Jump to content

The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Information & Discussion topic


Flame2512
 Share

1 minute ago, Iron_physik said:

 

 

"The new Microchip electronics gave the missile enough processing power to sort out false targets, both background and countermeassures, from the real ones"

Sidewinder Creative Missile Development at China lake - Ron Westrum - page 197

 

on the same page it mentions different filter materials on the 9L PIP (prototype 9M) which only gave very limited CCRM against older flare types, but thats NOT attributed to the Sensor, thats attributed to using a different Dome material to filter out specific wavelenghts before they can reach the sensor.

 

So how does this equate to the Aim-9J having the incredible flare resistance it has in game?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Celestia said:

 

So how does this equate to the Aim-9J having the incredible flare resistance it has in game?

meanwhile even a 9M in DCS isnt that incredible than our 9J currently in game

 

PS. just played my 21bis again today, it happend again......

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Celestia said:

 

So how does this equate to the Aim-9J having the incredible flare resistance it has in game?

small FOV makes missiles "focus" better on the aircraft, flares will drop rather quickly out of that FOV

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

small FOV makes missiles "focus" better on the aircraft, flares will drop rather quickly out of that FOV

 

So how is this any different to the Aim-9D or Aim-9G which are hugely affected by flares, and have the same FOV and essentially the same electronics, software and detectors?

Edited by Celestia
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Celestia said:

 

So how is this any different to the Aim-9D or Aim-9G which are hugely affected by flares, and have the same FOV and essentially the same electronics, software and detectors?

ask the devs

 

I didnt code them

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WreckingAres283 said:

meanwhile even a 9M in DCS isnt that incredible than our 9J currently in game

 

PS. just played my 21bis again today, it happend again......


Yes, most Mig-21bis gameplays are now like:

1. Waste 4x R-60 just to watch them flying like moth into flares effortlessly spammed by Phantoms
2. Notice Aim-9J incoming, cut afterburner, spam flares, turn, spam again, roll...

3. GG, return to the hangar.

Will be even more funny with Mig-23M and its 6 flares + 6 chaffs setup.

 

Edited by Einherjer1979
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Celestia said:

 

So how is this any different to the Aim-9D or Aim-9G which are hugely affected by flares, and have the same FOV and essentially the same electronics, software and detectors?

 

In my experience AIM-9D/G are about as affected by flares as the AIM-9J is. 

Edited by Flame2512
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@WreckingAres283 Missiles such as the AIM-9J, Magic and even R-60 to some degree have low flare/jet engine sensitivity ratio. I made a very lengthy bug report about this many months ago:

TL;DR is that War Thunder separates different IR sources into "bands" (similar to actual IR wavelength bands). All of the research I could find about flare IR emissions indicated that a flare generated roughly equal IR intensity to a jet engine in the 3-5 micron band (used by all-aspect seekers), but were much more intense at 1-3 microns (used by rear-aspect seekers). This contradicts the current values used by War Thunder's missiles.

 

From datamined files, "rangeBand0" is IR in rear-aspect, whereas "rangeBand2" is IR from flares. As you can see, the rangeBand2 value is 4000.0 for both missiles, while rangeBand0 is 5000.0 and 5500.0 for the R-60 and AIM-9J respectively.

 

Spoiler

 

image.thumb.png.57f9b63e231dcf950a9d002f

 

image.thumb.png.22eb1408a4aa15739b13bb3c

 

This also factors in with FoV to determine how weak a missile is to flares -- higher FoV means more flares are visible at once, and the R-60 has double the FoV (5°) of the AIM-9J (2.5°).

 

If both rangeBand0 and 2 values were the same, it would be possible to reliably decoy AIM-9Js at 100% throttle. In-game example using custom missile, identical to AIM-9J but rangeBand2 = 5500.0:

https://streamable.com/54qztt

 

This would obviously make it a lot easier to deal with missiles, but it presents some potential balance issues when you consider that something like an F-4E would be able to defeat all incoming missiles with a few flares (though it should really only have 30 max instead of 90), while a Mirage IIIC or J35 would have to expend a large amount of speed and energy to physically evade (if they have enough speed to do this at all). Having said this, a number of missile kills tend to be on unaware/distracted enemies, which suggests flares would only be useful [in 1v1s or other situations where the target aircraft can react in time]. Generally speaking, it shouldn't be until AIM-9M or Magic 2 that it becomes necessary to use dozens of flares + hard, last-second maneuvering.

