Will IRCCM on the AIM-9M be like the “flare rejection” on stuff like the Magic, R-73 or will it actually ignore flares?
Any news on the 9L’s flare resistance getting fixed in the dev server?
It’s rejection iirc.
Very important question. Can anyone give a two cents on AIM-9M’s seeker technology?
And mach 5 top speed, and better tracking against ground hugging targets (if it can track a cruise missile over the sea, at sea level, and destroy it, a Mig-29 should be a joke compared to that), missing INS, missing literally every upgrade over the A model
Quick question for everyone, if the AIM-54C gets INS, when it is in active radar tracking mode, does it mean even if the target notches (missile loses lock) and then keeps moves normally, the missile will simply re-track it, meaning the evading plane will have to notch as long as the missile is coming in the general direction?
1 Like
9Ms coming to the Harrier Gr7 and AV-8B by the looks of things
Glad its here, but this leaves me concerned that the 9L isnt going to be fixed.
Despite being documented and reported on the old forum that the 9L would rarely go for a flare in the rear aspect against an after burning target, the 9L still gets easily flared in such scenarios.
I’ve given up counting the amount of times if fired at the rear of an after burning target within 1.6km, for them to pop a single fare, and my 9L switch to it.
Yep, I had the same thought, maybe what we had on the dev server was actually 9Ms in disguise. But yeah had that happen too many times
@_David_Bowie I wonder AIM-9M G tolerance limit 30G from dev server maybe AIM-9M early block ?
AIM-9M-8 (USN), AIM-9M-9 (USAF) and AIM-9M-10 (USN/USMC) maneuvering capability to 35G single plane but better AIM-9M in dev server ?
9m was a copy paste 9L with irccm in the dev, so i wouldnt worry. hopefully they also take this time to make AIM-9L 32g’s
You guess AIM-9M from dev server 30G limit maybe early block or dev might consider fix AIM-9M in dev server to 35G ?
AIM-9M-8 (USN), AIM-9M-9 (USAF) and AIM-9M-10 (USN/USMC) maneuvering capability to 35G single plane better AIM-9M in dev server ?
Question.
How easily flare-able is the 9G?
Im getting fed up with the 9L on the Sea Harrier, getting decoyed by a single flare in the rear aspect.
(And fed up of waiting for gaijin to fix it)
Thinking of switching to the 9G, sacrificing my all aspect, for something that will hit hard in rear aspect.
It’s no different to the L
It might be a little better due to the reduced FoV.
9L has a better rangeband ratio so it has better resistance than the 9G, 9G will always prioritize flares over aircraft heat while 9Ls can sometimes ignore flares if its in a good aspect and target is afterburning or even in mil power depending on the aircraft
Yea, makes stuff like the F-4E and F-5E feel like they have the same capabilities as the naval planes with SEAM capable 9Gs lmao.
Well, with a lot less range but still, might be a nice feature. Although calling them “9J” doesn’t feels right, as far as I know it wasn’t the base J model that had that wide of an acquisition spectrum, someone please correct me if I’m wrong btw
AIM-9J was able to uncage the seeker up to the gimbal limit. This is historical change
1 Like
are there also plans to make the 9J pull 22G instead of the 20G we have now? (I know its a very minor change lolol)
AIM-9Gs are really bad. I would prefer AIM-9D if a aircraft can carry both aim-9d and 9g.