AIM-9X Performance
-
The flare resistance of aim9x seeker is classified
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
Those two facts make any guess as good as another one
-
AIM-9X I donât know (?) ⌠but SA-18 / SA-24 (probably MICA also) are HIGHLY immune to flares (Strong IRCCM + imagery matrix).
-
-
they may be immune to tracking the decoy, but they are likely not immune to being blinded by the decoy.
-
Be aware that when uncaged , the tone of the missile gives you an indication of the seeker might be flared or not
The flared tone is a scratching tone
This is new feature in 4.34
-
they may be immune to tracking the decoy, but they are likely not immune to being blinded by the decoy.
If I put a strong IR light in your face by night ⌠will you be blinded by the IR beam if you wonât wear NVGs?
âŚ. same apply to IR band I and IR band II âŚ
-
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
Are we flying a classified simulator??? Thatâs way far more than cool!!!
-
-
⌠proves that AIM-9 has not a 100% efficiency. But doesnât prove that it has been decoyed. (Sometimes missileâs rocket engine do even not ignites)
-
honestly now, the 9x is fully digital yes, it uses the same NATO techniques developed to resist flares with the added strength of being reliant on digital imaging which can be forced into certain spectrums and taught to ignore others, however they are not 100% effective. Much has been written over the years in publications about soviet flare making process, which is hand made. If you can find it, there is an issue in 1989 from the old war publication âSoviet air powerâ which was a soft cover quarterly magazine. Soviet and russian era, sukhoi and mig built flares are disgusting. What they use in demo flights and what they use in operational aircraft are oranges to apples. See the incident in which the hornet missed twice with the 9x at visual range just a few years ago in syria. Itâs still an Aim9, itâs just digital. You went from a tube array, to a simulated tube array in a modeled circuit. This is actually arguably, worse.
-
If I put a strong IR light in your face by night ⌠will you be blinded by the IR beam if you wonât wear NVGs?
âŚ. same apply to IR band I and IR band II âŚ
yes but you can apply filters, also there are concepts which use a color correction to take the starlite green or the whot bhot image and either change it to something , filter something out, or try and go for true color conversion.
keep in mind that IRmasking and IRflood lights are 1970s era ADT home security technology and not exactly cutting edge classified access etc etc etc. Nowadays well there were programs like cheshire and Magiceye which literally outlined optic invisibility as the goal, to the tune of umpteen billions of DARPA ka ching.
the modern area denial for people who might be coming at you in NVGS or thermal is pulsating frequency emitters which create distortions around sololuminecse. in human, very fast in audible frequencies near the 987hz range start to produce photo emanations, coupled with actual low light from say a noble gas like neon or something more exotic, you can create washed out areas without having to flood the area with visible light. Similar to how those beep beep beep cockroach deterrents work in theory and concept. Banks, Ports, trainyards actively employ this technology, usually DHS is who is licensing it, but again, old news. ADT, Brinks are the ones who pioneered it for their corporate clientele.
-
First this was not about how it compares too other missiles by default the 9X should be immune to all the flare types and IR countermeasures in the sim right now fact⌠The actual flare resistances may be classified but we have an understanding of how this stuff works. Its not like it can just stop abiding by the laws of physics. The seeker is an imaging seeker that uses an undisclosed (but undoubtedly high) number of ir sensitive pixels to find and track the target. Before launch it will take a âsnapshotâ of the pattern and IR intensity of this tracked object. It will then home in on this pattern and will filter out all other IR sources that donât match that pattern. And this doesnât even include all the other ways you can strip out flares with a IR seeker such as flare rise time, ir energy distribution, and size. This is how this type of seeker works and is why every major power is making their own versions and if they canât make their own their buying it. The ASRAAM, IRST, and K-74 (only reportedly still in development) all use this system. The ASRAAM and IRST are stated by multiple sources to have nearly unmatched IR countermeasure resistance (including to DIRCM). So why would the 9x (especially the newer BLKII) be any different?
