IRCCM makes the fov of missile seeker smaller, it will not make it ignore flares.
İt depends actually, for example Aim-9M IRCCM works in way that shuts off seekers head until missile itself gets clear path Meanwhile Magic-2 and R73 has fov that gets smaller as soon as you launch to enemy plane.
1 Like
I was under impression AIM-9M has ECCM
Might be confused then, gonna check to see if i was wrong.
At least in game it is labeled as such, ie. IRCCM for more narrow fov and ECCM for the seeker shutting
İ just checked.
On Aim-9M it also explains as IRCCM.
ye, it now shows IRCCM on my game too, but im pretty sure at release, it was labeled as ECCM due to different mode of operation.
My proof being older threads on the topic, such as this one:
and even Defyns video from back then calling it “ECCM” at around 0:35
Aim-9M in game have a comparable Flare resistance to Aim-9L IRL based upon some RAF Docs i’ve seen posted on the forums before.
So they are definetly nerfed for gameplay reasons. Just thankfully they’ve nerfed both sides equally for a change. Im guessing Aim-9X and other 5th Gen IR missiles will have a performance in game akin to what Aim-9M was/is like IRL.
2 Likes
Do we know which version of Aim-9M is in game? Cause if i remember correctly previous versions didnt have really good flare resistance in real life.
While it’s not listed as such ingame, it is modeled as the AIM-9M-4.
İs there any reason why we didnt recieved M9 version? Cause i thought Aim-9X would be next step in sidewinder family.
it has a better irccm
The AIM-9X is a long way away. I’d guess they gave us an earlier version of the AIM-9M, much like they gave us the AIM-9P-1 and the Rb 24 J (which is the AIM-9P-3), and the later added the AIM-9P-4, and then later along the way they’ll add a late AIM-9M such as the AIM-9M-9 or AIM-9M-10.
The MIM-72G has a modified Singer POST seeker, so it should have the full-fat IRCCM system and the IR/UV seeker
In-game, it’s literally identical to the Iglas with 1km more range against afterburning targets.
Funny that thing still missing its reduced smoke motor, wonder if gaijin is ever gonna fix that.
İ know thats why i was surprised when you said we actually have Aim-9M4 instead of M9.
Later version will probably come with upgraded R-73’s and Python-4 missiles looks like.
1 Like
That’s what I’ve been thinking. Later we’ll probably get the R-73M, Python 4, and AIM-9M-9 or AIM-9M-10.
1 Like
it is identical to the stingers.
Yes, despite having very different seeker technology the Stinger and Iglas have identical seeker performance and IRCCM in-game, while the MIM-72G which has a Stinger seeker has slightly more lock range against rear-aspect afterburning targets with everything else the same.
well we dont have any flare rejection mechanic, aside from IFOV and seeker shut off, so it is not a bug that affects the stinger. the iglas are FM seeker and the mistral have a dual color seeker but neither are implemented in game, until we get new mechanics this is the best we can get. but the seeker in game is the same as the stinger not the igla
I made a more in depth post about the IRCCM types in game, but I mentioned in it as well, well theorized it at least at first, that in rear aspect/front aspect the IRCCM with tracking supension is most vulnerable. Essentially, the flare and target IR signatures are both inside the seeker FoV because of how the geometry works out here. The IRCCM will suspend tracking as a result as a flare has entered its fov, but will not turn back on until the flare has left the fov, which takes much longer now since there is minimal angular movement from the seeker pov. Essentially the seeker will be staring at the flare very dumbly until the flare naturally falls outside the fov or burns out, giving excessive amounts of time for the actual target to move out of the missile seeker fov. Additionally, an even more harmful effect of the trackin suspension is that in rear aspect, the seeker has barely any information about aircraft heading, so it’s extra sensitive to a sudden flare’s fast movement perpendicular to the locked aircraft, slewing the seeker off the plane (into the direction of the flare), which means sometimes that the enemy aircraft doesn’t even have to move at all either. This effect is worse with the slower reaction time the tracking suspension IRCCM has, idk what they are for MANPADS, but most likely better than the 9M at 0.02s (I assume it’s in seconds at least). It might also be 0s but idk, in which case this effect plays no role, but can be induced by a wave like motion of the target while flaring.
Not like fov gating is much better in the full rear/headon aspect either, but if this is the fov gating type IRCCM is the only one you have, it still allows for the seeker to track through the flares if the target IR signature is hotter than the flare. Alas, the MIM-72G has both types, which makes it exceptionally good in side aspect, but situationally slightly worse than fov gating alone in headon/rear aspects.