AIM-9X Performance
-
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. It’s a simulation inside of a simulation, of a modeled circuit. Speaking plainly in terms of “what is real” 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, it’s 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 i’m 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.
Sim’s are not black and white yes you can’t fully simulate something but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t 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 doesn’t take any damage and because of this it is less of an accurate simulation than having even what you can model. Even if it isn’t 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 i’m 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.
Sim’s are not black and white yes you can’t fully simulate something but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t 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 doesn’t take any damage and because of this it is less of an accurate simulation than having even what you can model. Even if it isn’t 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 “accurately simulated”. 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 about…? -
We’re 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.
-
We’re 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 “qualitative” modeling. Are modifiers, ranges, other factors but is not hard cap or special “filters” 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 “accurately” 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 modeling…
How do you want “accurately” model something if the plumes are not physical objects with surface temperature?
How do you want “accurately” 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 I’m 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 are…
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. -
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.
This I am not seeing in 4.34. Just as an example one flight me and my wingman had four Aim-9X in total. Every single one missed. Not due to long range shots or way off boresight shots. Because every time the missile saw a flare it jumped for it. Now I get that sure you will have a percentage that will not work but a 0% success rate is the polar opposite of how they behaved in 4.33.
-
This I am not seeing in 4.34. Just as an example one flight me and my wingman had four Aim-9X in total. Every single one missed. Not due to long range shots or way off boresight shots. Because every time the missile saw a flare it jumped for it. Now I get that sure you will have a percentage that will not work but a 0% success rate is the polar opposite of how they behaved in 4.33.
To me worked so far in tests far better the AIM-9X. Of course the weather has strong impact on effectiveness…
-
A brief account of my test IA mission (KTO, 100%realism):
10 heat-seekers fired: 7x9X and 3x9M. All of the AIM-9X’s hit, and of the three 9M’s just one missed. Surely, the slow-movers are easier to hit, but sometimes it takes more than one hit to annihilate a bomber. My hits also included one MiG-21 and one 19 (both disintegrated instantly) and a Frogfoot, even though I had to finish it off with the 20mm.
The Sidewinders were fired in either boresight or uncaged mode, in some cases through a thin layer of clouds (likely the 9M that missed lost track of its target in a dense cumulus).
-
This I am not seeing in 4.34. Just as an example one flight me and my wingman had four Aim-9X in total. Every single one missed. Not due to long range shots or way off boresight shots. Because every time the missile saw a flare it jumped for it. Now I get that sure you will have a percentage that will not work but a 0% success rate is the polar opposite of how they behaved in 4.33.
was it against AI or Player ?
what tone did you had when uncaged ? are you sure the seeker was tracking properly initially with unscratched uncaged tone ?
what was the environmental condition ?
where you above the target ? and if yes, at what altitude ?
Were you above the target and above a cloud layer ?
-
For your information without giving you how the calculation of flare chance is done by the code (this is a complex one based on many parameters)
a AIM9X, with a flare chance of 0.5% in the DB has a 12% / 13% chance of being decoyed if all the right actions are done ( head on, idle for a time higher than spooling down time and flaring at the right distance with a correct rate of flares).
In the same time the flaring chance of AIM9X is zeroed in case target is full AB with a >50 deg aspect.
so if released with good parameters with good tone, the AIM9X will hit 100%
but it can also miss if not realeased in good conditions
-
was it against AI or Player ?
what tone did you had when uncaged ? are you sure the seeker was tracking properly initially with unscratched uncaged tone ?
what was the environmental condition ?
where you above the target ? and if yes, at what altitude ?
Were you above the target and above a cloud layer ?
Also this is also pilot skill as if your smart your not going to start hurling your 9’s as soon as you get a lock you wait for them to dump some flares and its a game of skill at that point can he out man you before he A runs out of flares can you wait a bit to out time him when dumping flares … against humans this is part of it. Against AI I also depending on the situation wait a bit to see what the pilot is doing how good he looks before launching. If he in full burn and if he is at idle or not in clouds, in the sun against the ground, also a factor… just practice dude.
These are complex weapons not magic bullets.
Lets DF and let me get behind you with 9x I can promise you I WILL hit you.
-
For your information without giving you how the calculation of flare chance is done by the code (this is a complex one based on many parameters)
a AIM9X, with a flare chance of 0.5% in the DB has a 12% / 13% chance of being decoyed if all the right actions are done ( head on, idle for a time higher than spooling down time and flaring at the right distance with a correct rate of flares).
In the same time the flaring chance of AIM9X is zeroed in case target is full AB with a >50 deg aspect.
so if released with good parameters with good tone, the AIM9X will hit 100%
but it can also miss if not realeased in good conditions
Which sounds perfectly fine to me.
