But he isn’t wrong?
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.
8 Likes
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.
your flares were outside of its seeker bruh
1 Like
Why would this be the case?
They don’t use the same material for the detector element, Coolant, or even signal processing methodology. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another, that’s like claiming the AIM-9M should have access to the the FoV reduction IRCCM mechanic in addition to the pull ahead function, because both it and the R-73 are both missiles available at a high BR.
It makes no sense, and I’m sure sufficient data for the R-60(M) is out there.
3 Likes
well then let’s use the video of author/OP :
he used it’s afterbuner, and the exhaust temperature is going up to 880°C
so the missile caught that up.
when missile is seen OP then cut his afterburner - thermodynamics makes him having a temperature of exhaust at 878°C when the missile impacted.
= Similar IR signature of the exhaust
in game flares are set as following:
Spoiler
{
“bullet”: {
“mass”: 0.09,
“sound_path”: “sounds/guns”,
“sound_pathStudio”: “aircraft/weapon”,
“sound”: “flare_launcher_outside”,
“sound_inside”: “flare_launcher_inside”,
“isBulletBelt”: false,
“bulletType”: “flr”,
“helicopterGroup”: 2,
“reloadTime”: 8.0,
“allowHumanReload”: true,
“bulletName”: “flare_launcher”,
“tags”: {
“antiTankRocket”: true,
“antiShipRocket”: true
},
“rocket”: {
“caliber”: 0.026,
“length”: 0.08,
“WdK”: [
0.1,
0.1,
0.1
],
“CxK”: 8.0,
“distFromCmToStab”: 0.005,
“mass”: 0.09,
“massEnd”: 0.04,
“timeFire”: 4.4,
“force”: 0.1,
“timeLife”: 4.4,
“thrustDeviation”: 0.01,
“useStartSpeed”: true,
“startSpeed”: 70.0,
“endSpeed”: 0.0,
“maxDistance”: 1000.0,
“minDistance”: 200.0,
“maxDeltaAngle”: 15.0,
“maxDeltaAngleVertical”: 5.0,
“normalizationPreset”: “default”,
“ricochetPreset”: “defaultExt”,
“groundRicochetPreset”: “defaultExt”,
“secondaryShattersPreset”: “ap”,
“stabilityThreshold”: 0.05,
“stabilityCaliberToArmorThreshold”: 5.0,
“stabilityReductionAfterRicochet”: 0.5,
“stabilityReductionAfterPenetration”: 0.15,
“bulletType”: “flare”,
“dragCx”: 0.0001,
“precision”: 5,
“explosionEffect”: “”,
“fireEffect”: “”,
“smokeEffect”: “flare_fire”,
“hazeFx”: “”,
“pylonFx”: “”,
“waterExplosionEffect”: “hit_39_58mm_water”,
“smokeShell”: false,
“smokeFx”: “”,
“smokeShellRad”: 10.0,
“smokeActivateTime”: 5.0,
“smokeTime”: 20.0,
“spawnExplosionWreckage”: false,
“spawnExplosionFx”: false,
“explosionOffset”: 0.05,
“hitPowerMult”: 1.0,
“nearHitPower”: [
** 1.0,**
** 50.0**
** ],**
** “midHitPower”: [**
** 0.9,**
** 400.0**
** ],**
** “farHitPower”: [**
** 0.1,**
** 1000.0**
** ],**
** “endHitPower”: [**
** 0.01,**
** 1500.0**
],
“relativeVelHitShift”: [
300.0,
1000.0
],
“nearArmorPower”: [
3.0,
50.0
],
“midArmorPower”: [
2.0,
400.0
],
“farArmorPower”: [
0.2,
700.0
],
“relativeVelArmorShift”: [
200.0,
1000.0
],
“distanceFuse”: false,
“rendinstDamageRadius”: 0.1,
“price”: 300.0,
“stabilityRicochetModifier”: {
“mod1”: [
0.0,
0.05
],
“mod2”: [
20.0,
0.1
],
“mod3”: [
[
30.0,
0.2
],
[
45.0,
0.3
]
]
},
“signature”: {
“infraRed”: {
“emissionProfile”: [
0.4,
4.0,
4.4
],**
“emission2”: 1.0
}
}
}
}
}
So 0.4 IR signature when fired makes them lower temperature than current exhaust.
