Iirc the main reason RVV-MD/R-74M is advertised with more range is because one of the upgrades it brings from R-73 is a longer battery life, RVV-MD2/R-74M2 sharing said increased battery life as well as a stronger motor.
1 Like
(Double reply yippieee)
Afair, K-74ME is basically export R-73M (R-73 w/ Mk.80M).
(I just realized the messages I replied to are like, half a year old… Quite incredible :Broken_heart:)
1 Like
I wonder if it’s only for Export version or both. Ngl this might actually make R-73 da best Fox-2 in the game, being almost unflarable up close but also being resistant to flares from fruther away
But kinematic Flares(such as the M206 sized MJU-47 & L7A7 (fits in ALE-40(MJU-11 magazine) et al.)), that retain the aircraft’s velocity after being ejected should they be added have a chance to be the nearest radiation source to the stored (predicted) location and so defeat the CCM technique at the selection stage, since it’s only a basic “nearest neighbor” check, and / or Trajectory, since itself is propelled and so doesn’t follow a parabolic arc.
So basically even if this was added, specific countermeasures do exist. The issue is to some degree that countermeasures are still just generic and aren’t even graduated (like for example Thermals)
2 Likes
aa-11 is r-73
1 Like
Not really related but this mentions something curious
“Plus chaff in case the missile is RF-guided or fuzed”
Chaff setting off radar fuzes when gaijin? They’d just add R-73L and R-77-1’s w/ laser fuzes
1 Like
R-77-1 has laser fuse by default. And yeah, introducing R-73L and R-60ML isn’t that hard (also will give gaijin a reason to add one more module to grind)
Not in war thunder. Wouldn’t say no to even more reliable R-73
I mean, this is also the most effective tactics in War Thunder
r73 and aim9m irccm using the same methods, but r73 is better
no range data
its not setting off, its detonate
Same for the Magic 2, which both underperforms in its FoV IRCCM and is missing tracking suspension.
3 Likes
Where is this from? Do you have the original?
That would be a huge nerf with how poorly suspension tracking for the 9M is modelled, Making R-73s just drift out of the tracking window. I would also add a certain nation compared 9M with R-73 and was very complimentary of how well the 9M resists IR countermeasures, regarding is as superior to the R-73.
R73 has a much smaller fov than the 9m when tracking a target (0.75 vs 3.6 degrees)
It’s actually much closer to the imaging irccm seekerheads that we have in game than the 9m if this were to be added, so it would be much better
It would definitely not detrimentally affect the missile. The tracking suspension would only activate in the cases where the missiles would actually be flared.
Due to having a very small FoV, this would only happen at longer range while the close range performances would remain mostly identical (since it would not see the flares thanks to the small FoV)
It’d kinda be like saying that the AIM9M is worse than the 9L due to having this IRCCM as they share the same FIV, which is positively false
Not really as the 9L has no IRCCM.
9M suspension tracking is causing it to miss shots right now, with a narrow FOV to boot it would miss everytime it saw a CM. I don’t see it as a buff I also dont see it as true, considering UA sources prove the 9M is far more resistant to CMS than the R-73.
Like kizvy stated they would behave like the current IIR missiles or manpads as they have both tracking suspension and the FOV irccm, which are far more harder to flare, the only difference is the larger FOV, btw manpads are also noticiable harder to flare than just FOV irccm and they all have an slightly larger fov so they would be somewhere in between manpads and IIR
2 Likes
IRIS-T SLM ingame right now has exactly what you described, suspension tracking plus narrow fov, and it’s a menace in terms of countermeasure resistance.
thats not true, maybe here a translation miss
They use them on the Magura sea drones and they shot down those 2 Su-30s