I’m not exactly too sure as to why the TY-90 would need another buff, relative to other helicopter-fired AAMs it’s already overperforming. The only part I can agree on is DIRCM (applies to most IR AAMs really), it shouldn’t really prevent you from locking the missile but rather attempt jamming the missile after launch. That and maybe increasing the heat signature of helicopters a notch.
Other AAM’s aren’t at the same tech level as the TY-90, an early 2000’s missile. The only thing that would be comparable to it would be is if the AH-1Z got the Aim-9X. The seeker is a 4 multielement seeker with a digital processor used to filter out IR-interference. DIRCM would not work on the missile since it is seeing 4 wavelengths in the IR spectrum, where DIRCM should blind 1 and be filtered out by the processor. As for helicopter lock-on range, it is unrealistic to think that the new anti-helicopter missile was designed to only be able to lock on ~2km. The missile is very sensitive, helicopters aren’t exactly IR stealthy either.
As to whether it NEEDS the buff or not, well did the Leo 2’s NEED their spall liners? No, they already were the best tanks in game. Furthermore, Chinese heli’s are over BR’d already because of these missiles. So I would at least expect them to work as they should and be able to kill a Ka-52, which still gets the luxury of slinging Vikhrs at anything even though the missile needed to be set before flight for air or ground targets…
Fair points, actually. It is pretty funny seeing the Chinese helicopters being heavily skewed towards AA duties just because of the TY-90s, while having underwhelming AG munitions in contrast. I also agree with adding the 9X to the AH-1Z, as it can only carry 2 of them unlike the maximum of 16 TY-90s on the Z-10. Adding the 114K to it would also be nice since it still uses the 114Bs for some reason.
However, AH-1Z can suspend 12 114K while suspending 9M, while Z-10 can only suspend a maximum of 8 AKD-10
Moreover, the anti-interference ability of TY90 in the game has been weakened to a level similar to that of Stinger A
Because WT has the worst missile lock-on code, our dear programmer made the front-side infrared radiation of low-speed targets almost zero, which explains why it is currently difficult to lock onto helicopters except for missiles with image recognition
Honestly I wouldn’t mind having those 8 AKD-10s if they just weren’t so flipping slow. They have pretty good range, and a hefty amount of explosive mass. And 1400mm of pen certainly isn’t something to sneeze at. And you still have more AAMs than the 1Z on top of that, so I think it’s a tradeoff really (1Z with more AGMs but less AAMs, and the other way around for the Z-10)
It is quite infuriating having to get within 3-2km to get a lock with supposedly fancy-pants high-tech all-aspect anti-air missiles. At that range you might as well just use your AGMs instead. Stuff like the PARS 3 or Spike ER is actually more capable at anti-helicopter duties.
In fact, due to the fact that TY90 is mainly carried on Z19 and Z10, as well as the poor performance of the Chinese Doyle M1 and PGZ04A, TY90 has to take on most of the air defense tasks, if AKD10 can barely cope with Ka50, Ka52 (but AKD10 is too slow, and at the same time 9M127 also has a proximity fuse, and the flight speed is twice that of AKD10), then only AKD9 Z19 can only rely on its poor TY90, However, TY90’s poor infrared locking ability is doomed to fail in the competition with Ka50 and Ka52
To be fair you usually get teamed with Russia anyway, so that’s not as much as an issue. Still pretty annoying though. Honestly just increasing the heat signatures of helicopters in general is going to go a long way, although you still have to consider the way they modeled DIRCM systems on the 52 and 28NM… Right now it’s basically just a big “haha i’m immune to all IR missiles now” card.
It seems that the Japanese paid a little more, and the only one in this game that can effectively shoot down the Ka52 is the 81C missile.If they can’t fix this shit-like infrared code, then you can only learn from the past experience and add the weakened image recognition code to TY90, Mistral, and 9M39
While those might be a solution, it’s not exactly realistic since those missiles doesn’t have contrast seeker capability (which works on visible light, not UV or IR). Then again I don’t even know if making vehicles fully realistic is even a valid argument anymore. (cough cough Hellfires cough cough Vikhrs)
Most of manpad and Heli AA including: Stinger-A,-E,-K HN-6 MIM-72G TY-90 have same IRCCM performance ,1.25° IRCCM FOV.
What really make a difference is russin 9M39, which has the best 1° FOV.
Apparently developers believe that 9M39 is much better than Chinese and US products.
Does it bother you that missiles have a bunch of other parameters? The 9m39 is the worst manpad in the game, as it should be.
MIM-72G not a manpad)
“Worst manpad”
Apparently someone never played a missile have VT fuze but the fuze can’t be used because of code called “HN-6”
And we are talking about seeker performance here,you can discuss your"other parameters" anywhere else
HN-6 of PGZ-04A is the worst missile, which has short locking distance, poor maneuverability, no VT fuse and can’t even shoot down low-speed targets. In reality, HN-6 is not only close to stinger performance, but also uses VT fuse instead of destroying targets by collision in the game.
Hn-6 and 9m39 both is a development of the manpad Strela. They share 95% of the same characteristics even in the game parameters. They have almost the same maneuverability. So it’s better to say that 9m39 and hn-6 are both the worst manpads.
And it has VT fuse. If it’s not working than it’s just an another bug. Make a good report and hope it takes less than six months for lazy devs to fix it.
Find any solid differences
| Engine properties | ||
|---|---|---|
| Force exerted by booster: [N] | 2975 | 2910 |
| Burn time of booster: [s] | 1,9 | 2 |
| Raw acceleration at ignition: [m/s²] | 280,66 | 270,19 |
| Specific impulse of booster: [s] | 198,01 | 192,31 |
| ΔV of booster: [m/s] | 623,39 | 636,7 |
| Booster start delay: [s] | 0,4 | |
| Force exerted by sustainer: [N] | 705 | 723 |
| Burn time of sustainer: [s] | 6,6 | 6 |
| Specific impulse of sustainer: [s] | 225,86 | 222,77 |
| ΔV of sustainer: [m/s] | 706,68 | 653 |
| Total ΔV: [m/s] | 1330,08 | 1289,7 |
| Flight characteristics | ||
| — | — | — |
| Maximum fin angle of attack: [degrees] | 4,185 | 4,5 |
| Fins laterl acceleration: | 14,16 | - |
| Wing area multiplier: | 1,05 | 1,05 |
| Start speed: [m/s] | 30 | 30 |
| Maximum speed: [m/s] | 1000 | 600 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) speed: [Mach] | 1,7 | 1,76 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) launch range: [km] | 5 | 5 |
| Minimum range: [m] | 30 | |
| Maximum (flight) range: [km] | 8 | 10 |
| Maximum G-load: [G] | 10,2 | 12 |
| Maximum statcard (useless) G-load: [G] | 10,2 | 12 |
| Thrust vectoring: | No | No |
I don’t know how to submit an error report on the forum.😂