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.
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
Another curse of the 9L.
Rarely ever re locks an enemy after popping a flare.
But you lock an enemy, and fire, but then a friendly aircraft flies near your Lima?
You bet your butt that 9L switches targets.
In testing it re-locks quite often unless focused on the flare for sufficient period of time that target is no longer in FoV after it passes flare…
Although I know there is a testable and verifiable issue with missiles performing worse over time as a live match continues for some reason.
Will have to specifically say in the 10.7 bracket.
My 9Ls do re-lock F16s & MiG29s easily when im in custom matches in the Sea harrier, but live matches in and around its BR, i rarely get re locks.
It is known and acknowledged that AIM-9L should have more flare resistance, and likely be more inclined to chase the exhaust but I think that’s more of an issue in how they model flares rn. I’m inclined to believe they will overhaul flares in general pretty soon.
Is it realistic that the AIM-9M goes for other missiles when already locked onto a plane? I have had this happen a few times now.
Every missile does this, its pretty absurd. 1-2x afterburning jet engines (and the jet they’re attached to) almost certainly emit more IR than some < 8 inch diameter rocket motor
iirc there was some recommendation to fire an IR missile at incoming IR missiles as a direct counter to not having countermeasures or something. Not sure if I remember currently. Perhaps @Flame2512 or @Gunjob have the necessary reference.
well something like an IRIS-T has the maneuvering necessary to intercept an incoming missile.
Even something like an R27T can do so in-game, though probably by triggering the proxy fuze rather than actually hitting it.
Was rather implying that it’s useful as a counter-countermeasure in head-ons.
oh, maybe for early all-aspects, but I doubt it for later missiles. Just a worse flare at that point