AIM-9X Performance
-
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?
-
MISS - iles
-
Maybe time to point out for the information of some English speakers that it’s only a pun , unlike some of them may believe (as “missile” is a French word of Latin origin that simply means “projectile”, though it’s very seldom used in this meaning now in modern French).
-
reclaim the ancien french, “oui oui, he assailed me with various missile types, popcorn, whoopers, his discarded beverage lid, the humanity… J’accuse”
-
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?
If you are going to take a swipe perhaps less of a demonstration of how clueless (Lay) you are to the reality of technological change and the many factors of the Vietnam Air war. What would I know having worked with it for 20 years.
The AIM-9E is quite a bit older than 40 years I’m afraid - can you provide in your next post where Philco Ford / Raytheon /Hughes claimed the AIM-9E or J even was flare resistant - many thanks
-
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”
Lets be real here though, in Vietnam 64% of all US A/A kills were with missiles, and not all of the remaining were guns kills by the F4; there were several B52 tailgunner kills for example, one kill by and Thud with jettisoned bombs, or maneuver kills. Even after adding a gun to the F4 it only ever got 15.5 gun kills (or ~14% of total F4 kills). Even the Russian jets used missiles, the MIG-19 had very little 30mm ammo (but still got kills with it) and the MIG-21 only had ~30 rounds of 23mm ammo and all its kills were with AA-2’s… The original missiles used were not good, but over the course of the war they got much better. In the next big use of the sidewinder (where we have reliable stats aka not the 1981 Lebanon war) the Falklands all but one the 9L’s that were fired in range hit their target, with the last one being defeated when the Argentinean jet dove into a cloud bank. In ODS the 9M’s that were decoyed were decoyed due to the awful flare rise times on Iraqi jets. This though is completely expected though due to the design of the FM seeker head. If the CCM program in the missile is unable to filter out the flare the missile seeker will be pulled off the target.
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?
As has been stated earlier this is not about the performance of previous types of missiles but that the AIM-9X is underperforming in the CCM department.
-
your basis for that assumption is based on first party industry sales data made available for sales purposes. The investigators investigated themselves and found no reason to continue investigating. We are talking about the prevalence of wrong data persisting and being the basis for intermittent failures in both preparation and training , but admittedly from different altitudes.
The nature of this data is wrong, in essence. If you want to ignore history to support your argument, it doesn’t matter when, where , or why- the nature of the beast is the same. Look, you can even watch two miss from within visual range, IR lock, and a tgp point track.I would never turn in a paper and expect 100% if I didn’t capitalize some names and make sure my punctuations were right. Far be it from me to relearn you in this setting, but I am making broader points and you seem to be focusing in on some sales point when in fact reality, history, and a preponderance of data persist to in fact support the fact that anything a defense industry developer says about its on product is suspect at best. If everything everyone told us about every product was true we would haze zero failure, zero waste, zero misspent budget, and zero oversight- everything would just work.
Your expectations and understanding of how things actually operate is of base and the failure rates are at the discretion of people who thankfully know better.
Think logically, there are avenues of espionage that if purported to exist a countermeasure proofed missile would enact endless means to see to it that that was made untrue post haste. Either by industrial espionage, statecraft, political, or hardware means. Look at stealth, classified yes, SIC and SAP, sure- chengdu makes RAM, developed a radar, and will have their own fleet in 30 years. The reaction is always greater than the innovation. Again ignoring history is not something I do willingly, so I’ll leave you with that. Modeling a missile in any event to be 100% Rear aspect flare resistant now or in any time is bar none wrong, but you can posture your position of belief until the pigs fly.
-
Thereisnotime to dig yourself out of this massive hole you have just dug for yourself is there.
Here is another thing you don’t understand - the only thing that is relevant for a public domain flight simulator and forum is information in the public domain. That is the reality (nearly) everyone else measures the sim to.