K-74M (izdeliye 750) - to match up AIM-9X

For the Record, Most of the Technical Documentation on the AIM-9X Is still classified, posting such informarion is against the forum regulations.

Furthermore,

If users cannot be respectful to each other even during a debate, then the debate will be closed.

That's true. I wonder how some people know so much about classified info, unless they are somehow involved in the project.

Let's not open that can of worms.

Aim9X is classified but still reached DCS in theoretical performance envelope, acting perfect. Real? Doubt. What about R74 using same rules as aim9x? Classified but didn't reached DCS. So, who's fool here?

Aim9X is classified but still reached DCS in theoretical performance envelope, acting perfect. Real? Doubt. What about R74 using same rules as aim9x? Classified but didn't reached DCS. So, who's fool here?

all missiles act "perfect"

if they didnt early missiles like the aim9b wouldnt leave thier rails half the time or theyd fail to track a target. There are no reliability issues in DCS with missiles.

And maybe consider that maybe the R74 didnt make its way in because RUssian aircraft are the Mig29A/S and Su27S which did not use that missile type) not 2000s modernized iterations of them such as the Mig29SMT or SU27SM.....

Its like asking for MICA for a M2000C.

Its like asking for MICA for a M2000C.

Most likely capable but a classified secret to make foreign countries believe "oooooh no, don't worry, M2000 isn't MICA capable." ;)

Most likely capable but a classified secret to make foreign countries believe "oooooh no, don't worry, M2000 isn't MICA capable." ;)

Where do you get your info from??

So you suggesting that the Mirage 2000C is MICA capable??

You do realize that currently 14 foreign countries use the MICA missile, some on the Mirage 2000-5 and Rafale aircraft and NONE including France use it on the M2000C as this platform is an outdated variant.

The MICA is not a secret so no reason to "hide" the fact that any platform uses it.

This is just as silly as to suggest K-74M is used on any platform but latest gen russian fighters and currently in very limited use outside of testing

using same rules

:clap_2:

Aim9X is classified but still reached DCS in theoretical performance envelope, acting perfect. Real? Doubt. What about R74 using same rules as aim9x? Classified but didn't reached DCS. So, who's fool here?

Good point.

I guess ED have an official performance chart of Aim-9X when they bring it to develop in an official module.

Every time you request something for RU fighters they want see the sign of the Russian engineers to take you serious. This is a lobby for only one direction...

I meant 2000-5, not 2000C, sorry. Can't wait for Razbam to also make the 2000-5 (iirc there was a rumor that it'll come to DCS someday in not too far future)

I meant 2000-5, not 2000C, sorry. Can't wait for Razbam to also make the 2000-5 (iirc there was a rumor that it'll come to DCS someday in not too far future)

Huh? So why did you bring up the conspiracy that the M2K-C would be using it in secret if it's a known fact that the M2K-5 uses it?

Misunderstanding, I assumed that M2000 would already be capable to use MICA, but didn't know it was only 2000-5, not 2000C (officially...). All making sense now.

Misunderstanding, I assumed that M2000 would already be capable to use MICA, but didn't know it was only 2000-5, not 2000C (officially...). All making sense now.

So you realize now it's not common practice for an air force to "secretly" equip older aircraft with newer missiles and pretend it doesn't.. to "fool" the rest of the world??

That includes the K-74M.

All missiles act "perfect" - in DCS, that count only for Aim9X, DCS made red origin plane flares obsolete and missiles prone to single damn flare or chaff, absolutely obsolete, 99% of time, no A-A IR missile stick to damn red flare. How ignorant and reality discontinued is that? That's called heavy reality tweaking. I'm wondering why ED even refer to real life missile or any other data if they don't stick to basic logic of sensor saturation/hot gas aspect and public available data. What stand on encyclopedias or any other public document, who is ED in engineering world to change that data as they wont and still refer to that specific peace of mil equipment - literally. Tweak it and call it Ace Combat names alike, not real, that's fair. Otherwise id called customer misleading. Treat DCS as football game, 11 players here, 11 players there, no intervention to balance teams, that is way out of fair and trade deal behavior. You sell what is on box. If it says brick, its damn brick not a car. If Aim9X had fin malfunction in RL, simulate it. If R73 had malfunction - sim it. How hard is that for ED? Why activating god-mode on some items? Where is RL vs SIMed comparison chart for missiles. Why is that hard to produce? ED - you're killing all the fun in DCS. Don't change history, its already written. I can not explain that reality discontinuity bit I'm prone to believe its intentional. Why - probably some daily political or financial (Saudis financing) influence which is way out of my support in any kind - but that's just my speculation.

I can not explain that reality discontinuity bit I'm prone to believe its intentional. Why - probably some daily political or financial (Saudis financing) influence which is way out of my support in any kind - but that's just my speculation.

This is why no one cares about your opinion. The answers are there and obvious - you, instead of looking at them and working out the actual situation, decided to go with a conspiracy while at the same time appealing to your credentials as an engineer ... your posts are all posture and no substance.

Starting with '99% of time, no A-A IR missile stick to damn red flare.' ... there are no 'red' or 'blue' flares. They work the same way, the CM rejection for a 9M and 73 are the same. So, citation and proof for your claims please.

Then why someone would care for yours too? What is your elevated right? Currently, since DCS is beta, I'm acting as free beta tester for ED, spending lot of time on daily basis in MP. Conclusions drawn by pure observation. Same as most scientific studies do - observe -then conclude. I conclude, Flares on red planes are shit - now. Aim9X is on God mode -reality disproves. Beat that Tharos!

