AIM-9X Performance
-
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.
-
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.
And what’s your proof our sources are unreliable? These things can only work so many ways.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.
And how does this explain why the AIM-9X should/shouldn’t be immune to pyrotechnic flares and pyrophoric except in very specific circumstances (blocking direct LOS to target)? Just because something may or may not have happened in the past concerning CCM doesn’t mean much and has 0 bearing on this discussion of the specifics of the FPA seeker. Grand overtures about historical trends ≠ the actual mechanics of the missile.
-
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.
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.
So many inaccurate data. For ex. the most widely used MiG-21 variant was the PF in Vietnam. Without gun…They achieved AA kills with R-3S because they did not have anyting else. I can upload for you the most accurate kill list if you need.
-
So many inaccurate data. For ex. the most widely used MiG-21 variant was the PF in Vietnam. Without gun…They achieved AA kills with R-3S because they did not have anything else. I can upload for you the most accurate kill list if you need.
-The F13 has a GSH-23L with only 30 rounds of ammunition and was used by Vietnam.
-The PF/PFM yes has no gun which I did not realize.- The MF variants arrived in the early 70’s and this variant and these have a GSH-23L.
So it’s not that I was completely wrong there were mig-21’s with only 30 rounds but they were limited in number compared to the PFM. Beyond the mig-21 what else is inaccurate? Additionally lets not loose to much focus here the main point of this thread is that the 9X is immune to all pyrotechnic and pyrophoric flares and this is not represented in BMS right now.
-
-The F13 has a GSH-23L with only 30 rounds of ammunition and was used by Vietnam.
-The PF/PFM yes has no gun which I did not realize.- The MF variants arrived in the early 70’s and this variant and these have a GSH-23L.
So it’s not that I was completely wrong there were mig-21’s with only 30 rounds but they were limited in number compared to the PFM. Beyond the mig-21 what else is inaccurate? Additionally lets not loose to much focus here the main point of this thread is that the 9X is immune to all pyrotechnic and pyrophoric flares and this is not represented in BMS right now.
MF never reached the combat. Only F-13 and PF. Chinese J-6 could carry AAM as I can remember but Soviet MiG-17 did not. Oh, BTW were not MiG-19, MiG-17s fought and J-6.
Between 1964-65 only MiG-15UTI, MiG-17F and PF were shipped to Vietnam and a small amount of J-5 in total about 150. First MiG-21F–13 arrived in spring or 1966. In 1968 arrived the first MiG-21PF/PFL and in 169 the MiG-19P copy the J-6 (56 pcs) and finally PFM in 1972. In total was shipped 150 different MiG-21 variants.
In total MiG-17s gained 28 kills, J-6s 5 kills and 57 with MiG-21s in most of cases AAM.
I have explained my standpoint about the case.
-
Ok thanks for the chart i’ll make sure to save that one. I did not realize that the “mig-19’s” were J-6’s as they were called MIG-19’s in Osprey’s “MIG-21 Units of the Vietnam War” and in Osprey’s “F4 phantom II vs Mig-21” although considering their essentially the same it’s more semantics than anything. Additionally in both books they do say that the MF did see combat during operation linebacker I and II.
-
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
Been a long time since I’ve flown.
There use to be a part of Falcon where you could listen to all the tones and identify what was making them. Does that still exist?
Thanks.
-
The f16net is strong in this one…
-
I’m with thereisnotime here.
Is 9X operationally proven? No. There are theory, calculations, tests, and statements.
But it wasn’t used in big numbers against peer opponent. With no operational experience, basically, everything is based on assumptions so far. And whatever technology is, history has proven many times that assumptions may be catastrophically wrong. If someone doesn’t want look back and consult history, so it be. But USAF has been blamed for its over-reliance on technology many times for reason.
Bottom line is - we have seen a lot of wunderwaffe so far. Not all of them lived to promise. So why to assume that 9X is holy invincible weapon?
Anyway, prudent pilots, who one day may use those weapons in real combat, aren’t thinking of modern short range missiles as unbeatable ones, because it’s them, who will put their life on line at the end. And they are much more conservative in such thing than us, virtual pilots.
