AIM-9X Performance
-
@Master:
Are there any news on fighter jet sized DIRCM’s?
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 Hpasp’s 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 Hpasp’s 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 “na na na na na na na” 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).
-
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 “na na na na na na na” I am ashamed to have even remotely participated in this sophist pillar of stupidity.
Lol, again these all work differently than the FPA and should not be used to say ‘cause this countermeasure worked in the past it is still as effective today!’ Yes the FPA can be countered but as far as we can tell only by pyrophoric when the clouds of IR energy completly block LOS and at close range and high powered DIRCM.
-
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
I did some flights with the 9X and other heaters such as the Archer this past period and had to think back of this thread.
I’m not seeing these numbers in my flights. 9X shots by myself and AI wingmen as well as by red air shot against us are easily spoiled a lot of the times. For example, yesterday I did a 1v1 session against an AI F-18C loaded with 9X’s. I did 4 setups and every fight one or more 9X’s were shot at me, none hit. All easily spoiled by flares. They were fired from the forward quarter and I did go to idle as soon as it was shot. I did no evasive maneuvering.
In other flights I’ve shot 9X’s against aggressor F-18’s and in my experience the first one is usually spoiled by the AI F-18 with a massive flare dump. I have a good tone, I’m on the bandit’s 6 o’clock position and no clouds between us and same altitude. the second shot usually hits, because the bandit is out of flares or not dumping as much again. My AI wingmen often get the same results that their 9X usually misses.
I’m not saying this is unrealistic (the 9X against the SU22 did miss after all…although we don’t know the details of why it missed. But there were stories that it was decoyed by flares), these are just my observations. I’m glad to see that the missiles are not wonder weapons anymore. Just saying I’m not seeing these numbers that are posted in this thread.
-
Just come back from a guns/AIM-9X training mission, and I have to say… emphasis was on the former. Out of four heaters, one hit, against the MIG-21. Now, those were all head-on off-boresight shots, but they weren’t extreme off-boresight. One of those, against the MIG-29, was most likely because I forgot to look at DLZ (he sniped me with his own off-boresight AA-11 last time I tangled with him, so I might have been a bit trigger happy…) and it seemed that it just plain outran the missile, in addition to flares. However, the MIG-23 evaded two AIM-9X shots, mostly by putting the missile on the beam and popping a shower of flares. I had good tone and I’m pretty sure I had good range as well.
All I have to say, thank GD for that gun. Not only it made short work of the Fantan, I also took out two MIGs in a honest old-school dogfight. Of course, one left me at the edge of stall and the other had me, at about FL100, plunging straight towards the ground at mach 1 (I recovered at treetop level, despite pulling to the stops), but in the end they were the ones dangling from parachutes. High-tech off-boresight infrared missile - 1, 60 years old cannon - 3. That said, this actually felt pretty good. If you want off-boresight shots, you want to be close (but not too close), and rear-aspect shots are far more likely to be effective. I have less experience with properly modeled heaters than with cannon (which even the more primitive sims tend to get right), so there’s that.
-
Just come back from a guns/AIM-9X training mission, and I have to say… emphasis was on the former. Out of four heaters, one hit, against the MIG-21. Now, those were all head-on off-boresight shots, but they weren’t extreme off-boresight. One of those, against the MIG-29, was most likely because I forgot to look at DLZ (he sniped me with his own off-boresight AA-11 last time I tangled with him, so I might have been a bit trigger happy…) and it seemed that it just plain outran the missile, in addition to flares. However, the MIG-23 evaded two AIM-9X shots, mostly by putting the missile on the beam and popping a shower of flares. I had good tone and I’m pretty sure I had good range as well.
All I have to say, thank GD for that gun. Not only it made short work of the Fantan, I also took out two MIGs in a honest old-school dogfight. Of course, one left me at the edge of stall and the other had me, at about FL100, plunging straight towards the ground at mach 1 (I recovered at treetop level, despite pulling to the stops), but in the end they were the ones dangling from parachutes. High-tech off-boresight infrared missile - 1, 60 years old cannon - 3. That said, this actually felt pretty good. If you want off-boresight shots, you want to be close (but not too close), and rear-aspect shots are far more likely to be effective. I have less experience with properly modeled heaters than with cannon (which even the more primitive sims tend to get right), so there’s that.
My testing results show a hight hit high rate, so a video from the users that see a low hit rate would be useful.
What do you mean by saying " head-on off-boresight shots" ? Do you mean a 180 aspect bandit with much lower head crossing angle ?
-
It was a normal 180 aspect engagement, except I didn’t bother pointing the jet directly at him, instead using HMCS to cue the missile (since this mission is meant for practicing that sort of thing). It was not a big angle, but the bandit was outside the HUD. At least, as far as I remember.
I don’t have a video, but would an ACMI recording do?
