Why do r60m's actively ignore flares now?

r60m’s have no IRCCM, however they consistently seem to ignore flare trails and get fixated on the turning target even from 2km again. You can say it’s anecdotal, but i have so many videos i forget which one to place here. I’m not talking about ignoring ONE flare, but ignoring a whole path with an engine without afterburner on a relatively cold target.


R-60M ignoring my (only available) flare pop while proxying 100m away from me. Kinda weird considering that while having longer proxy radius than r60 vanilla it’s not as brutal as something like magic 1/2 or aim9g.


What can I say except flare rise time, high closure rate, low range, low speed and rng


Looks like he was locking you with his radar which helped him slave the missile seeker on your plane. You were going quite slow as well compared to him.

1 Like

Use 1-2 flares not more or you’re pulling the missile seeker into you with the new ones

1 Like

You didn’t force the flares to be in the missile seeker’s view. The missile is looking towards where the nose of your plane is basically, while your flares are going the opposite direction.



Lol at all the people trying to say its a skill issue here.

No, post patch R-60Ms are comically flare resistant for some reason, far more so than the 9L by a huge margin, while the 9L is handling like a 9J seeker wise now, going after any flares, even if the target is in a straight line in AB.


The R-60M files in the datamine had been left untouched. Any changes in how the R-60M operates would then have to also affect other IR missiles similarly. It serves no one to make things up in our head that the R-60M’s seeker changed somehow while other IR missiles of its class (AIM-9L/R-24T) didn’t (By same class, I mean all-aspect IR missiles without IRCCM).

Either R-60M in the files had its values changed (it didn’t) or there was some coding to make all-aspect IR missiles more effective in general against flares.


Take your tinfoil hat off, and then talk


Gaijin’s Placebo Dev working hard.


I spent about 30 minutes yesterday firing R-60Ms and 9Ls at F-20s flying in AB in a straight line.

Out of the 10 9Ls fired, if the F-20 dumped more than 2 flares the 9L would break off, 5 used twin launches and succeeded in breaking lock all 5 times, meanwhile the single launch flares failed to break track and led to an impact.

The same was done for the R-60M, all 10 launches resulted in an impact. I followed up the test with 10 more just 5 and 10 round bursts to no avail, I then just set the entire pod to pop, this led to the R-60M finally being flared, taking on, 45 flares to actually miss.

Now, last I checked, the R-60M in the past was famed to go after flares like it was going out of style, but that seems to be the 9L’s forte now, so yes, something has changed, what I cannot say, but the R-60M is tracking far better than it used to.

But please, keep speaking with the same Russian cope that seems so popular nowadays.


I knew I wasn’t the only one thinking I was going crazy. This happened to me all day today as well. I’m actually gonna have to stop playing the game until they fix IR countermeasure interactions, because they are absolutely borked right now. It’s not just the R60Ms. Though they are the most egregious offenders, because they, alongside the Python 3s were the most flare hungry IR missiles in the game prior to this patch. Now they track through clouds of flares better than pre-patch 9Ms.


I’m wondering if we are having another tomcat moment where flares are once again colder than engines by a fair margin somehow, which allows larger seeker FOV missiles have more time to shift track back to the aircraft when countermeasures are launched, would also explain why the AIM-9B has been absurd for me in sim recently, even with a defending target.

1 Like
  1. You’re using anecdotal evidence rather than actual controlled tests.

  2. AiM-9Ls are used at longer distances than R-60Ms, which means on average it has more time to be flared as well as being easier to flare. Of course the AIM-9Ls used at 3km rear aspect would be flared more than the R-60M fired at 1km rear aspect. FoV of 3.6 degrees is harder to flare off at closer ranges than at longer ranges because it is less likely to see flares at closer ranges. This messes up your perception of which missiles are more flare resistant.

  3. At ranges where the R-60M is effective (1km rear aspect) it has a much higher acceleration than AIM-9L, and higher acceleration translates into being harder to flare because of lower reaction times.

  4. R-60M has a lower guidance delay at 0.3 seconds compared to 0.5 seconds for AIM-9L. This means that theoretically the R-60M can look forward ahead of where the target’s nose is at launch, and less likely for the flares to be in its flight path.

For all these reasons and more, you cannot reliably compare the two missiles and their flare resistance. R-60M is expected to be “less flareable” than AIM-9L because it is used at closer ranges and is also quicker.


Which is completely unhistorical considering in real life Aim-9L’s will succesfully track targets that has its AB on, Meanwhile there is no report for R60M in such cases as far as i know.


that has nothing to do with what he just said,…

he basically said that:
AIM-9L and R60M have the same Flare eating abilites, but from different ranges.

the 9L is expected to be send from 1.5-2.5km range
the R-60M is expected to be fired from 0.8-1.8 km range

so the seekers are as strong, from different range.

then the speed of missiles is different aswell letting less time for both reaction and having the missile in a no flare eating range.


Which is bs considering Aim-9L can easily track targets from 0.8km’s, this type of expected behaviours doesnt mean anything.

This is also shouldnt be the case since Aim9-L should be superior to R60M in case of tracking targets that has its AB on.

Starting from 1km any type of flare should be more then enough to decoy R60M whether its faster then Aim-9L or not.

1 Like


you don’t read us,… you don’t think/know about how a missile work,…
we’re saying basically the same thing,… but you don’t understand what WE are saying,… showing how unreliable your comment is,…

WE talk about Technical and IRL stuff,… you talk out of nowhere with absolute 0 knowledge on how a seeker works,…

EDIT: you also don’t know how a flare works, neither is the IR signature of a Afterburning exhaust show compared to a flare,…

nor the FoV of the seeker


İ actualy read and find quite funny.

Sure cause you’re the only one who knows how missile works right?

Nope we’re not talking about same thing, you’re claiming that the behave of R60M is totally normal because of the reasons you listed while im saying that shouldnt be the case.

İm basically talking about real stuff while you’re making things from your butt.

İn real life R-60M shouldnt be able to track any target that has its AB off while deploying flares unless target is in 0.3-0.5km range meanwhile Aim-9L can succesfully track targets that its AB on even if they release countermeasures.

You’re not the only one who reads real life reports and incidents, try not to be arrogant next time.

1 Like

But he isn’t wrong?
AIM-9L flare resistance

It is easily demonstrable that the AIM-9L is not performing as described.

R-60Ms are quite strange right now, but that might be due to the way AAB doubles the FoV of all missiles.


Even if no such reports exists for the R-60M, buffs for the AIM-9L will be applied to it on the basis that similar technologies operated in the same way.

A lot of Skyflash SuperTEMP documents had been found that showed it was capable of discriminating two close targets, the changes were then applied to SuperTEMP and assortment of other missiles that did not have similar reports.

A report showed AIM-7F had too low of a manuevering drag, all missiles (both IR and radar) then had manuevering drag nerfs applied to it.