i was talking about the weapons… not the vehicle. You can put cannons from the 1960’s on a new destroyer and it doing crap against modern weapons.
That’s the forum post for the Harrier Gr7 having 6x Aim-9. Also mssing its outer Pylon AGM-65
ranges can be found in this Bug report by Flame for the Aim-9M.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PX7CKrwWNGdr
RAF Doc that basically said the lock ranges for Aim-9M were basically the same as the Dechirped Aim-9L, So a report was submitted for the Aim-9M using those Dechirped Aim-9L figures. So the figures in the report are for Aim-9L
Dechirped Aim-9L
Over in the Tornado thread I’ve alluded a couple of times to a previously unknown British modification to the AIM-9L. Now that I’ve got a bit of time I thought I’d write a proper explanation for what it was.
As a bit of background: the AIM-9L seeker produces an acquisition audio tone whenever an IR source irradiates the detector cell. The pilot can then fire the missile in boresight mode (where the missile will just fire and try to lock onto whatever is in front of it), or press a button which will cause the seeker to attempt to the lock onto the the target and then uncage before launch (like we have in game), the latter being the normal mode of operation. In the case of the Tornado F.3 the button the pilot pressed to lock the seeker on was known as the “Target Acquisition Enable” (TAE) button.
The absolute minimum IR intensity the AIM-9L can detect is 15pw/cm -2 , but it needs about 35 pw/cm -2 in order to track a target reliably. It seems that when the AIM-9L was in development the Americans were concerned that the pilot couldn’t easily tell from the audio tone what the IR intensity of the target was; so the pilot may end up firing the missile without a strong enough return for it to track properly. They therefore implemented the “chirp” system into the missile (so called because it made the missile make a chirping sound when locked on). Basically (I’m simplifying a little) when the pilot attempted to lock the missile onto the target before launch the seeker would be repeatedly driven off-centre from the target, meaning that the target needed to have an IR intensity of about 70 cm/pw -2 before the missile could successfully lock on it, as the seeker wouldn’t be looking straight at the target. This would ensure that if the seeker had managed to obtained a lock it would easily be able to track the target after launch (because the IR intensity required for lock was much higher than that required for tracking).
The British decided that the chirp system “constitutes a very conservative confidence factor”, and that it wasn’t even needed because the pilot could use the sidewinder seeker symbol on the aircraft’s HUD to determine if the missile was tracking properly before launch. They therefore set about developing a way to remove the chirp system from the AIM-9L so that they could lock and fire it at greater range.
This is where the Tornado F.3 STF 113 de-chirping modification comes in (a proper British bodge job). They worked out that by modifying the wiring inside the LAU-7 missile launcher they could trick the AIM-9L seeker into thinking that the missile had already been launched (even though it was still attached to the aircraft) meaning the seeker could be made to lock-on to targets without the chirp system coming into play (as chirp was disabled as soon as the trigger was pulled). This modification to the launchers enabled the Tornado F.3 to lock onto targets with the AIM-9L at much greater ranges than other AIM-9L equipped aircraft could. According to the Tornado F.3 tactics manual the lock on range of the AIM-9L was essentially doubled under some conditions (which makes some sense as it now only needed half of the IR intensity it previously did in order to lock on).
I’m aware that this sounds like bit of a wild story, so here is the proof to back it up. - Source
A-10C was introduced at a BR where it fights things that are 40 years older than it.
You don’t even play sim against A-10C and you barely play sim at all.
1 Like
Yeah but I don’t see how a-10C is a problem?
I barely play Sim at all because the Mig-23MLD is stupidly Under BRed (should have been 12.0) and there are game breaking issues for the Sea Harrier FA2 and Tornado F3 Late. Let alone the series of rather crap additions that I have absolutely no interest in, like the Mig-21 BISON. Also the lack of new mehcanics like the GPS guided bombs being ommitted from the Harrier Gr7 (A MASSIVELY Over-BRed aircraft at the moment, because facing Mig-29s with no radar in a Sub-sonic aircraft at 12.7 is of course totally fair)
All of which has resulted in me not playing much War Thunder at ALL at the moment.
But for the same reason that I had no issue dealing with R-73 + IRCM on the SU-39 in the Phantom FGR2, you should have no issue dealing with A-10C with Aim-9M in the Mig-23MLD.
1 Like
Much thanks!
1 Like
It’s not. Not really at least. A-10C has quite decent situational awarness in Sim but is extremely slow and vulnerable to attacks most of the time. But People in Mig-23s keep attacking them, failing to kill them and then finding themselves defending against an Aim-9M. Which, they dont know how to defend against as they are use to the 1 flare defeats of the Aim-9G/L. Or they are trying to turn fight something low and slow that excel at low and slow fighting. In much the same way that you can often destroy people in the Harrier if you force them low and slow
1 Like
Congrats, CAPTOR-E has still yet to enter widespread service.
EU vs US vs China will be relative trade offs in missiles, stealth, and maneuverability. It should stay relatively dynamic if not balanced, unless you are russia, then you are fucked.
So it almost sounds like skill issue
I don’t know I would disagree
For the most part at least.
If I can deal with the Su-39s with Aim-9Gs, a dodgy PD radar and Skyflash DFs in the Phantom FGR2 vs the Su-39 with far more CMs, a Better RWR, IRCCM missiles and IRCM that prevents me from using Aim-9Gs entirely. Then Something much stronger like the Mig-23MLD shouldnt really struggle vs the A-10C. People have been wanting the A-10C at like 12.7 because “it has Aim-9Ms” which is rather absurd.
Su-35 with Russias mediocre AESA and R-77-1 will get completely torched by more advanced AESA, missile, RCS reduction.
Even a hypothetical Su-57 will be a very poor match up against the J-20, F-22, F-35…
1 Like
Maybe in one-on-one but last time I checked one on one never happens
The point that he is making is that USSR has newer technology in the game than USA does. He commonly cites Su-25 variants.
A-10C with HMD is probably the most modern plane in the game. I am pretty sure the HMD is from the late 2000’s or early 2010’s. It is the only plane in the game that has functional data-linked IFF capability.
He spends all of his time complaining about how unfairly NATO is treated in Sim when he doesn’t even play the game mode anymore.
1 Like
Even in mixed matches 16v16 Russia will largely be forced to the perimeter to catch scraps.
At best you can abuse thrust vectoring in isolated 1v1s.
And no not really SU 35 can definitely carry its weight in air combat
I love how NATO mains cope about MiG-23MLD and completely ignore their entire trove of aircraft that are criminally low tiered or instances where their planes receive preferential treatment.
5 Likes
From what I’ve seen gaijin doesn’t plan to add electronic warfare which means even with quote unquote inferior radars the Russians will still have outrage most of the opponent’s with their missiles Such as r37 m and force them to go lower or defend So no even if NATO does get newer toys Russians are more than capable of fighting them
Well unfortunately I cannot comment in that case I don’t play Sim
Having the Russian equivalent to the AIM-54 changes nothing, except the egregious weight penalty it adds to launching aircraft.
Late game, facing down something like the AIM-174B, AIM-120D, Meteor, AIM-260, PL-15 etc WILL NOT BE FUN when you are stuck with a larping Pheonix and an R-77-1.