This is a brochure from 2014. Also, in a video uploaded 5 months ago, you can see that the AIM-9L/I or AIM-9L/I-1 is using a Mk.36 Mod 10 motor.
It appears that they did not have access to the smokeless Mk.36 Mod 9 and Mod 11.
And, I have not seen any sources so far that Sweden and Germany produced reduced smoke motors, all sources show that they only used high smoke motors.
Yes but it was shown the motors can be swapped. They have no mounting or usage differences in regards to how the missile is assembled. The only changes between mods are the propellant type and the modifications to the hanger for use on specific pylons.
If Gaijin can give Su-27SM the dual R-77 pylons that it could never carry irl they can certainly give all AIM-9 w/ IRCCM a reduced smoke motor.
similarly all the pictures (including bundeswehr.de) show either mod 8 (EUR) or mod 10 like in video
the biggest problem is gajin added them and now we have to prove the negative
The 9L/i-1 should have its smokeless motor removed per historical accuracy, but gaijin should be consistent with said nerf hammer, and they most definitly are not at the moment, nor have they ever really been tbh.
It will not be, in this case AIM-9L/I-1 will be changed to AIM-9M.
Also, if there is evidence that the dual R-77 pylons on the Su-27SM are mechanically unusable, the developers will remove them.
How about changing it to a smoke motor but giving it the better seeker with improved IRCCM?
There was no evidence to suggest it COULD use them either, there are only photos of the Su-35 with these pylons for good reason. If you look at the dimensions of the fighters IRL, the Su-27SM physically cannot even fit the rack proper. Even in-game it looks silly, the missile would simply hit things during ejection.
That would be more fictional than it is currently. What they need to do is not improve the IRCCM, but the tracking ability of the seeker in the first place. AIM-9L should not decoy to flares when following an afterburner target from any direction.
How is changing the L/i-1 to a smoke motor but improving the IRCCM fictional?
They are seemingly replacing 9L/i-1 with 9M on dev
So now for gripens to be made right
We do not have documentation to show how the IRCCM on L/i-1 works I think and the basic underlying seeker is heavily underperforming. The AIM-9L when tracking a MiG-23 or Phantom will NOT decoy towards flares, even in head-on conditions, if the target is afterburning IRL. Gaijin has chosen to make IR seekers and systems in the game underperform considerably as a gameplay decision.
What they should do is just fix IR systems, make missiles like AIM-9G lock in all aspect and be un-flare-able if the target is still afterburning. This of course may need a rebalance of the entire game but that is their own doing.
I found some interesting documents regarding Aim9x. Supposedly in 2019 and 2020, the Navy requested funding to possibly integrate some of the aim9x block three features including a new motor into Current block 2 Aim9x making it like a block2 plus I was wondering if anyone had more information about this.
you keep saying that but all the sources i see are in unison that they are unsatisfied with decoy performance of 9L thats why PIP (which ended up being 9Mish with the new seeker) and german programs were there
I mostly agree all aspect is underperforming in warthunder and missiles should be slightly better (like there were before - could also be players getting better and more aware) but not to the extent you’re saying)
Pre-flaring and other techniques proved sufficient to avoid being hit by infrared missile systems. This, and the use of large numbers of flares (deploying sometimes 4 or more at once) and procedures to reduce afterburner and turn to face the launched IR systems proved to be essential in the implementation of IR countermeasures.
This is one of the reasons as early as 1968 that they determined aircraft should be armed with 120-150 flares when operating in dangerous areas.
Here in the same source you can see that the only time the flares were truly “effective” at decoying the AIM-9G type seeker was when the target was at less than mil power rating.
And yes, the Mk46 and Mk47 flares were insufficient to protect the F-4 target at mil thrust, but were sufficient to protect the F-8 target at mil thrust.
Block 2+ i never heard from
Block 3 was budget cutted iirc
That is incorrect. The British tests showed the 9L was unable to be decoyed in rear aspect entirely if left in afterburner. This is a very easy test to do in WT and it fails it reliably.
Docs from CTTO Jaguar tactics manual (3rd edition) 1992
Here’s the docs that cover that for you.
You’re a better person than me. I was just going to point him to the Old Forum thread where they were posted like half a dozen times
I decided I had best download them and any other docs I find myself referring back to all the time because the old forum wont be around forever
No, it should not be decoyed when following an afterburning target. It doesn’t require rear aspect tracking of the reheat plume.
I would agree, but I don’t know that we have such definitive evidence of that much all aspect performance the way we do from specifically rear aspect.