 

Edited by Zetaris
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zetaris said:

This would obviously make it a lot easier to deal with missiles, but it presents some potential balance issues when you consider that something like an F-4E would be able to defeat all incoming missiles with a few flares (though it should really only have 30 max instead of 90), while a Mirage IIIC or J35 would have to expend a large amount of speed and energy to physically evade (if they have enough speed to do this at all). Having said this, a number of missile kills tend to be on unaware/distracted enemies, which suggests flares would only be useful. Generally speaking, it shouldn't be until AIM-9M or Magic 2 that it becomes necessary to use dozens of flares + hard, last-second maneuvering.

 

 

Are you sure we need it for balance?? To me balance is already disrupted in favor of planes that have flares, and to the disadvantage of planes armed with certain types of missiles, which fly to the flare like moths to a flame.

Already now it happens very often that single F-4E or A-7D can evade 3-4 R-60 in row just by spamming flares - without any effort which other aircraft players have to put in evading with skilled maneuvering.

Mig-21bis has up to 6 R-60s, so yeah, it can waste 4 of them and still score a kill with last 2. But what can do Mirage with just 2x Magics vs Phantoms spamming flares? 

To me, the only excuse for the flares buff you propose, could be complete abandonment of missile-marker. If we want flares to be as strong as IRL, then let's increase the requirements for situational awareness to the similar level as IRL. 

With 3rd person view and big red marker for missile the ability to evade it just by effortlessly taping flare button is unacceptable gameplay wise for me.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Are you sure we need it for balance?? To me balance is already disrupted in favor of planes that have flares, and to the disadvantage of planes armed with certain types of missiles, which fly to the flare like moths to a flame.

Already now it happens very often that single F-4E or A-7D can evade 3-4 R-60 in row just by spamming flares - without any effort which other aircraft players have to put in evading with skilled maneuvering.

Mig-21bis has up to 6 R-60s, so yeah, it can waste 4 of them and still score a kill with last 2. But what can do Mirage with just 2x Magics vs Phantoms spamming flares? 

To me, the only excuse for the flares buff you propose, could be complete abandonment of missile-marker. If we want flares to be as strong as IRL, then let's increase the requirements for situational awareness to the similar level as IRL. 

With 3rd person view and big red marker for missile the ability to evade it just by effortlessly taping flare button is unacceptable gameplay wise for me.

 

 

I had a brain-xxxx in that quote, I meant to say "flares would only be useful in 1v1s or other situations where the target aircraft can react in time".

 

I agree that a flare buff would obviously give a great deal of power to aircraft with flares, which is why I said it would be a potential balancing issue.

 

2 hours ago, Zetaris said:

This would obviously make it a lot easier to deal with missiles, but it presents some potential balance issues when you consider that something like an F-4E would be able to defeat all incoming missiles with a few flares (though it should really only have 30 max instead of 90), while a Mirage IIIC or J35 would have to expend a large amount of speed and energy to physically evade (if they have enough speed to do this at all).

 

Edited by Zetaris
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zetaris said:

 

I had a brain-xxxx in that quote, I meant to say "flares would only be useful in 1v1s or other situations where the target aircraft isn't aware of the enemy/can't react in time".

 

I agree that a flare buff would obviously give a great deal of power to aircraft with flares, which is why I said it would be a potential balancing issue.

 

 


Wait, buffed flares "would be usefull only 1v1s or other situations where the target aircraft isn't aware of the enemy/can't react in time"? 

You mean flares or missiles? It sounds strange because target which isn't aware of the enemy, doesn't use flares.. And what it has to do with 1v1? Sorry, maybe it's me, but I feel lost in translation. ;)


As for ballance - as I wrote, to me the border of acceptance would be crosed when we reach the ability to evade missiles just by effortlessly taping flare button. And we are already close to it in the case of flares vs missiles of high susceptibility to flares.

To balance it we should make missiles harder to spot, what now, in 3rd person view AND with red marker for missile, is super-easy. But as far as I know our game engine can't provide reliable enough picture of incoming missile without these red markers..so kind a stalemate.


 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einherjer1979 said:

As for ballance - as I wrote, to me the border of acceptance would be crosed when we reach the ability to evade missiles just by effortlessly taping flare button. And we are already close to it in the case of flares vs missiles of high susceptibility to flares.

To balance it we should make missiles harder to spot, what now, in 3rd person view AND with red marker for missile, is super-easy. But as far as I know our game engine can't provide reliable enough picture of incoming missile without these red markers..so kind a stalemate.

 

Maybe, but you can't flare against a missile you don't even know is there (unless you're an A-7D with periodic flares on). Honestly, there's trade-offs no matter how you adjust things.

 

EDIT:

1 hour ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Wait, buffed flares "would be usefull only 1v1s or other situations where the target aircraft isn't aware of the enemy/can't react in time"? 