To continue,
there is 0 evidence that the SU-22 deployed any flares at all. Listening to the pilots at tailhook they never said the su22 deployed flares only that they fired and the aim-9x went off into oblivion. Plus from other pilots who have looked at the incident one phrase is constant âit missed due to human error nothing elseâ.
AIM-9X I donât know (?) ⌠but SA-18 / SA-24 (probably MICA also) are HIGHLY immune to flares (Strong IRCCM + imagery matrix).
These missiles are known to have very high flare resistances yet the AIM-9x which uses a seeker that just by its basic design will be more immune has only slightly higher flare resistance values as the 9M.
Flare resistance tests:
first a video
Now you may cry its a pointless test as its using âAmerican flaresâ but what proof do you have that these were your typical American flares? The people who design this stuff arenât idiots and with the experience in the gulf war of unexpectedly bad flare rise times in Russian flares causing 9Mâs to miss known I have little doubt that this was a consideration. Plus by the time of the 9xâs development the iron curtain had fallen and we had access to east German mig-29âs and all their associated equipment.
For BMS after a lot of test firings with a buddy of mine we have come to this conclusion: First if you use the flare pattern in the above video every ir missile in the game will miss. Second, The 9M when deploying about 2-3 flares a second will often eat the 5th-6th flare with the 9X eating the 8th-10th flare on average. It seems that the flare rejection (much like in 4.32/4.33) is still a percent chance. Much like with chaff in DCS, the more flares and the quicker they are dropped the more likely a missile will miss. With factors such as angle off and range being a multiplier added into this percentage. The farther away and the greater the angle off the quicker both missiles will eat a flare. Additionally it is still inconclusive, but still our opinion, that there is no difference in flare rejection in ab or idle.
The BMS flare resistance code is classified as well
I donât understand why though, as this is a free mod of a game that was made by a long dead company makes no sense at allâŚ
-
As long as weapon malfunctions are not modeled I rather put my vote on current modeling. Is better for a sim/game if are not holy weapons in it. AIM-9X even with non 100% flare resistance state can be far better comparing to other missiles.
BTW Iâm curious what you say for other missiles because what Misral, FIM-92C or dual seeker Russian missiles in theory close to 100% immunity. In theoryâŚ
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf -
As long as weapon malfunctions are not modeled I rather put my vote on current modeling. Is better for a sim/game if are not holy weapons in it. AIM-9X even with non 100% flare resistance state can be far better comparing to other missiles.
BTW Iâm curious what you say for other missiles because what Misral, FIM-92C or dual seeker Russian missiles in theory close to 100% immunity. In theoryâŚ
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdfYes the Seekers on the Stinger C (in particular with the rosette scan), the dual band Russian stuff, and Mistral should be pretty darn good at flare rejection (as in rejection of pyrotechnic flares not pyrophoric) and iâd hope itâd be accurately simulated. Again yes missiles fail IRL and its not realistic to simulate that as there are so many factors that can be part of the failure chain. But I donât think that this is cause to nerf (for lack of a better term) the AIM-9X when we know and can more accurately simulate this than its failure rate.
-
Yes the Seekers on the Stinger C (in particular with the rosette scan), the dual band Russian stuff, and Mistral should be pretty darn good at flare rejection (as in rejection of pyrotechnic flares not pyrophoric) and iâd hope itâd be accurately simulated. Again yes missiles fail IRL and its not realistic to simulate that as there are so many factors that can be part of the failure chain. But I donât think that this is cause to nerf (for lack of a better term) the AIM-9X when we know and can more accurately simulate this than its failure rate.
As long as you do not have supercomputer and real physical model and RL classified data accurately simulated is quite a relative term.
-
well do it simply, just use a little logical reduction simulators are modeled circuits of physical hardware in essence, so very simply without getting too far into the weeds a missile that is modeled to use IR tracking techniques analog has less emulation buffering and simulation modeling as opposed to a digital missile using hardware modeling to create an analog array. Itâs a simulation inside of a simulation, of a modeled circuit. Speaking plainly in terms of âwhat is realâ it is widely untested, new technology that has more avenues of failure as with anything new.