-
It’s not an assumption its based off of all the available data. Yes its not operationally proven but you don’t need to test it operationally to predict its performance. The 9M performance in ODS is easily predictable as the seeker used by the 9M fundamentally is susceptible to flares. It can be made highly resistant but if the assumptions about flare performance are off the seeker will miss 10/10 times. The FPA doesn’t need to do this, they fundamentally can not be fooled by simple balls of heat being shot out of the back of a jet that is just how they work. We have the
at a very high rate for the whole time the seeker is tracking the target. I mean this alone should help give credence to these seekers being immune to flares. We are flying in a public domain level sim, and that sim can only simulate what we can find out with publicly available data. And that data indicates that the 9X is immune to pyrotechnic flares and immune to pyrophoric except in very specific circumstances (direct and full LOS blocked) -
…immune to pyrophoric except in very specific circumstances (direct and full LOS blocked)
Thats not incredibly specific circumstances…
EDIT: Actually I just want to comment on this situation, from what must be the developers perspective. That being, that you cant please everyone. In 4.33, there were complaints that the AIM-9X was immune to flares, “holy weapon”, unrealistic… And now in 4.34 there are complaints that the AIM-9X is suspectible to flares, unrealistic, etc etc…
You just cant win!
-
Thats not incredibly specific circumstances…
In 4.33, there were complaints that the AIM-9X was immune to flares, “holy weapon”, unrealistic…Complaints were mostly about 9M variant which had eyeball (FM?) type of seeker, that seeker is not as good in flare rejection.
As for AIM-9X, that weapon should be much better in rejecting flares, it should reject them preatty well based on thermal energy distribution, obviously nothing is perfect but it should be a lot better than anything with FM thermal seeker.I wonder if real AIM-9X can lock on a flare (when you do uncage). I guess it will, at least from the distace when there is no way to distinguish what is what (just few pixels so you have to wait till missile gets closer). Wonder what gonna happen if you lock it on a flare and then the flare burns out or missile starts to see the proper target, what it gonna do?
-
“mostly” - here we will have to agree to disagree.
-
It’s not an assumption its based off of all the available data. Yes its not operationally proven but you don’t need to test it operationally to predict its performance. The 9M performance in ODS is easily predictable as the seeker used by the 9M fundamentally is susceptible to flares. It can be made highly resistant but if the assumptions about flare performance are off the seeker will miss 10/10 times. The FPA doesn’t need to do this, they fundamentally can not be fooled by simple balls of heat being shot out of the back of a jet that is just how they work. We have the
at a very high rate for the whole time the seeker is tracking the target. I mean this alone should help give credence to these seekers being immune to flares. We are flying in a public domain level sim, and that sim can only simulate what we can find out with publicly available data. And that data indicates that the 9X is immune to pyrotechnic flares and immune to pyrophoric except in very specific circumstances (direct and full LOS blocked)Yes, it was dropped one after each other with 0 smoke.
Just imagine flares with so dense smoke are between the target and the missile where the missile does not have LOS on target because of the smoke…
-
Yes, it was dropped one after each other with 0 smoke.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/8/0952837.jpg?v=v40
Just imagine flares with so dense smoke are between the target and the missile where the missile does not have LOS on target because of the smoke…
Is it possible (irl) to launch pyrophoric flares at multiple angles simultaneously? Even ahead of the jet?
-
@Master:
Is it possible (irl) to launch pyrophoric flares at multiple angles simultaneously? Even ahead of the jet?
Yes, it is possible. Thrusted flare is also exist. I saved somewhere about a video it but I cannot find. A Hornet dropped such flare.
-
Here it is, at 5:15
I save the video on my HDD because for a time the video was removed.
-
Yes, it was dropped one after each other with 0 smoke.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/3/8/0952837.jpg?v=v40
Just imagine flares with so dense smoke are between the target and the missile where the missile does not have LOS on target because of the smoke…
The smoke would have no impact even on the older FM seekers so I don’t exactly see how this matters at all? The 9X would still be able to filter out the flares and track the target.
-
I wonder what would happen if flares were obscuring the target. It could make rejection difficult.