AIM-9X Performance
-
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 āinstantā 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 nowā¦Ask a tanker. None of the few documents iāve read about iir flare rejection have examined such a scenario. Makes sense tooā¦
-
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 wouldnāt 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 ācloudā shown in the doc.
-
āyou risk the missile passing through the cloud into proxy fuze range of your jetā
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 thatās 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 aheadā¦
-
@Master:
If we can come up with it after a short discussion, you bet airforces are way aheadā¦
Discussions are free. Real-world implementation of fairy tales requires copious amounts of research, engineering, production, testing, and most of all: $$$$.
-
I like how the goalposts of this discussion have shifted from ācan a flare defeat the 9xā to ābut look! it could be defeated by obsurcation from a smoke counter measureā
incidently, it was stated several times early in this thread that obscuration can defeat a 9x the same way flying behind a mountain can. Or using your wingman as a flare.
-
The āgoalpostsā? Thereās no goal here.
There would be a goal, but the participants have differences of opinion which are axiomatic in nature. This is why the discussion is circularā¦
-
The āgoalpostsā? Thereās no goal here.
There would be a goal, but the participants have differences of opinion which are axiomatic in nature. This is why the discussion is circularā¦
Its not a circular argument without goalposts, one side is saying that the current AIM-9X is fine cause Vietnam/history. While were trying to argue with all the technical information available right now. Over the course of this thread itās moved away from Vietnam to well it can be decoyed by this special flare release sequence that is not in use. Which would still really only be effective if deployed when the AIM-9X is close.
-
The āgoalpostsā? Thereās no goal here.
There would be a goal, but the participants have differences of opinion which are axiomatic in nature. This is why the discussion is circularā¦
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
This discussion is not axiomatic in nature. It is factual. The discussion is circular because of one end of the argument holds the position that you can substitute irrelevant historical statistics as if they were physics themselves, instead of discussing the actual technical details of the issue.
-
This post is deleted! -
Youāve been given valid explanations of why something works the way it does, which you disregard because it doesnāt meet your starting axioms, of āthe AIM-9X is perfect and can tell whether inbound RF is aircraft or flare, and can never be decoyed or blockedā.
-
Youāve been given valid explanations of why something works the way it does
?
which you disregard because it doesnāt meet your starting axioms
I think you have this backwardsā¦ We never said that it canāt be decoyed, rather with just pyrotechnics (the only flare type in BMS right now) it is essentially impossible. With the later discussions that moved too also including pyrophoric flares we never said it was impossible for this flare type to beat the 9X just highly improbable and requires the missile to be in a specific spot/range.
āthe AIM-9X is perfect and can tell whether inbound RF is aircraft or flare, and can never be decoyed or blockedā.
Yes the 9X can tell if its an aircraft or flare due to IR energy distribution and shape alone.
-
Discussions are free. Real-world implementation of fairy tales requires copious amounts of research, engineering, production, testing, and most of all: $$$$.
So, launching thrusted pyrophoric flares (which exist), that produce multispectral smoke (which exists), in a 360 bubble (that part does not exist) is a fairy tale. Well, we clearly have different definitions of the term āfairy taleā. Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.
-
@Master:
So, launching thrusted pyrophoric flares (which exist), that produce multispectral smoke (which exists), in a 360 bubble (that part does not exist) is a fairy tale. Well, we clearly have different definitions of the term āfairy taleā. Lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Why take it so personally? The proposed technology does not exist. In order for it to exist, it will require all of those things I mentioned.
Everythingās a fairy tale until such a time as it might be invented. If youāre offended by the term, thatās on you.
-
Why take it so personally? The proposed technology does not exist. In order for it to exist, it will require all of those things I mentioned.
Everythingās a fairy tale until such a time as it might be invented. If youāre offended by the term, thatās on you.
Honestly, no offense was taken. We couldnāt disagree more however.
