I would agree with the Harrier part but personally i think the 9M and equivelent (9Li, whatever russia have) should only really go to aircraft with limited capability, such as attackers (A7k, Gr7) which are slow and aircraft which only get 2 missiles (Tornado IDS variants for example) but i cant imagine an f16 running around being super fast with 6 flare resistant 35g missiles, it would break top tier. even as a GR7 player im torn between whether i think having 4 is balanced enough, so i think Li would be better.
I think they should not go on aircraft with limited abilities. This is already why the A-10 and Su-25 were wreaking havok. The top of the line missiles should go on the top of the line fighters or the attack aircraft should be at such a high BR that whatever ordinance they have is hardly useful to begin with. They’re attack aircraft.
How was the upgrade achieved? Was control surface power increased or was the G limit raised by strengthening the missile? (correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve heard the Lima needed to be reinforced to even reach 30G while in theory it could pull more)
The modifications to the AIM-9M seeker, and the new propellant changed the weight, weight balance, and increased the structural stability of the missile.
The Hercules Mk36 Mod 9 motor switches from CTPB to HTPB (reduced smoke) propellants which is lighter due to there being less aluminum in it and adheres to the packaging better improving rigidity and strength.
2 Likes
AIM-9M has changed the Guidance Control Section (GCS) to WGU-4
1 Like
I think 9Ls may have had another nerf. It has been previously established that 9Ls should ignore flares when the target is on reheat in most cases and most aspect, especially in rear aspect. In game, it was pretty much only rear aspect though that this was the case. As in any other aspect, the 9L would favour flares heavily. No matter if the target was on reheat.
Just had a perfect shot at a full reheating Mig-23 in rear aspect, in theory the 9L should have traveled straight and true, instead, a single flare was suffecient to defeat the 9L in rear aspect. The target remained on the full reheat the entire time.
Here is clips of the shot. Everything I know, this should have hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YiWNSkh8jo - From Target Perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRHDsi9VIGQ - From my perspective
This happened in an SB match
3 Likes
It’s been known for quite sometime, the community tried to gather other resources about it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PV1HITijUnwT
It didn’t receive a nerf, it was just an unusual circumstance. Nothing was “changed” recently.
How was it unusual? the mig was afterburning and the aim9L went for the flare instead from rear aspect which shouldnt be happening.
The MiG-23 has large caliber countermeasures, it seems the flares completely obstructed the fov of the missile due to how he maneuvered. This would likely have even stopped an R-73 (at least momentarily). It’s true the AIM-9L should not be decoyed when tracking a reheat plume, but there is also historical precedence for the missile being decoyed by different types of flares.
It’s not dependent on the caliber of the flare in question (it is slightly impacted by the size but only as it applies to the actual burn rate and sustain time of the flare in question) but the chemical composition of the pyrotechnic compound(s) and how that interacts with the response of the detector in the missile’s seeker.
6 Likes
@_David_Bowie @Fireball_2020 I had doubts about AIM-9P-4, AIM-9P-5 & AIM-9S maneuvering capability Sea Level at ?
Uhhh, that sentence is phrased quite badly.
The SAM SPAA’s name is M48 Chaparral, the missile’s name is MIM-72. Just like how the name of the US toptier SPAA is XM1069/ADATS and the missile’s name is MIM-146.
It is important to note that the MIM-72A itself (the first MIM-72 variant) is not completly equal to the AIM-9D, as it has additional electronics and wires that optimize it for SAM use, hence the reduced maneuverability to just 16.5G as you said.
However, the MIM-72 had many variants which vastily improved upon each other in many areas. The definitive variant of the MIM-72 is the MIM-72G, which includes a new AN/DAW-2 seeker using the FIM-92’s Passive-Optical-Seeker-Technique (POST) technology (not the actual Stinger seeker, just uses the same IRCCM/ECCM technology), bigger 12.6kg M250 blast-fragmentation warhead, M121 smokeless motor, and many other smaller upgrades. The MIM-72G has a range of 9km. Thanks to that, we can assume the MIM-72G is capable of pulling as much G as the original AIM-9D, or more likely, far more than that.
edit: according to this archive I found, the M250 warhead has 6.6lb (~3kg) of Octol explosives. Ingame, Octol has a TNT modifier of 1.59x.
3 * 1.59 = 4.77
The M250 warhead has an explosive weight of 4.77kg TNT equivelant. Ain’t no Su-25s shaking off any hits from that thing.
Archive: MIM-72 Missile Information : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
3 Likes
Anyone have some more charts for the range of the AIM-9L? The ones in the SMC sheet are a little… not so obvious and easily tested.
Anyone know what the AIM-9I and AIM-9R’s were or their alternate designations?
CINCPAC 1978
I think it’s the alternate name of the AIM-9P. It was called AIM-9J-IR
IIRC the 9R had some kind of electro-optical/TV seeker, but was cancelled
I’ve seen it but I thought it’s a late 80s program?
yep, first live fire was 1990 before it was cancelled. It had a WGU-19/B IIR seeker, which my understanding is it was more like the AGM-65D’s seeker