AIM-9X Performance
-
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.
-
Some of possible IRCCM:
Flare is falling down > rejected
Flare is going upward > rejected
Flare is slowing down > rejected
Flare is followed/preceded by some other sources of the same kind > rejected
Flare has a “typical flare” signature > rejected
Flare has not the same spectrum (temperature) than designated source > rejected
Flare has not the same IR wavelength than the designated source > rejected
Flare has not the same shape than the designated source > rejectedI guess than AIM-9X is a probably combination of all above (?)
Electronic Warfare Fundamentals.pdf
But AIM-9X can fail as any other mechanical/electronic devices.
-
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.
Italics and caps lock do not make for an argument
Thermal distribution = thermal spectrum, not shape, at least in the general sense. So how much the target radiates in one IR band vs the next. The problem is, recent flares do match that.
Therrmal space distribution would be shape. But : even if shape recognition as a thing, for example : the FPA has a fixed resolution. Locked on a target at range, the target in question will be a few pixel wide. So will be the flare. So shape would not matter. Not to mention that image recognition is barely taking of right now, so if something like that was implemented in the 9X, it would have been on simple criterias like size not always applicable.
Example :
Hard to distinguish from a big ball of flares…. not saying it is impossible on other criteria, but other criteria can fail as well.
Seriously, the DB has a 0.5% flare chance on the 9x… that’s not the end of the world…
-
Italics and caps lock do not make for an argument
Thermal distribution = thermal spectrum, not shape, at least in the general sense. So how much the target radiates in one IR band vs the next. The problem is, recent flares do match that.
Therrmal space distribution would be shape. But : even if shape recognition as a thing, for example : the FPA has a fixed resolution. Locked on a target at range, the target in question will be a few pixel wide. So will be the flare. So shape would not matter. Not to mention that image recognition is barely taking of right now, so if something like that was implemented in the 9X, it would have been on simple criterias like size not always applicable.
Example :
Hard to distinguish from a big ball of flares…. not saying it is impossible on other criteria, but other criteria can fail as well.
Seriously, the DB has a 0.5% flare chance on the 9x… that’s not the end of the world…
No, you are wrong. Its not about the IR band, its about the distribution. Refer the the OP. Its not a “if” it were a thing. It is a thing. And the resolution statement is just nonsense, again reference the document from the OP.
And as I stated in the first post, flares have defeats FPA’s, but not because they decoyed the missile. They simply got in the way. You could even use your wingman as a flare. And it is sort of a big deal in game when I can reliably defeat any 9X shot with about 10 flares. Every. Single. time.
-
-
Shift 8 basically stole the words out of my mouth
Since there as been a lot of comparison to older seekers and not everybody may know or have quick access to what were talking about I want to quickly give an overview of them and why they fundamentally can be made flare resistant but it is often quite “fickle”. While FPA seekers like the one on the 9X are immune to flares except if it completely blocks the LOS to the target. The AIM-9X is not like older IR seekers it works on completely different principles that can be represented by making it effectively immune to flares in game.
First IR seekers:
The first IR seekers used a reticle that spun with a bunch of sections that allowed IR energy through or blocked it. This in turn gave a waveform:
from which you could generate error signals and have the missile correct for. This IR reticle spun around its center point; the farther the target from the center the greater the amplitude of this error wave. The missile would seek to zero out this wave to guide towards the target. This seeker type reached its peak in the mid 60’s with cooled seekers and improved electronics, increasing their sensitivity and max launch G and angle off launch zones.
Shift to FM:
The shift to FM came in the late 60’s, this type of seeker sought to eliminate problems with the AM seeker through a design change.
By rotating the seeker around the target (or having a mirror do this for it aka early stinger models) it allowed missiles to not have to stare at the target continually increasing their ‘native’ IRCCM. By doing this the target IR source falls on the edge of the seeker and the closer it is to the center or farther adjusts the frequency of the energy that reaches the sensor and its from this frequency shift that the missile gets an error signal it can use for navigation. Additionally this fixed the AM seekers tendency to corkscrew the missile around the target as the sensitivity of the seeker at the center is very small. Since the target is spun near the edge of the seeker it eliminates this problem. d
Beginning of countermeasures, responses in missile design:
In the late 1960’s countermeasures began to be developed, onboard thermal jammers and pyrotechnic flares.Onboard thermal jammers sought introduce error into the AM seekers causing them to loose lock.
FM seekers though where more immune to this due to their design but not impervious.
Eventually by this time (late 1970’s) FM logic/cooled InSb seekers started to run into flares more often as they became the prevalent form of IR countermeasure on aircraft.
-Push Pull Filter (filtering by motion)
-Filtering by Position
-Filtering by Rise Time
Now the FM seeker still though is not easily able to tell the difference between a flare and the target. Take note that all the above methods of flare rejection rely on assumptions on how the flare will perform/move. The Conical seeker is just fundamentally unable to tell the difference between a flare and a target.
On the other side of the iron curtain the Russians developed the Dual band seeker as a counter:
There is of course more methods and seeker types tried (often dealing with with special scan patterns and/or using the UV spectrum) but they are a bit beyond the scope of this post which is already quite long…
Meanwhile the 9X seeker is:
of note the flare type their talking about:
-
The AIM9X is not immune to flare
BMS proves it
if reality proves otherwise, reality must adjust to match BMS
That’s all i have to say on the matter
-
Honestly I kill people all the time with 9x they use flares I dont know wtf these people are complaining about.
Its spoof free till … it isnt. -
Your linked image even explains how the flare works against an imaging seeker…
If you spent as much time reading about the subject as you did writing the post, you would have skipped writing the post XD
-
Your linked image even explains how the flare works against an imaging seeker…
If you spent as much time reading about the subject as you did writing the post, you would have skipped writing the post XD
Are you referring to the bit I already referenced in the previous posts? Where the flare works simply because it obscures LOS? I would not consider this the flare working. You could just as easily have a smoke generator.
-
You could. In combat design, the goal is the best miss distance you can generate. If the enemy CCM is such that you cant decoy it, you can only make it go blind/stupid, thats going to be your best miss distance.
If you cant make a flare which has the same thermal distribution (spectrum, not area) as the aircraft engine, and you cant exploit a failure in the CCM design in order to get inside the seeker logic, then preventing it from getting useful guidance commands is the next best thing.
-
Although its a bit irrelevant, i want to point out that in my tests the ace A.I. expends what seem to me to be all its flares to counter the first shot. If it survives, then it drops no flares against my second shot.
-
It’s only irrelevant if you deny the reality of public disclosure and an armchair polemic. Arguments about technology by lay people is what sent the phantom over Vietnam without a gun. Reliance on technology, oh what tangled webs we weave , ye of short memory. I’m thankful we didn’t have nvidia1070s in 1969- god only knows what ruin we would sit on considering the sim communities robust “knowings”
The point was about the defense industry. Every missile sold to nato over the past 40 years has been purported to be flare and countermeasure resistant. I suppose that point did not avail itself to you, hows the ice cream?