-
On a side note, (and no, this is not moving the goalpost again, just for discussions worth) i read somewhere that the pakfa had an DIRCM developed for it (if that plane ever sees the light) and then i remembered an article in aviation week along time now that claimed a DIRCM was being proposed for the f-35. Are there any news on fighter jet sized DIRCMās?
-
@Master:
Are there any news on fighter jet sized DIRCMās?
Nope. But IRIS-T has been prepared to use the DIRCM as a guidance. You can find patent about this. The link is available in Hpaspās EO/IR doc as I can remember.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdf -
Nope. But IRIS-T has been prepared to use the DIRCM as a guidance. You can find patent about this. The link is available in Hpaspās EO/IR doc as I can remember.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/nq6i1ja0ds9gqi4/Histoy_of_the_Electro-Optical_Guided_Missiles.pdfSort of laser HOJ. Makes sense. Veer right to the point where the laser beam moves left on the seekers fov - correct to the left. Not to mention that the laser will also rotate to point at the seeker, offering it constant signal to correct on. Smart.
-
this thread is a leviathan monument of armchair generals on the internet in theory. t-72s, in the 1970s were fitted with IR scrambling smoke emitters. Brinks and ADT developed invisible light spectrum bulbs for the consumer market that completely render IR and thermal, starlite, all imaging useless.
the IAI famously publicized a handoff mode of the RWR and their python missile, being able to fire on all aspects in the direction of lock on modulations and missile alerts.
My point is that any thing developed will be countered, anything that purports to be immune to that countering, will in turn be countered. This is basic escalation. Russian flares in sukhoi and mig built fighters especially in their domestic fleet have all been made in the purview of the nato realities.
You might as well drape yourself in a flag, put your fingers in your ears, run around and say āna na na na na na naā I am ashamed to have even remotely participated in this sophist pillar of stupidity.
-
Russian or NATO flares, it makes no big difference. It is still the flare that works like a flare. It is still just a small point for FPA seeker. They may have different energy rise times and so but they are still just small point for a seeker, nothing like aircraft. You have to forget anything about previous seekers when you think about FPA. Flares have different shape than aircraft, simple as that. In some situations AIM-9X may be fooled by flares, but in most of them flares will get rejected.
Brinks and ADT developed invisible light spectrum bulbs for the consumer market that completely render IR and thermal, starlite, all imaging useless.
You mean IR dazzlers, right? Well, TOW-2A and TOW-2B both uses optical tracking in IR spectrum, but thanks to beacon sending pseudo random sequence of strobes it is no longer working against them. Guess why late T-90s went off production line without SHTORA systems installed. It was simply no longer working. Guess why DIRCMs are installed now instead of simple IRCMs. Because regular IRCM (that works much like SHTORA, it sends a pulses to confuse tracking system) is almost useless against modern missiles. It blinds the FPA sensor, but only from very short range. It may increase miss distance, but the fragment will nail the target anyway. This is why they need DIRCMs, because they can concentrate all the energy at a small area and then have much longer working range.
Flare rejecting code for BMS seems to work resonably in 4.34. I noted that in certain situations even weak AIM-9P can reject flares in BMS. Expecially when they do not intersect with engine plume. AIM-9X seems to hit the shit most of times. This seems right because flares, both in BMS and in reality, are not a magic decoys that works in every situation. Well, nothing is perfect and under certain conditions even 9X can be fooled i think. Especially from longer range when there is no easy way to distinguish what is flare and what is not (from distance both the aircraft and flare are just about one pixel, so only filtering by things like energy rise time and trajectory may do something about it).
EDIT: Just have fired some IRIS-T to check the heck in instant action. Seems to be preatty good at flare rejection just like AIM-9X is (same sensor so makes sense). Fired some of them on targets popping flares (both in head on and tail aspect), all of them hit. The problem with them is that they have very low range (at least DLZ says so), so the proper flight model is probably not yet implemented (they seems to be no better than AIM-9P at range).