AIM-9X

[FistofZen]

The AIM9X doesn't necessarily home in on the engine heat signature. Unlike the other heat seeking air to air missiles in DCS, the AIM9X uses an imaging Focal Plane Array seekerhead. This allows it to home in on

of the target aircraft itself, which also incorporates the IR energy generated by the aerodynamic heating of the target's skin. Suffice it to say, imaging seekerheads of this kind are reportedly MUCH more flare resistant as a consequence (ie. almost totally immune except in a small minority of circumstances).

 

 

NB. The image above is purportedly from an AIM132 ASRAAM. Nevertheless, the ASRAAM uses the same ex-Hughes 128 x 128 element FPA seeker as the AIM9X, so it shows what I'm talking about reasonably well.

 

That's an interesting image.

 

It must have a chip inside that's capable of recognizing an aircraft's shape. It's pretty easy to make when you think about it, it's just image recognition sotware.

 

You have to understand that we, the average Joe, really don't know much about the capabilities of the missile in real life. So making a statement that it should be that way or this way just isn't reasonnable.

 

I'm not saying the weapons in DCS are perfect but the thing is, without any proof or any data to support your statement you have to consider that there's a very high chance of it being false.

 

I don't think the sun looks like a plane, but you still get the tone when you point it at the sun.

 

And about the Su-22 case, I don't think it would be wise to confirm that your latest missile can be deceived by flares. The reputation of a perfect missile has been saved, stating that it malfunctioned (technical error), so it has nothing to do with how the engineers designed it.

Why did the pilot fire an AMRAAM instead of firing the Aim9X? One Aim9X can fail, but what are the chances for other Aim9Xs to fail?

[Boogieman]

Why did the pilot fire an AMRAAM instead of firing the Aim9X? One Aim9X can fail, but what are the chances for other Aim9Xs to fail?

 

In the video I linked earlier the pilot that fired the dud AIM9X said that they were taught to "try something different" when his first missile mysteriously disappeared from view. Heat seeker didn't work? Try the radar guided missile next...

 

(5min mark onwards)

 

As for getting tone on the sun - I take it the 9X can be manually locked onto a wide variety of IR targets.

used a flare as target practice for example. Difference is in the missile's (greater) ability to discriminate the original intended target from any decoys.
Edited August 24, 2018 by Boogieman

[Alphamale]

Wait until Russian/Chinese/Iranian planes develop better IR missile countermeasures, then wait for DCS to simulate that.

 

Until then, AIM-9X will not be going away or "nerfed" in the name of "balance"

 

 

 

Anyways, the Russians have a long-range IR missile thats literally impossible to know when its coming.

 

Don't worry, I'm sure it'll come along soon enough :)

[Boogieman]

^ It may already exist. It's called the 101KS-O DIRCM system, although it is unique to the Su57 at this time.

[CypherS]

I've had it go for flares also I've shot at an F-5E that pulled up into the sun and the missiles completely lost him.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by CypherS

[Eaglewings]

I thought all weapon are place in the internal weapons bay for the F-35 and the weapons use LOAL mode launched.

Or the internal weapons bay is for air ground weapons only?

[Banzaiib]

I've had it go for flairs also I've shot at an F-5E that pulled up into the sun and the missiles completely lost him.

 

 

What a great capture!

[backspace340]

I've had it go for flairs also I've shot at an F-5E that pulled up into the sun and the missiles completely lost him.

 

Worth noting that it's due to be improved even further in the next update (which Wags' video is based on). So what you see ingame now isn't a reflection of the final performance.

[Boogieman]

The F35 carries AMRAAM internally and AIM9X externally on pylons. AFAIK there are no plans to carry the Sidewinder internally - I suspect the US will skip straight to SACM for an internally storable SRM.

[BeastyBaiter]

Well, it should lose track when looking at the sun. That's the kind of thing no IR camera can handle. I do have to wonder about longer ranges as well. I doubt the resolution of these cameras is very high. Beyond 1 or 2km, they likely aren't any more flare resistant than more traditional IR missiles.