-
It was a normal 180 aspect engagement, except I didn’t bother pointing the jet directly at him, instead using HMCS to cue the missile (since this mission is meant for practicing that sort of thing). It was not a big angle, but the bandit was outside the HUD. At least, as far as I remember.
I don’t have a video, but would an ACMI recording do?
An ACMI would be ok but a video is a must as the ACMI shows only the radar lock line and telemetry.
-
I don’t know if my computer can handle BMS and a recording software running at once. Though I don’t have any FPS problems, so maybe I worry too much. Anyway, I had good tone, the missile was uncaged and I was padlocked on the bandit. The diamond stayed on after I released the “cursor/enable”. I reviewed the tape and noticed one of those missed shots was actually (barely) rear aspect. Granted, not the best geometry for a launch, but it probably should be able to do it.
Feel free to point out any amateur mistakes you notice. It only includes the three missed launches, I forgot to turn on ACMI before I went in (I need to remember to do that during FENCE check, I guess that’s the first mistake), so the guns kill on the Fantan and the first were not unrecorded (those were fairly by the book kills, though). I also know that the last Fox Two was too far out, with predictable results. Especially dumb since it was my last missile. Probably should’ve used speedbrakes in that dive, too, would’ve been a bit less hair-raising.
-
I don’t know if my computer can handle BMS and a recording software running at once. Though I don’t have any FPS problems, so maybe I worry too much. Anyway, I had good tone, the missile was uncaged and I was padlocked on the bandit. The diamond stayed on after I released the “cursor/enable”. I reviewed the tape and noticed one of those missed shots was actually (barely) rear aspect. Granted, not the best geometry for a launch, but it probably should be able to do it.
Feel free to point out any amateur mistakes you notice. It only includes the three missed launches, I forgot to turn on ACMI before I went in (I need to remember to do that during FENCE check, I guess that’s the first mistake), so the guns kill on the Fantan and the first were not unrecorded (those were fairly by the book kills, though). I also know that the last Fox Two was too far out, with predictable results. Especially dumb since it was my last missile. Probably should’ve used speedbrakes in that dive, too, would’ve been a bit less hair-raising.
What was the weather?
-
Fair, it was the “Guns” training TE. A few clouds here and there, but I was not in them during each launch, and neither were the MIGs. You can see it in the ACMI file, if you feel like checking that out.
-
Fair, it was the “Guns” training TE. A few clouds here and there, but I was not in them during each launch, and neither were the MIGs. You can see it in the ACMI file, if you feel like checking that out.
I cannot find where Tacview displays this .
In every case you launched the missile in almost totally head aspect… -
If you have weather enabled in Tacview options, you can see the clouds and everything. It doesn’t display exact data and I’m not sure if it does exact cloud positions, but you can get an idea how it was by just looking around.
Yes, like I said, those were generally head aspect shots. To my knowledge, AIM-9X should be capable of hitting in these conditions. Granted, it’s not exactly the recommended way to use them, but “all aspect” sounds like it does work up to 180 degrees.
-
It’s an old thread and I do not want to get into the AIM 9X flare resistance topic as I have never fired or ever been fired at with an AIM 9X. However, what takes away a lot of fun in 4.34 is that the enemy has 100% probability of detecting an incoming IR missile, at least when playing at the ACE skill level. So even if you sneak up from behind and below with a snoozed radar and fire a sidewinder, the enemy will flood the sky with flares and evade the missile. They seem to magically react to am AIM 9 a soon as it enters their bubble. Maybe this could be an idea to make their probability of detecting an incoming IR missile dependent on the viewing angle.
-
It’s an old thread and I do not want to get into the AIM 9X flare resistance topic as I have never fired or ever been fired at with an AIM 9X. However, what takes away a lot of fun in 4.34 is that the enemy has 100% probability of detecting an incoming IR missile, at least when playing at the ACE skill level. So even if you sneak up from behind and below with a snoozed radar and fire a sidewinder, the enemy will flood the sky with flares and evade the missile. They seem to magically react to am AIM 9 a soon as it enters their bubble. Maybe this could be an idea to make their probability of detecting an incoming IR missile dependent on the viewing angle.
Will be fixed in U1 visual detection will take into account pilot skills, vision angle , environment parameters (night€ , engine smoke and contrails
-
Come ooooon!
-
The U1 sounds more and more like a U4.35
-
I’ve been trying to get good at dogfighting, and after firing off a more than a few Sidewinders I realized there’s more to their effectiveness than just flares. It seems that despite its performance, it is not impossible to defeat the AIM-9X kinematically. It makes sense, it’s a missile, not a death ray. While a high-aspect engagement is possible, it’s hardly the optimum way of doing it. A head-on shot, for instance, will usually splash the MiG-21, but MiG-23, if engaged the same way, consistently evades the shot in the Guns TE. On the other hand, if fired off-boresight after the merge, the missile seems to hit very reliably, in spite of the flares.