-
For your information without giving you how the calculation of flare chance is done by the code (this is a complex one based on many parameters)
a AIM9X, with a flare chance of 0.5% in the DB has a 12% / 13% chance of being decoyed if all the right actions are done ( head on, idle for a time higher than spooling down time and flaring at the right distance with a correct rate of flares).
In the same time the flaring chance of AIM9X is zeroed in case target is full AB with a >50 deg aspect.
so if released with good parameters with good tone, the AIM9X will hit 100%
but it can also miss if not realeased in good conditions
bold X = is M?
-
-
the M as not the same DB value as the X
Ok, I got the content of your comment. Regardless of flare chance for AIM-9X is a zeroed aspect range.
At first interpretation I did it wrong and I thought you compare the AIM-9M with AIM-9X. -
For your information without giving you how the calculation of flare chance is done by the code (this is a complex one based on many parameters)
a AIM9X, with a flare chance of 0.5% in the DB has a 12% / 13% chance of being decoyed if all the right actions are done ( head on, idle for a time higher than spooling down time and flaring at the right distance with a correct rate of flares).
In the same time the flaring chance of AIM9X is zeroed in case target is full AB with a >50 deg aspect.
so if released with good parameters with good tone, the AIM9X will hit 100%
but it can also miss if not realeased in good conditions
The issue is that it should not have (for all intents and purposes) any chance of defeating the X. Tests done on FPA’s have shown that flares only work if they get in the way of the LOS such that the missile cant see the aircraft. There is a easily found report online that shows this happening when the missile approached from the stern and below and came up the flare drop path. However the flare isnt really decoying the the missile, at least not in the traditional sense. In this sense, flying behind a mountain is a decoy. As was posted earlier, FPA’s can detect the thermal distribution of the target, which is something no flare can mimic. No amount of flares should decoy the 9X because the seeker does not work on principles that would make it susceptible to them. You might as well be putting chaff out the back. The only decent countermeasures against FPA’s are lasers, assuming the seeker is not hardened against this.
Also why is the 9X limited to 65deg in the HMCS? The previous versions of BMS the seeker was also limited, but it would appear as though the seeker is now capable of 90deg OB, but the HMCS is stuck at 65?
-
every test is done with raytheon flares, and bare in mind the aim9m, the aim9l, E, F, G, and H, are all purported by raytheon to be flare resistant.
You ever go to an ice cream shope " hey boss how is this ice cream"
“it’s literally the worst ice cream ever, it tastes like dogshit, do you want to buy some”
Seller’s market, and you bought it.
-
every test is done with raytheon flares, and bare in mind the aim9m, the aim9l, E, F, G, and H, are all purported by raytheon to be flare resistant.
.Not relevant - none of these had or have IIR seekers - massive difference.
That doc has been around years - probably not supposed to be in the public domain……any hoo
-
You guys are making a categorical error here. You are massively over-generalizing when this discussion is about the specifics of how these seekers work. Claims of previous missiles are not relevant to this discussion. You guys are making these sweeping and moot generalizations as if they somehow have something to do with the specifics of the aim9x.
The AIM9X uses a focal plane array seeker. They are IMMUNE to ALL flares because they CANNOT be tricked by a simple heat source decoy. A FPA seeker KNOWS the thermal distribution (the shape of the target more or less) and will reject anything that does not match this. Simply shunting a big heat ball out the back of your plane will NEVER deceive this type of seeker. It is not a matter of probabilities. It is an issue of how the seeker works. Flares work on FPA’s to the same degree that CHAFF works on a Aim9-M or any other heater.
While we are on the subject, the reason flares had a back and forth with missiles of the past is because of the specifics of those seekers as well. Different seekers would be decoyed by different flares under SPECIFIC and DETERMINISTIC circumstances. If we are talking about 9M failures due to flare rise time, we could in fact predict this issue could be a factor.
So to reiterate: Flares do not decoy FPA’s because they cannot mimic the thermal shape of the aircraft.
-
was it against AI or Player ?
AI
what tone did you had when uncaged ? are you sure the seeker was tracking properly initially with unscratched uncaged tone ?
Tone sounded fine to me. There were no flares until after launch. I launched against a AI MiG-23 nose to nose and the MiG popped flares. At that point the 9X tracked the flare.
what was the environmental condition ?
Fair weather but this didn’t happen in the clouds.
where you above the target ? and if yes, at what altitude ?
Yeah this was nose to nose. I was perhaps 1-2k above the target.
Were you above the target and above a cloud layer ?
No cloud layer or clouds in between us. Fair weather and below 20k feet at the start.