[Kev2go]

but is the aim9x really going to be fully immune ito foreirgn planes? Flares?

 

 

The skirmish over syria has created some real concern , where a Super Hornet pilot shot a 9x out from half mile, Syria su22 popped flares and the aim9x was spoofed, only afterwords being shot down at close range with an aim120

 

 

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/

 

 

Seems designers have overlooked this fact for yet another time as this had occured before with much older heatseakers, and is a logical explanation why the aim9x advertised as fully immune to flares, was spofed by flares from a 3rd generation obselete aircraft.

 

To quote below

 

 

 

 

 

"That proved to be a very important test. “In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target. We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said ‘I love that flare’.

 

“Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Kev2go

[Boogieman]

^Covered thoroughly in the other AIM9X thread. The Su22 didn't even pop flares AFAIK - just some clickbait speculation from blogger Kyle Mizokami. In reality the missile was probably a dud.

 

(5min mark onwards)

 

EDIT: I see the threads have been merged. Ah well the above is interesting viewing anyway!

Edited August 24, 2018 by Boogieman

[FistofZen]

I've had it go for flairs also I've shot at an F-5E that pulled up into the sun and the missiles completely lost him.

 

 

Thanks.

 

^Covered thoroughly in the other AIM9X thread. The Su22 didn't even pop flares AFAIK - just some clickbait speculation from blogger Kyle Mizokami. In reality the missile was probably a dud.

 

(5min mark onwards)

 

EDIT: I see the threads have been merged. Ah well the above is interesting viewing anyway!

 

He says he lost the smoke trail, but the 9X is smokeless?

See tacview screenshot above, the 9X got deceived.

The thing is, this is WIP and we aren't dramatizing here. There will sure be tweaks in the future. But for now, I think the Aim-9X seeker has no simulation. Knowing ED, I am 100% it is something simplified just in order to release it asap.

[Boogieman]

I don't know that any missile is completely smokeless in all conditions - the 9X still leaves a faint trail that he would have seen as the pilot of the launch aircraft.

 

His comments were simply pointing out that the missile initially launched as normal only to then disappear for unknown reasons. No mention from anyone who was there of flares or defensive maneuver from the Su22 pilot.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Boogieman

[DeathRaptor5]

Aim-9x have had issues with high bit rate failures on F/A-18C/D/E/F due to software issues with the Hornet. In 2015 DOT&E asses that the aim-9x was

suitable for F-15 and F-16c but not suitable on the Hornet(2015aim9x.pdf).

[FistofZen]

Denying isn't an argument. When the Aim-9 goes of the rail, it goes at a much faster speed than the plane is flying in the moment. The missile goes forward and you get enough time to locate it once off rail. The pilot, who fired the missile, wants us to believe that the missile disappeared, did it leave to another universe after the launch. This short interview with the pilots and all this fuss about shooting down a defenseless plane, seem to have another goal than sharing the details of what really happened. The Russians must not know that the Aim-9X can be deceived. The thing is, we can't change the reality, but giving the Aim-9X unproven characteristics in DCS is pure bias and supporting the current flagship and it's pilots only. This is not and won't be the only unrealistic thing in DCS.

[Boogieman]

Denying isn't an argument. When the Aim-9 goes of the rail, it goes at a much faster speed than the plane is flying in the moment. The missile goes forward and you get enough time to locate it once off rail. The pilot, who fired the missile, wants us to believe that the missile disappeared, did it leave to another universe after the launch. This short interview with the pilots and all this fuss about shooting down a defenseless plane, seem to have another goal than sharing the details of what really happened. The Russians must not know that the Aim-9X can be deceived. The thing is, we can't change the reality, but giving the Aim-9X unproven characteristics in DCS is pure bias and supporting the current flagship and it's pilots only. This is not and won't be the only unrealistic thing in DCS.

 

There's actually a fair bit of publically available info on how and why imaging infrared seekerheads are highly flare resistant in general - I'd recommend you look into it. As I said this is not an attribute unique to AIM9X - there are a multitude of missiles out there now with IIR seekers.