You mean flares or missiles? It sounds strange because target which isn't aware of the enemy, doesn't use flares.. And what it has to do with 1v1? Sorry, maybe it's me, but I feel lost in translation. ;)

 

I really should have explained myself better, sorry. When I mentioned flares only being useful in 1v1 I should've put it like this: If you're fighting more than 1 person (e.g. 2 or 3), it's possible for one of those people to get behind you while you focus on another, then missile you while you're distracted. In any case, it's not really true of me to say they "aren't useful", because in furballs there's always moments when you spot someone just in time and deploy flares, but having your attention divided between 4+ people makes it possible for one of them to potentially get a shot off without you knowing (or get "3rd party'd", i.e. someone from the other side of the map or diving in from 6km+ kills you).

Edited by Zetaris
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Zetaris said:

 

Maybe, but you can't flare against a missile you don't even know is there (unless you're an A-7D with periodic flares on). Honestly, there's trade-offs no matter how you adjust things.

 

In AirRB you perfectly know a missile is there as long as you follow situational awareness basics and missile marker is rendering correctly. With 3rd person, 360 degree / spherical rotating view it's really easy to be alarmed by incoming red diamond.

Thats why flares are already overperforming tool vs some missiles and may be even more if Gaijin will buff them. 

On the other hand the good thing I see gameplay wise in potential flares buff is reaching the situation when any flares will be same effective regardless of missiles - so it would stop the issue of Phantom heaving much easier time evading R-60s with flares than Mig-21 evading Aim-9J with flares. 

As you wrote..trade-offs..but we should be carefull what we are asking for. ;)
 

Edited by Einherjer1979
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Einherjer1979 said:

 

In AirRB you perfectly know a missile is there as long as you follow situational awareness basics and missile marker is rendering correctly. With 3rd person, 360 degree / spherical rotating view it's really easy to be alarmed by incoming red diamond.

 

 

Well, easier said than done (turns out he was directly above me at about 4km). It's also difficult to look in every direction when I'm busy using my mouse to aim.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

 

In AirRB you perfectly know a missile is there as long as you follow situational awareness basics and missile marker is rendering correctly. With 3rd person, 360 degree / spherical rotating view it's really easy to be alarmed by incoming red diamond.

Thats why flares are already overperforming tool vs some missiles and may be even more if Gaijin will buff them. 

On the other hand the good thing I see gameplay wise in potential flares buff is reaching the situation when any flares will be same effective regardless of missiles - so it would stop the issue of Phantom heaving much easier time evading R-60s with flares than Mig-21 evading Aim-9J with flares. 

As you wrote..trade-offs..but we should be carefull what we are asking for. ;)
 

In real life, IR missiles could be only spotted by eye-to-eye by its motor burning trajectories before rear detection sensors be introduced. 

 

And from my personal experience that played the F-4E without dispenser and missile warning buzzer(before missile warning system in game changed to current status), i agree that 90x flares for F-4E is overkill. It forgives most of the player's mistake too easily and too many. Surely the one have abundant flares would have fun, free from accordinated flight planes where or how to sneak behind enemey groups and all he have to do is join in a giant furball and do whatever he want.

 

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has gaijin changed the AIM-9Js this update? They feel much less reliable, and they seem to be a lot less resistant to flares now. I literally just saw an F-5C pop some flares and dodge 2 9Js and one 9E by simply turning slightly

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Absolutely_Free said:

Has gaijin changed the AIM-9Js this update? They feel much less reliable, and they seem to be a lot less resistant to flares now. I literally just saw an F-5C pop some flares and dodge 2 9Js and one 9E by simply turning slightly


Gaijin buffed flares, all missiles are affected, but Aim-9J is among those whose flare susceptibility changed the least noticeably - contrary to R-60 or SRAAM which are now in 90% cases useless vs target spamming flares (and some have a lot to spam).
 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Flame2512 said:

 

Was this in a datamine somewhere? I don't remember seeing it


Maybe was datamined too, idk, but today Smin wrote about it in Mig-23 thread: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/492904-mikoyan-gurevich-mig-23-flogger-history-design-performance-dissection/page/34/&tab=comments#comment-9010767

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zetaris I thought I'd carry this on here as the dev server section will be nuked soon.

On 31/05/2021 at 17:14, Zetaris said:

 

Currently all flares are of a single generic "flare_bullet_jet" type, apparently modelled after PPI-26 judging by the caliber (26mm) and mass (~90g). These also have standard IR visibility of 1.0. Some quick custom flare & missile testing reveals that increasing IR visibility beyond 1.0 certainly makes the flare better at decoying missiles, but I can't tell if the relationship to flare effectiveness is linear, hyperbolic or something else.

