AIM-9X Performance
-
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.
-
Its highly dependent on range and aspect and is easier with pyrophoric flares, if you reference this doc:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4783/4ec45f24453d1263b94f633aa6e6bc7e2387.pdf
They go into this in the latter half of the paper, essentially to sum up it can cause a miss but:
range is key.
-
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.
the 9X is so good that you dont even have to fire it , enemy would eject as soon as they see on their RWR a AIM9X capable AC
-
the 9X is so good that you dont even have to fire it , enemy would eject as soon as they see something on their RWR
I mean there is a reason for the 9XBLKII’s full 360° firing area… a normal dogfight between two HOBS and FPA equipped jets essentially boils down to who fires first and if the second guy can get a shot off. So if you can just blow through the merge or fire behind you and don’t have to do the whole who can fire first dance you will win pretty much every time. Hence why BVR, stealth, and Sensor integration are becoming ever more important. I think a quote from a fighter pilot was that if you get within 10mi you’ve F* up.
-
I mean there is a reason for the 9XBLKII’s full 360° firing area… a normal dogfight between two HOBS and FPA equipped jets essentially boils down to who fires first and if the second guy can get a shot off. So if you can just blow through the merge or fire behind you and don’t have to do the whole who can fire first dance you will win pretty much every time. Hence why BVR, stealth, and Sensor integration are becoming ever more important. I think a quote from a fighter pilot was that if you get within 10mi you’ve F* up.
in any case you would have been hit by a meteor far before
-
in any case you would have been hit by a meteor far before
Agreed not that that matters for the what this thread is about.
-
So, if i get this right, it is possible to create an “instant” 360 degree bubble of pyrophoric flares, launched aft-forward-up-down-left-right, behind AND ahead of the jet to travel with it for a while. That sounds to me like complete block of LOS, no matter the angle. If that holds true, no IIR seeker will be able to see the target in order to differentiate it from flares. And someone mentioned the seeker being able to see through smoke. Multi spectral smoke exists for a long time now…Ask a tanker. None of the few documents i’ve read about iir flare rejection have examined such a scenario. Makes sense too…
-
Well were getting into the realm of whats not possible yet (so I guess my point of the 9X being pretty much immune to flares is sticking ). But yes if you could get the pyrophoric flares effect to follow you that could be effective but you risk the missile passing through the cloud into proxy fuze range of your jet. Also keep in mind the actual filaments that oxidize to produce the IR energy will almost instantaneously decelerate when they fall of the main body of the flare (its how they get the large IR source). So the cloud effect wouldn’t probably be as large as in the simulations from the doc from earlier it would probably be more of a cone shape expanding outwards instead of the “cloud” shown in the doc.
-
“you risk the missile passing through the cloud into proxy fuze range of your jet”
Makes sense but better that than been 100% hit (which is your point). Also I disagree with this being in the realm of non existent tech. We clearly see flares shot straight ahead like missiles. If that’s the case, you can create any patter shape and form you like. If we can come up with it after a short discussion, you bet airforces are way ahead…
-
@Master:
If we can come up with it after a short discussion, you bet airforces are way ahead…
Discussions are free. Real-world implementation of fairy tales requires copious amounts of research, engineering, production, testing, and most of all: $$$$.