Then why someone would care for yours too? What is your elevated right?

I try to present evidence, if you want to call that 'my elevated right' ... what do you present? :)

Currently, since DCS is beta, I'm acting as free beta tester for ED, spending lot of time on daily basis in MP. Conclusions drawn by pure observation. Same as most scientific studies do - observe -then conclude. I conclude, Flares on red planes are shit - now. Aim9X is on God mode -reality disproves. Beat that Tharos!

Don't conflate your gaming around with science. You were asked to prove your statements - don't try to turn it around, that's called 'shifting the burden of proof'. That burden is yours, not mine. The fact that you did that is, again my 'elevated right'. In other words, it's not about me, it's about your faults.

AIM-9X is a missile that doesn't care about flares in reality. This is well documented. Get used to it.

As for flares on red planes being 'shit', they eat plenty of my AIM-9Ms.

Such a bold claim, i must admit. First, its classified, second since its classified its not publicly available, third ED can only speculate as most reverse engineering offices. You have nothing on X except claims like R74 has.Its also well documented that X failed in RL, like many missiles do. Its also documented that Stealth is shit and just commercial trick. Lets stick to "simulation" that ED grasps for and should.

Tharos, since you're in ED team, can you give us reality check on missile performance to prove your reality claims?

Next, R73 eats way more CMs than any blue - like PK in minimum flared zone is 5%! Is PK rationalization a joke?

Then, why ED doesn't introduce R74 which is just modified R73 with larger view cone? Whats hard about that?

Such a bold claim, i must admit. First, its classified, second since its classified its not publicly available,

I just told you the information is a matter of public record. Yes, it won't be the same as the classified information gathered by the military, that's true.

What's also true is that you're still just talking without even trying. And that is the problem :)

You have nothing on X except claims like R74 has.Its also well documented that X failed in RL, like many missiles do. Its also documented that Stealth is shit and just commercial trick. Lets stick to "simulation" that ED grasps for and should.

Maybe you should stick to playing the sim instead of making wild claims that are very clearly and obviously wrong, eh? :)

Tharos, since you're in ED team, can you give us reality check on missile performance to prove your reality claims?

I already have, more than once, on both these and the Russian part of the forums. get with the program, I'm not doing your homework for you. In the time it took you to continue arguing with me, you could have had a whole bunch of data instead.

Where does it say I'm on the ED team? BTW, The ED team often has documentation that you will never get your hands on. That doesn't mean they have everything, and the public can sometimes dig up things they've not seen before.

Next, R73 eats way more CMs than any blue - like PK in minimum flared zone is 5%! Is PK rationalization a joke?

I'm still waiting on evidence and computation of your number, as well as method of testing.

Then, why ED doesn't introduce R74 which is just modified R73 with larger view cone? Whats hard about that?

Just the fact that your version of Su-27/MiG-29 never carried it. Period. Just like my version of F-15C/A-10A/A-10C(I think?)/F-14A+/B/Harrier doesn't carry AIM-9X.

Man, any team can extract enough missile data from minimum public data available. Geometry is a prime factor, missile/seeker performance is in numbers claimed by manufacturers, atmosphere model well known etc.

None want some special tricks inside missile logic or should know that at all. Its expensive and classified data - and should stay so.

Since DCS ia sa "game", I dont see a reason why not implement something that has that minimum data available. Like rest of DCS is prerfect and there's a minor bug in here. No, game is full of bugs and errors. One new is not a problem.

Also, if you, Mr.Tharos, are not on ED team, I found you "not elevated" in any rights so your word goes against mine. Even so, my engineering and IT background could elevate me in rational environment. Is this forum that plane? I doubt. Here are users, not designers.

Just the fact that your version of Su-27/MiG-29 never carried it. Period.

Maybe because it wasn't necessary and too expensive to equip during peacetime

RedFor had the off boresight advantage for FIFTEEN YEARS, back in 2003 with LOMAC. Bluefor gets the AIM-9X for less than a year and we are getting threads to ask for unrealistic payloads on a missile that isn't even in full production to compete with it? Really?

That is the reality.... when the red site was the R-73 missile with vectoring thrust and "off boresight" fire, all playing the game, now, with a new missile has implemented, the people claim by a "balance". Was similar discussions with the "deleted" Su-33 weapons and Carrier Killer missiles.

That can be funny if in the future, coming Meteor, ASRAAM, IRIS-T, etc and the future F/A-18C / F-16 missiles and weapons.

Oh, OK, where's PAC-3 and AIM-54C on my F-15C? And the AIM-9X?

You're not getting weapons the aircraft never carried. Get over it.

Maybe because it wasn't necessary and too expensive to equip during peacetime

My evidence goes against your word, not my word. That evidence was probably re-posted in this thread, but maybe not. It's not hard to find :)

Your engineering/IT background means nothing.

Even so, my engineering and IT background could elevate me in rational environment. Is this forum that plane? I doubt. Here are users, not designers.

Good old times Su 33 and KH 41!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0E4wULLrdo

I'm well aware, but the version we're using doesn't. Plenty of 'update' versions of the F-15C exist.

Not to aid the enemy, but the F-15C in real life does use the AIM-9X, is was the first USAF aircraft to use it while the F-18 was the first Navy aircraft to use it.