Raytheon even models the noises from the seeker head, there is no actual process creating the buzz, itâs just there for the feels.
-
As long as you do not have supercomputer and real physical model and RL classified data accurately simulated is quite a relative term.
? So essentially what this is like is:
You crash a car into a barrier in a driving sim yet there is no damage done to the car. Where iâm arguing there should be damage and we can push the sim closer to reality if we just added damage. Maybe not all aspects of damage but at least add something. But if we follow your statement your arguing unless we have a 100% model of the car and the world we can not model damage to the car.
Simâs are not black and white yes you canât fully simulate something but that doesnât mean you shouldnât try to make your sim as accurate as possible. The idea of its either 100% simulated or not at all is unreasonable and logically impossible. Everything or nothing in sims is impossible, just not adding damage for example is a simulation decision; you are simulating damage it just doesnât take any damage and because of this it is less of an accurate simulation than having even what you can model. Even if it isnât 100% what happens.
-
? So essentially what this is like is:
You crash a car into a barrier in a driving sim yet there is no damage done to the car. Where iâm arguing there should be damage and we can push the sim closer to reality if we just added damage. Maybe not all aspects of damage but at least add something. But if we follow your statement your arguing unless we have a 100% model of the car and the world we can not model damage to the car.
Simâs are not black and white yes you canât fully simulate something but that doesnât mean you shouldnât try to make your sim as accurate as possible. The idea of its either 100% simulated or not at all is unreasonable and logically impossible. Everything or nothing in sims is impossible, just not adding damage for example is a simulation decision; you are simulating damage it just doesnât take any damage and because of this it is less of an accurate simulation than having even what you can model. Even if it isnât 100% what happens.
Just start to count how many missiles are in the game with different HW and operation principles. And since '80s are SW in these.
Good luck for the âaccurately simulatedâ. You cannot mimic even the basic physical behavior of different kind of IR seeker. For God Sake as long as is only a standard one type of flare what a hell we are talking aboutâŚ? -
Weâre talking about making BMS more realistic one little piece at a time. One of the things that is not realistic is that the AIM-9x eats the current flare types in the game and this should not happen.
-
Weâre talking about making BMS more realistic one little piece at a time. One of the things that is not realistic is that the AIM-9x eats the current flare types in the game and this should not happen.
This is an opinion as mine.
But I know the facts. In theory by SW AIM-9M-7/8 during ODS were very, very flare resistant. In reality they eat quite well just a small amount of flares.You simply do not understand that as I know every flight sim use âqualitativeâ modeling. Are modifiers, ranges, other factors but is not hard cap or special âfiltersâ or anything their modeling part. Not in IR not in radar because it would be way complex to model and because lack of information and knowledge to model âaccuratelyâ one weapon system it would make the rest of them is not. In a very, very strong generalization in modeling. For ex. in current BMS4 is no difference between an RCG SA-2E/F (or submodes of Volkhov comparing to Dvina), 2K12 Kub (SA-6) CW or HAWK CW or TVM/SAGG modeling. At all. As I know is not even lobe modelingâŚ
How do you want âaccuratelyâ model something if the plumes are not physical objects with surface temperature?
How do you want âaccuratelyâ model something if the airframe surface temperature is not a real 3D surface with temp?And so on?
You can make a little bit different jamming resistance method to give different parameters in the model (which is classified) and IR seekers have only some modeling values which at least model the most crucial factors. Range = sensitivity, gimbal value, FOV, etc.
Yes, maybe the AIM-9X can be a bit more resistant to flares but because of lack on n+1 modeled factor Iâm ALWAYS be against such approach where 100% immunity is just a theory.Against a monopulse CW radar a simply noise jamming is useless which forced manual tracking the SA-2/3s but such kind of discrimination does not exist in any sim and my bet is never will be. Even the dedicated SAMsim is only a smaller fraction of modes are modeled for stone age Volkhov SAM.
You simply wish a 100% immune AIM-9X⌠Just because in theory they areâŚ
Gameplay wise is far, far better the current modeling. AIM-9X has a very high Pk if the missile is inside the NEZ. I recommend to try live with this.