 

Reveal hidden contents

 

In any case, making flares non-generic and instead modelling them after PPI-50, PPI-26 and MJU-7 (US flare) seems like a good idea, especially in regards to the MiG-23M. If the data from these are to be believed, PPI-50 has ~6x the radiant intensity of PPI-26:

https://balkannovoteh.com/products/aircraft-defense-systems/infrared-flares-false-infrared-targets-ppi-26-1s-26mm-used

https://balkannovoteh.com/products/aircraft-defense-systems/infrared-flares-false-infrared-targets-ppi-50s-50mm-used-protect

 

Makes sense, considering PPI-50 has 7-8x the charge mass:

https://www.tara-aerospace.com/PPI-26-1V

https://www.tara-aerospace.com/PPI-50-1

 

MJU-7 seems to have about 5x charge mass over PPI-26:

https://www.tara-aerospace.com/MJU-7A-B

 

Not sure about MJU-7's intensity relative to PPI-26 -- if both use MTV, I'd estimate MJU-7 at 3-4x intensity of PPI-26. In any case, having 6 flares rolled into (essentially) a single PPI-50 should give the MiG-23M a good chance of fending off 2-3 missiles (as opposed to currently, where it's only capable of decoying an AIM-9J under very ideal conditions, i.e. 2km+ side-/semi front-aspect shot -- in direct rear-aspect my bets are very much on the missile).

 

Btw, for anyone wary of a buff to the Phantom series' flares, you should know that it might get nerfed to 30 flares max w/ 60 chaff in the future (and thus balance out with the changes suggested here, more or less).

 

The CM 218 is the British version of the MJU-7, it has a radiant intensity of 20 kW/sr. And the CM 118 (a 1" x 1" flare used in the AN/ALE-40, presumably a British M206) has a radiant intensity 12kW/sr. The 1"x1" flares on the AN/ALE-40 are typically only used for helicopters, turboprops, and small / non-afterburning jet engines.

 

So in summary:

  • PPI-26 (26 mm): 6.3 - 7.2 kW/sr (2.0-3.0 mcm) or 4.2 - 4.8 kW/sr (3.0-5.0 mcm)
  • PPI-50 (50 mm): 26 - 27 kW/sr (2.0 - 5.0 mcm)
  • M206 / CM 118 (1" x 1"): 12 kW/sr (peak)
  • MJU-7 / CM 218 (2" x 1"): 20 kW/sr (peak)
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Flame2512 said:

@Zetaris I thought I'd carry this on here as the dev server section will be nuked soon.

 

The CM 218 is the British version of the MJU-7, it has a radiant intensity of 20 kW/sr. And the CM 118 (a 1" x 1" flare used in the AN/ALE-40, presumably a British M206) has a radiant intensity 12kW/sr. The 1"x1" flares on the AN/ALE-40 are typically only used for helicopters, turboprops, and small / non-afterburning jet engines.

 

So in summary:

  • PPI-26 (26 mm): 6.3 - 7.2 kW/sr (2.0-3.0 mcm) or 4.2 - 4.8 kW/sr (3.0-5.0 mcm)
  • PPI-50 (50 mm): 26 - 27 kW/sr (2.0 - 5.0 mcm)
  • M206 / CM 118 (1" x 1"): 12 kW/sr (peak)
  • MJU-7 / CM 218 (2" x 1"): 20 kW/sr (peak)

 

Thanks, I really appreciate it!

 

The peak intensity for the M206 and MJU-7 sounds right, considering PPI-50 is the largest of the lot, and thus the most intense. However, it's somewhat unclear if the those intensities are for the 2-3mcm window or 3-5mcm (or across both windows like PPI-50).

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zetaris said:

 

Thanks, I really appreciate it!

 

The peak intensity for the M206 and MJU-7 sounds right, considering PPI-50 is the largest of the lot, and thus the most intense. However, it's somewhat unclear if the those intensities are for the 2-3mcm window or 3-5mcm (or across both windows like PPI-50).

 

Seeing as it is listed as peak I would assume it is the highest number across the entire range.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they mess with the aim9j with red skies?  I had all four of my missiles get lost from a simple turn from a su17, no flares nothing.  The guy just turned left slightly and they turn like aim9bs.  What is this?

  • Haha 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_29er said:

Did they mess with the aim9j with red skies?  I had all four of my missiles get lost from a simple turn from a su17, no flares nothing.  The guy just turned left slightly and they turn like aim9bs.  What is this?

Welcome to the Soviet R-60 missiles maybe now the aim 9j's track like it aka most of times never 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Smin1080p changed the title to The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Information & Discussion topic
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...