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.
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.
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
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.
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
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)
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.
At least as a starting point, but I do think there are too many issues, including the flare resistance of missiles, caused by the lack of reheat plume modeling.
Like we have the reports for Aim-9Ls being totally immune to flares if they can see a reheat plume that isnt modeled.
Also edge cases like the Harriers being able to hide their exhaust by VIFFing and placing their wing between the nozzle and a seeker. Certainly enough to prevent a rear-aspect missile lock and maybe even enough to prevent an all-aspect seeker lock.
A total ground up rework to properly model both the temperature of the exhaust and the location of the exhaust I think would do the game a world of good in the long run (the start of that might be in the works. I think helis got a new heat sig system in Firebirds that does model both)
I think a modeling of geometric properties’ effects on IR signature might be a bit of a far ask for this game. Reheat plumes are supposed to be modeled, alongside IR signatures being separated by sources (engine exposed parts and skin temperature). We also have coefficients that determine their scale by aspect.
Just changing these two would fix a lot of stuff:
What goes into calculating the base value for each source
Don’t think it would be beyond them, just look at the level of modeling we already have. A really high level for what is essentially an arcade simulator (though, the standards for individual models leave a lot to be desired). It simply will not be a priority, as it will take a lot of time and resources, which they seem to not have, and give marginal results (not much will change, especially for casual players).
