TotenDead

If you're going to war you take all the best, and what's old and rusty leave for training at best

Okay

Correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i understood from the article that's just a missile warning system, not laser turet of some kind

Could you send a photo or an article?

True, but those missiles still managed to get confused by flares DIRCM? I can name only one fighter with it - Su-57, so how's that really a trend?

https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/6381499 https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/almost-two-thirds-of-america-s-f-35-fleet-are-not-mission-capable-f135-engine-causing-issues That was a brief googling. Sorry for the first link in russian, it would just take much more time to find the original article in english

70% are capable of taking off and doing some of the desired capabilities. When it comes to fully operational F-35s, their numbers are way worse

Yes, so Iran says... Iranians claims that they shot down like 10 MiG-25s while Iraq says that only 1 recon MiG-25 was lost. Whose claims are more beliveable? Is US that bad at keeping its missiles operational? Those missiles must've been produced in the late 80s and through the 90s

Все, о чем я писал из перечисленного тобой относится к ситуациям вне реального боя и не имеет отношения к гаданиям как повела себя ракета и выпускала ли цель во время боя какие-то средства противодействия. Там идет речь о ситуациях "в принципе". Здесь же разговор о конкретном случае. Разница колоссальна

Oh, there's something. US used Aim-54 in combat and none of them hit their targets

Разве на Аим-54 есть радиокоррекция?

You say about those limitations but forget that in combat planes do not necessarily fly straight or with little to no turning like in videos of 9X tests. They make maneuvers and turn so that they had larger chances of survival. It's obvious that plane can, for example, turn unpredictably tight away from the missile while dropping flares and the missile will pick one of the flares that are still flying forward as they would have a comparable signature and relative speed

One word. Aspect. Pilots words during the fight, huh... Any videos? Or mine is the only available? If so than sorry Go ahead. Study the study. Which is, actually, just a study, not a document from trials.

It's relevant to the ability of the missile to see the aircraft as an aircraft, not a flare-like blob Yeah, pilots are really creditable sourse. If youy believe them, then you should believe that F-15 was downed by enemy fighters at least several times. Eh, should i? Why makes you think the plane on the tape is not that Su-22? Or the author of the video mixed a few different videos just for lulz? And still you posted no facts here. What makes your claims more believable than someones, as you say, beliefs? I'd recommend you to read the file you sent me youself

How many do you need? So, according to the screenshots i sent above the missile would see 3 +- equal blobs if fired from anywhere further than, i'd say, 3-5km. I sent you a video with the Su-22 that was shot down. Yes-yes, different planes, fake, yada-yada. I'd believe that video more than those pilots as they could've missed what was really happening with the target. That happens pretty often regardless of the nation of the pilot. Possibility of evading the missile depends on the aspect. Flares shouldn't close the target to be effective, alerted target can and will maneuver, and during that maneuvers flare path might become more logic to the missile than the flight path of the target. Let me write it again. I'm talking that flares can fool the IIR when the missile is fired from a few km, when the missile can see the target somewhat clearly, like here, the effectiveness of flares might deminish greatly

I heared that schools in US are... poor. Anyway, 5*1.85=9.25. Give me enough data and i'll do the maths. Why should i do everything on my own? I posted a photo above, it shows how good 9X sees planes from afar. If that can be called "afar" Could you send me a link? Or how they're named? Surely you know how that docs are called. Huh, okay, believe in whatever you want to believe. It is, so what? There was more than a single hornet in the air

Because the seeker is incapable of seeing a plane as a plane from 5nm, only as a bright dot. It is, because if ground vehicles uses multispectral smoke nothing will see through it regardless of the quality of the seeker image Now that surely looks like a plane. I can clearly see its wings, fins and cockpit Reasearch, huh. I can write my own research, will it be valuable? I doubt that. That's why i asked you for documentation. How do you know that?

5nm is more than 9 km, not 5km what you wrote before. Yes and it doesn't flare, lol. It's incapable of seeing any difference in size if launched further than 3-5km. Both plane and flare would look like a pixel. Because you believe it claims? Okay, i take your word than. Research? Are thare any official documents that show how the seeker sees its target from 10km? Really? What's wrong? So you have no idea, i see So, naive. What's happening at 0:20-0:25? So hornets weapon control system is incapable of preventing the launch if the target is too close?

Search mode? With what could it search?

Whut? Are you kidding? First missiles would be fired right after the targer reaches WEZ, others would follow shortly after if necessary. Ranges less than 5km are possible, for sure, but mainly when you're low and slow, against such opponents as a harmless Su-22 or if something went wrong and missiles fired earlier missed. Still can be fooled when flares cross the flight path of the aircraft Yeah, but you still need to get close enough to the target. You're more than welcome to watch the video i sent above. No flares at all, eh?

More like less than 3-5km, huh So, for 9X more than for 9X. Sounds just right. 9X has 128x128 resolution, what do you really expect from such poor numbers? All modern missiles are capable of filtering flares out. The question is how effective. Thinking that 9X has flare resistance = 99.9% is naive at best. Really? Well, seems like they're lying

I think you're overestimating imaging IR seeker capabilities. Its seeker resolution prevents it from distinguishing a flare from a plane from distances greater than a few kilometers. Of course it will be more than capable of doing that in "after the merge" situations, but even than it can be fooled by flares. Like in case of Su-22 in Syria. Funnily enough, US pilot dicided to use Aim-120 for the second launch instead of launching a second 9X.

Really? Can you proove it?

Yes, yes please

В этом то и проблема. Ракета не поражает цель из-за того, что она достигает значений из графика в момент, когда заканчивается батарея. Для маневра в 3 единицы у неё должно быть ещё несколько секунд в запасе, т.е лететь к цели она должна чуть быстрее