after a littlebit of time it goes to 4 times IR signature, before hitting 4.4 and vanishing.
but the time before 0.4 to 4.0, the flares is much farther away from you, and Outside the FoV of the seeker, because the missile speed+your reaction time + the time IR signature is higher than your exhaust, let the missile to be sufficiently close to you.
the Temperature in between phases come from 400°C to 1500°C at the end, before it vanishes. (close range of missile is then 1 flare seen at 400°C and 1 exhaust at 878°C)
therefore,… R60M behaved normally because it was fired from sufficiently close to have flares being outside of it’s FoV when Temperature/IR of flare hits values above the one of the exhaust.
only the Size of the flare is different between normal and large flares (same Temp/IR signatures)
fire the R60M from farther away (1.5+km) and your flare will have effect.
And so sugar and salt must taste the same, since they look the same?
You have proof for both sides of this wild claim right? That they occurred under the same conditions, altitude, target, speed and closing velocity, right.
let alone the slight issue of the original statement not applying to the R-73 or Magic II.
We have access to sufficiently detailed Patent(s) that explain how the POST(FIM-92B /MIM-72G and later) seeker works, its not getting any sort of cribbed mechanic(s) due to it being a generic implementation.
But we know that the AIM-9L and R-60(M) work in entirely different ways. So why as you have stated, should they be impacted by changes related to one another?
It is a video game and some simplification is needed with missile and radar mechanics. At the end of the day, it’s a bit confounding to not expect changes to occur across the board just because documentation is not available for some radars or missiles. We know the Cyrano IV radar had track memory if target was lost. We also know Foxhunter radar had track memory as well if target was lost (both radars had reports of such). To expect only these two radars to get these changes and not the APG-59 or other radars is a bit ludicrous. Thankfully the changes had been applied to radars in general.
Anyone unnecessarily opposing the idea that a lot of these changes should not apply to radars or missiles across the board just because some of them lack public documentation hints to me that bias plays a part in their thought process (in favor of the radars or missiles that have the extensive documentation).
It is known that differences are marginal or nil. Ask Stepanovich or your local favorite tech mod. R-73 has two seeker elements while Magic 2 has 4 seeker elements. Both still had seeker lock ranges with a difference of less than .2km against non-AB aircrafts.
Which shouldnt be in the first place.
Cutting afterburner for a sec was always enough to decoy R-60, this also shouldnt be the case.
Flares was in seeker’s head, he started to pop them as soon as missile fired from 1.6km distance.
İt didnt behave normally by any means.
Except missile fired from 1.6km, you’re condiracting with yourself
3 Likes
There is no link between the seeker of the AIM-9L and R-60(M), you could maybe make a case for the AIM-9D /-9G / -9H, but that doesn’t suit the narrative you are pushing does it.
The R-60M uses a Peltier Cooled PbSe seeker, the AIM-9L uses a Argon cooled InSb seeker.
The R-60 uses an uncooled PbSe seeker, the USN series of Sidewinders uses Nitrogen cooled PbS
and as you can see below (InSb 77k vs PbSe 300k curves) there is a subsequent difference in performance between the detectors.
and if you compare it to an exemplar western flare’s spectral emissions, the performance should be obvious, or do i need to explain Wien’s displacement law, as well
Bad choice of an example, we know that the APQ-120 / APG-59 and their derivatives have a five second memory track based of extrapolating the last known angular & range rate.
Stop dodging, that was not was the original point that was made(relating explicitly the AIM-9L to R-60M), and anyway the number of detectors has nothing at all do to with the detection range of a target, but how it implements IRCCM due to not being roll stabilized, and other edge cases.
