranian F-14’s were intended to guide HAWK via CW just like Sparrows, with the modifications to enable the missile to impersonate an AIM-7F to the AWG-9. Note that there have been 3 separate programs by Iran to do this.
sa19 is tunguska right? 40g seems off…
Mistrals much like most French equipment in game is miss modeled in a bad way
1 Like
I do regret to say the above statement is a gross misinterpretation of history and completely incorrect.
Yes, initially thought by western analyst and the engineers of Raytheon and Hughs that the AN/AWG-9 was technically incompatible with HAWKS and that would be the issue in holding the program from going operational in the first place. In which Iranians had proven wrong in 1986 by achieving synchronization with the AWG-9 in the first successful launch of the HAWK missile. An achievement btw that was nothing short of a superb demonstration of Iranian intellect and engineering capabilities that were acknowledged by the West, as well as the entire Tomcat community of the Navy.
Additionally, the missile went into serial production and immediately produced two kills in the opening stages of service. A Super Etendard and a Mig29. To top it off the current Iranian Fakour 90 is a further development of the Sedji missile or better known as the MIM-23 Hawk. It is not a further development the Aim-54 phoenix.
For you to confidently indicate that the ultimate capability that was achieved was a “concept” of a missile that must be of guided by ground radars is quite laughable in that Project-Sedjil’s clear operational aim, and sole objective was an effort to offset the arms shortage specifically as it pertains to the historical, combat proven strategic power of the F-14, the awg-9 radar and Aim-54s.
the HAWK is a medium surface to air missile and the F-14’s operational domain and strategic positioning during the entirety of the Iran/Iraq was well out of range of friendly ground-based radars over the Persian Gulf conducting long range intercept operations, engaging Iraqi fighters deep into their own airspace and acting a strategic deterrent against
Therefore, this concept as you describe never existed nor was ever an acceptable objective to the Iranians to begin with. The idea that the awg9 was incompatible was initial belief of Western analyst and engineers of both Raytheon and Hughs, that is true but only half of the story.
The FAKOUR-90 doesn’t use anything from the HAWK to our knowledge. It was suggested by Western analysts that they produced HAWK seekers and put them in the AIM-54 style body but this would be rather pointless. It has been a long time, and there have been many changes to the domestically produced Iranian systems. They may have similar body style - but the propellant, seekers, internal design has likely changed significantly. Any attempt for them to install the improved motors or seekers into an AIM-54 style body for use on their F-14’s would be the equivalent of saying the J-7E is a copy of the MiG-21F-13, or uses the same exact radar and engine… we know this simply isn’t the case.
The Fakour-90 is far more likely just an improvement and domestic production version of the AIM-54A Phoenix for Iran to continue arming their fleet of Tomcats. Likewise, they are now able to domestically produce all required components to fully maintain their fleet of Tomcats and overhaul them as needed.