 

On the flip side, if you feel the DCS AIM9X is unrealistically flare resistant I'd say you should by all means present ED with some hard data/evidence supporting your case :smilewink:.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Boogieman

[Beamscanner]

Aim-9x have had issues with high bit rate failures on F/A-18C/D/E/F due to software issues with the Hornet. In 2015 DOT&E asses that the aim-9x was

suitable for F-15 and F-16c but not suitable on the Hornet(2015aim9x.pdf).

 

1. thats the Block 2 AIM-9X, not the block 1 (which is in DCS)

 

2. "The Navy achieved Initial Operational Capability of AIM-9X

Block II on March 31, 2015, with Carrier Air Wing FIVE." (ie they fixed the BIT issue)

[CypherS]

Worth noting that it's due to be improved even further in the next update (which Wags' video is based on). So what you see ingame now isn't a reflection of the final performance.

 

AFAIK they have improved its HOBS capability, but from the lua code it still seems to have the normal DCS relation to flares. That is, everytime a flare is released a coin is tossed; heads the missile goes to flares, tails it doesn't. However, the coin is very biased towards tails but it still means if you are unlucky it will go for the flare. (it seems that the probability for it to catch a flare is 0.2, so on average you will need 5 flares)

 

I guess this won't change as this is ED's CCM guidance logic for all other missiles

[Revelation]

AFAIK they have improved its HOBS capability, but from the lua code it still seems to have the normal DCS relation to flares. That is, everytime a flare is released a coin is tossed; heads the missile goes to flares, tails it doesn't. However, the coin is very biased towards tails but it still means if you are unlucky it will go for the flare. (it seems that the probability for it to catch a flare is 0.2, so on average you will need 5 flares)

 

I guess this won't change as this is ED's CCM guidance logic for all other missiles

 

That is because we weren't going to get the full decoy resistance until next week's patch when we get the full 90 degree HOBS.

[FistofZen]

Done a couple of test today. It's easy to deceive the Aim9X if it is fired at 5 miles and the target is flanking. I have also managed to deceive it when it was fire from some 2 miles from 4 o'clock.

Su-27 vs F-18C.

F-18C fires the Aim9X from 5 miles, I in the Su-27, Flanking, Aim-9X incoming from my 3 o'clock, as soon as the missile was fired, I pop 4 flares and the Aim-9X goes for the 4th flare. I have repeated this scenario more than 10 times and I can say, 8/10 times the Aim-9X went for the flares.

Next scenario, same airplanes. F-18C comes closer after I survive the first Aim-9X launch. ~1.5 miles range, 4-5'oclock when its fired, 4/10 times the missile went for the flares.

[VFA41_Lion]

^ It may already exist. It's called the 101KS-O DIRCM system, although it is unique to the Su57 at this time.

 

Unique to an aircraft that Russia will never put into mass production? Can't wait! :megalol:

[backspace340]

AFAIK they have improved its HOBS capability, but from the lua code it still seems to have the normal DCS relation to flares. That is, everytime a flare is released a coin is tossed; heads the missile goes to flares, tails it doesn't. However, the coin is very biased towards tails but it still means if you are unlucky it will go for the flare. (it seems that the probability for it to catch a flare is 0.2, so on average you will need 5 flares)

 

I guess this won't change as this is ED's CCM guidance logic for all other missiles

 

Wags put out an update saying that they had *further* improved flare rejection (as well as HOBS) after the build you have installed was released - so it sounds like it will change in the next Open Beta update on Wednesday.

[dimitrischal]

Wags put out an update saying that they had *further* improved flare rejection (as well as HOBS) after the build you have installed was released - so it sounds like it will change in the next Open Beta update on Wednesday.

 

I don’t think anyone cares. They just like arguing.

[Heli]

Block II is the version that can engage ground targets - FYI.

 

Block I have A-G software

 

Raytheon is looking to add Block I's air-to-surface software into Block II

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=28886

Edited August 25, 2018 by Heli