Is it at all also worth pointing out the R-60 uses Conical scan techniques, while the AIM-9L uses a Reticle Seekers, which are fundamentally different.
4 Likes
What about having a friend fly in a straight line in a custom battle is not a controlled test?
All shots mentioned were done at 1.5 miles with no changes in distance.
This is irrelevant in my testing as the distance was not great enough to have a effect, the target was also not maneuvering, my target was flying in a straight line in AB.
This is also irrelevant in my testing for the same reasons.
1 Like
You were in no-escape range with your afterburner on. And by the time your AB was off, it was ~300 meters away.
That is normal, that’s been in the game for years at this point.
AIM-9Ls have a longer no-escape range.
@Lolman345
There are no changes to R-60’s flare resistance.
Don’t let people launch R-60Ms from 1.5km behind you.
9Ls are more flare resistant than R-60Ms, Russian.
Russian win-rates probably dropped below GJN’s threshold lol
1 Like
I’d like to see the video, since it is hard for the R-60M itself to even hit at 1.5 miles against a target in rear aspect.
It’s dubious to suggest R-60M had little problems ignoring flares at 1.5 miles in rear aspect when itself has such little range to even hit.
3 Likes
The problem with using patents and other documentations that you normally bring up is that usually they’re not explicit and conclusive enough compared to that of an R-60M and AIM-9L manual. It is far better to compare the R-60M’s and AIM-9L’s all aspect range chart from their manuals against a stated target than to try and find documents on their elements and make conclusions based on research papers, not that those research papers don’t have their place.
It’s dubious to suggest AIM-9L had little problems ignoring flares at 1.5 miles in rear aspect when itself has such little range to even hit. I’ve never had a 9L impact above a 1.5 mile launch on a target that flares even in a straight line.
This was done 4 days ago on a whim to figure out what was going on, feel free do try the same tests yourself I cant be assed to test it again as I am traveling right now.
Well, I’ll wait until whenever you have time to make a video again because I’m still curious on how you managed to get an R-60M to accomplish a rear aspect 1.5 mile kill. I doubt I’ll be able to achieve that, so I’m curious on how you did it.
the missile shouldn’t be able to pick up an AB exhaust from rear aspect at the like of 1.8km, when there is no flares around? first news,… please give your source giving us that, enlighten us from your knowledge,… i wanna learn that source.
but i know from where it comes from,… ain’t it : “TrUsT Me BrO” source?
it was shot at 1.6km, unnoticed till 1.52km, 1st flare was active at 1.52 aswell, but afterburner was on until the missile was at 1.3km.
the OP was steering left, firing flares on the right increasing the distance between him and flare when the flare would be = in IR signature than Exhaust.
and you’re thinking than simply because your AB is off that IR signature goes down instantly - that’s stupid to think that
for the rest of your “answers” you have clearly nothing that proves it.
How does that help determine their resistance to flares? Stop burying the lead.
Also the only item there not from a primary source is the radiance / wavelength chart, and thats based on empirical evidence and peer review, the best substitute there is, since we lack the actual limits for the R-60(M). The AIM-9L’s were listed in the original post at 35 / 70 picowatts per square centimeter.
And just because your making a nice request, here you go, it even shows the seeker range for you.
As stated my target is non-maneuvering and I was sitting in flat rear aspect, if you want try it for yourself now range wise, you can easily hit the test range target aircraft at 1.5 miles with the R-60, hop out and try it, its really not that hard to pull off.
You should be a bit more charitable in what I mean. I had gotten a bit confused due to having two different conversations at the same time.
The British documents regarding the AIM-9L did not explicitly state that the resistance to flares in the presence of afterburner plume was because of the PbSe element rather than it being a natural result of all-aspect IR seekers in general. Nor did the other papers you provided state that the PbSe had that capability over other elements as well.
2 Likes