Why F4J doesnt have AIM-9L?Didnt it use AIM-9L in real life?
Well the F-4E had 9Ms IRL and a hell of a lot of other ordnance.
It’s all down to their “Gaijin balancing department” which, if you don’t know yet, does not exist lol
Depends where you want it in the TT, if it gets 9M, expect it to go to 11.7.
F4E is somewhat fine,it doesn’t need them currently but F4J always faces toptier jets.11.7 jets need all aspect ir missiles in order to survive top tier.
There is no evidence that AIM9L is on F4J’s list of weapons. The F4S was equipped with AIM9L, but it is not known if AIM9M was used.
The Naval Phantom’s were removed from service in 87.The 9M didn’t enter service until 91.
The AIM-9M entered service in 1983.
Submitted a bug report to increase the lock range of the AIM-9M: Community Bug Reporting System
It’s currently way less than it should be. The report also shows just how much extra range the British managed to squeeze out of the AIM-9L with their modifications.
11 Likes
Another match, another AIM-9 that I cant flare.
Aim-9J completely ignored 3 shots of reinforced flares, meanwhile, my 9L still get decoyed easily by a fart.
9L was never this bad when it was added, why is it so poor now?
1 Like
It was first added it uses a placeholder FOV, I believe the 9G’s, however someone found the correct FOV and made a bug report. The problem is it turns out, is that it has a massive has FOV like the R-60’s.
It should have much better performance against afterburning targets.
1 Like
Isn’t that the case for practically all IR missiles?
Here the R-24T can lock an F-15 in full burner from 50 km away with 10° off the nose. Although it is also at Mach 2.35, which contributes a significant amount to all aspect detection, the lock range in those conditions would be 34 km without an AF (at full dry thrust).
The R-27T/ET should have an even more sensitive seeker compared to the R-24T, yet I usually only start to lock afterburning targets from side-aspect going above Mach at only around 14-18 km.
I know that they recently added a separate parameter for missiles responsible for all-aspect AF detection (DevBlog link), but as far as I can understand it, IR detection of afterburning targets at all aspects is still drastically reduced.
Do you know if Devs have any plans to improve it? Maybe we will finally be able to lock an F-5 before we close enough for it to hear us.
1 Like
I was talking more of its love of flares than detection ranges.
Even the large BOZ IRD isn’t enough to decoy a missile on full reheat and can only help with mid-reheat
4 Likes
Have the devs acknowledged this yet?
Because 99% of the time, when I’m sat right on the 6 of an after burning target, within 2mi, my 9L is defeated by a single flare.
A re lock on the target is very, very rare.
Whenever I’ve gone into custom matches, my 9L has frequently stayed locked on after burning f16s and mig29s, but in normal RB matches, in my BR range (10.7 with the Shar) a re lock or maintained lock in rear aspect is rare.
We have an open internal report for it yes.
4 Likes
Awesome.
The other issue, as mentioned by flame in a topic of mine, is exhaust gas temps aren’t used for IR signatures.
I mean, if the AF detection ranges were increased it would also help with flare resistance, would it not?
Might make some difference but it’s more the seeker will break lock on a afterburner plume even at close range to an IRD.
Wait, doesn’t WT take the ratio of the target heat signature (combines the engine, fuselage, and burner plume) to the flare heat signature to calculate whether the flare decoys the missile or not?
From what I can gather, no.
IR signature is based on engine temp only.
IR signatures need a huge rework if so.
2 Likes