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.
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
I literally posted sufficient evidence the other day.
The US F-4 Phantom flares were insufficient to protect it against even AIM-9D/G type missile seekers in mil thrust let alone AIM-9L in afterburner. No amount of flares should decoy the AIM-9L when tracking a re-heat plume from an F-4 or F-8.
Based upon the RAF docs, the conclusion appears to be that Aim-9L vs Jaguar on full reheat dropping large calibre flares That in a head-on situations flares alone werent a total gurantee of missile defeat.
But Id imagine there is a lot of nuance with regard to exact angle, weather conditions, etc etc that could also impact the hit chance.
But overall, yeah, they really need to overhaul IR signatures in game to better model things like reheat plumes. WAY too many issues imo can be attributed to the current thrust = temp situation we have in game currently
5 Likes
Namely the compounding issues of the F-5 series having SEVERELY overperforming flight models, very low engine exhaust temps, and now affecting the F-20 and proliferating into other tech trees.
5 Likes
Yep, and inversly the harriers, with a lot thrust, being hotter than the sun most of the time. Despite the fact there is some evidence that Aim-9Ls dont even work in all aspects vs a Harrier
5 Likes
After some time I feel like getting you riled up on it.
The F-5C on Full Afterburner is colder than the F-117 on mil power from rear aspect.
In fact, the F-117 can be detected in the IR spectrum at about 30% longer ranges than an afterburning F-5C.
Yes, ladies and gents, you heard it right. An afterburning jet from early 60s has a lower IR signature than a stealth aircraft with no burner and a closed off exhaust. Here it is:
(Posted here since the IR signature issue impacts the 9L too and there is a lot of evidence in this thread)
12 Likes
and this is why we really need a total overhaul of how IR signatures are handled.
7 Likes
Don’t know about a total overhaul, but an adjustment of a couple of coefficients alongside a bounded or case-by-case relation of horsepower/thrust/temperature and IR signature will solve most of it.