I don’t think we are ready for any sort of ecm on Ir missiles as this is a game and everything has to be somewhat counterable.
1 Like
R73 and AIM-9Ms are an eventuality. Delay it now, it comes back later regardless. With IR missiles like this, their only real counter is to not get close in the first place. Which really comes down to Active BVR missiles forcing planes to stay away from each other. There’s only so much balance that can be attempted with technology. We will transition into fights where most matches will end before anyone has seen the enemy.
3 Likes
AIM-9M is really tricky to counter considering the average player expects to press flare button once and have the missile off their tail
1 Like
Depends on the jet. High mobility high speed jets like the Mig-29 or F-16, dont need them. but Sub-sonics and low performance platforms, like Harriers really could do with them
That’s on them then, but just like missiles when first introduced people will learn to counter them. The biggest concern is to ensure all nations have an equivalent, which right now they do not.
1 Like
well that how modern fighter fight and it should be like that
Nope, seen it literally do a 360. Sure you have too since the clip circulated plenty…
After looking at MATAWG’s video on the Aim-9M, imo I think the Aim-9Ms performance is somewhat balanced. Knowing that the Aim-9M irecm works where it turns off when there are flares but continues course guidance towards where the target was heading and then turning on again, that seems counterable. Just change course and dump flares. Opposed to the R-73s Ir ecm where the closer you are, the harder it is to flare the R-73. In the end, if the Ir ecm does get nerfed on the Aim-9M, then does it really have a place in-game considering that the only upgrade from the L to the M was the seeker?
4 Likes
Yep, the only functional difference (possibly only difference at all) is the seeker.
I think these two missiles, (r73 as was implemented originally on this devserver) and 9M would be competitive with each other after people learn how to counter them. The only problem is the compression. F16C, MiG29smt, and any other advanced iraam carriers shouldn’t be facing MiG23, Phantoms, or any other low CM count aircraft whatsoever.
1 Like
Also his video on the Python 4 where he said it was super OP but couldn’t get any kills with it that an AIM-9L couldn’t also get.
1 Like
ace combat is more realistic than this game’s current state rn
because of course supersonic jets engage in 16v16 and not groups of 4 maximum. You know, the governments are OMEGA RICH in the wrath udder universe so they just send 130 billion dollars per team into battle every six minutes.
1 Like
use them below 1km and see the magix.
He’s a UK main who mostly plays SB. He’s not a shiddposter either. He’s a good guy.
However you succinctly express the same concerns I’ve generally had. I won’t comment on the issue in TT until I get into my SMT, but yeah.
Only because they partially reverted the instructor on the F-16’s to let them pull 11g’s instead, it still doesn’t change the fact that the F-16A is THE most nimble plane in the game, and the MiG-29 while better than most minor nations, is not in fact and F-16.
Mostly a meme, been pointing out inconsistencies with RazerVon. Check out the latest thread on BVM spall testing. Some of this stuff is actually logical.
Even though they should. No one flies like that, and having 2x pylons for R-27’s make’s ripple-fire engagement pointless. This argument really only works on the Yak-141.
Specifically in regards to the spatial knowledge built into the seeker’s software for IRCCM. They specifically said it was on par with 9X/IRIS-T in regards to IRCCM. They never claimed it was equivalent in energy or G pulls or sustained energy. We all know R-73E and R-73M would be much closer to full equivalent missiles.
1 Like
This is such an undervalued point. With more airframes carrying more Sparrows in general into matches, you really have to BVR, and then disengage, otherwise, until today, it was R-60M vs AIM-7, which was a joke, lmao.
Yeah, though in a rate fight, id still probably say pilot skill/experience would decide the fight more often than not. But F-16/Mig-29 vs an 11.3/11.7 is less so
2 Likes
It’s broken record time!
This is why I wish an attempt at the R-14 could’ve been made. It was so hypothetical/prototypical that they could’ve fudged the balance exactly where they wanted it to, to give the USSR tree an analogue to an all-aspect AIM-9. This would address the main issue most USSR players have, which is that the range/energy on the R-60M is not sufficient above 11.0.
They could’ve avoided adding R-73 until they could find the sweet spot, or after things had filled the trees more, and BR’s expanded. Yet, we’re here, so it is what it is.
if people could endure 9Ls with R-60M for a year, US mains could endure R-73 with 9Ls for a year
The 9Ms are nothing to write about on the live server.
1 Like
Only because they partially reverted the instructor on the F-16’s to let them pull 11g’s instead, it still doesn’t change the fact that the F-16A is THE most nimble plane in the game, and the MiG-29 while better than most minor nations, is not in fact and F-16.
Why would nimbleness matter in a game mode where it’s the quickest, hardest pulling, most aspect reaching and longest proxying missile the one that matters the most? This pretty much puts mig29’s and mig23’s still on top of the game, rendering stuff like the f-4j with four mediocre sparrows, a mediocre radar and four mediocre IR missiles completely unplayable because their flight performance is that of a stock f-4c that also adores to break it’s wings even after you emptied your pylons.
The F16 Block 50 has aim9m’s which while strong are still not dogfight missiles, and doubt you not, the r27er’s can also be used as dogfight missiles. They pretty much hover in place and need very little airflow to pull as tight as possible.
If people could endure R-27ER for years, Russian Mains can endure Aim-120B without R-77 for years
3 Likes