K-74M (izdeliye 750) - to match up AIM-9X

[Dehuman]

It was reported by Russian media that the RuAF were carrying R-74 in Syria. I believe after the shoot down of the Su-24M by Turkey it was announced that all Su-34 and Su-30SM performing strike missions would also carry A2A missiles, R-74 named in particular.

Meanwhile it's reported that there is a clean sheet design in development to completely replace the Archer family on Su-35, Su-57, MiG-35 and future aircraft. Not to mention further R-74 development for the shorter term with LOAL and INS initial guidance to allow over the shoulder launches/attack targets designated by other aircraft. Thereby matching the capabilities of the latest AIM-9/MICA-IR/IRIS-T variants.

[Nerd1000]

^ this is what i've heard as well/ speculate happened. From my understanding it should be just about impossible to defeat the 9x with flares unless you dump so many it creates a wall of flares between the seeker head and the plane.

 

It is always possible to spoof a sensor- consider your eye, a very high resolution (>4K) sensor that can detect three different frequency bands (assuming you're not colourblind) and has a indeterminately complex self-adapting neural net to process all the data, and consider how easy it is to mistake one object for another at a distance, or fall prey to camouflage even when the object you are trying to spot is very close by.

 

Now the 9X has a simpler problem (it only needs to distinguish countermeasures from planes) but as far as I know it's only working in one band and has a mere 128x128 pixel sensor resolution, not to mention less processing power than your smartphone. It can be confused, if you can find the right technique. I gather that new flare chemistry to better replicate the frequency spectrum of jet exhaust (most current ones produce too much visible and UV light) and special flares that try to have a more aircraft-like flight path (rather than suddenly slowing down in a way that is unphysical for a plane) are both areas of development for countering FPA seekers, similar to how towed decoys and expendable mini-jammers are appearing to counter the anti-chaff measures in radar guided missiles.

[GGTharos]

It can be confused, if you can find the right technique.

 

 

Pre-emptive CMs are most effective ... not quite represented in game, and no 'right technique' or advanced CMs were available to that Su-22.

 

 

and special flares that try to have a more aircraft-like flight path (rather than suddenly slowing down in a way that is unphysical for a plane) are both areas of development for countering FPA seeker

That's about it. There's no flare in DCS capable of spoofing this missile - not that there are flare types in-game.

[Kev2go]

no even if it is out of Testing and available for Service the R74s are not for MIg29A/S or Su27S use.

 

 

 

Only for modernized platforms like SU27SM and newer Russian planes that we dont have in DCS. So no I am against adding fantasy armaments for aircraft that never ever would use them.

[D4n]

That's about it. There's no flare in DCS capable of spoofing this missile - not that there are flare types in-game.

 

of spoofing AIM-9X you mean?

[D4n]

no even if it is out of Testing and available for Service the R74s are not for MIg29A/S or Su27S use.

 

Source please.

[Dagger71]

Source please.

 

 

 

 

Actually the onus is on you to provide a reliable source stating that the K74M is in use across multiple platforms throughout the russian airforce.

 

 

 

There are no such sources because as you've been told many times, it is not in active service other than in very limited instances and only in the latest gen fighters.

 

This is not Fantasy Combat Simulator.

[D4n]

That's the Russian airforce obvious tactic, to let other nations think that only very latest fighters (of which very few exist compared to MiG-29S) can use those missiles. Every smart airforce would do it this way, keep capabilities secret as long as possible.

[Dagger71]

That's the Russian airforce obvious tactic, to let other nations think that only very latest fighters (of which very few exist compared to MiG-29S) can use those missiles. Every smart airforce would do it this way, keep capabilities secret as long as possible.

 

 

 

 

Huh?What did I just read?

 

 

 

So this is all a conspiracy and Russia is using the K74M on all its fighters, but hiding it ?

[Dagger71]

That's the Russian airforce obvious tactic, to let other nations think that only very latest fighters (of which very few exist compared to MiG-29S) can use those missiles. Every smart airforce would do it this way, keep capabilities secret as long as possible.

 

 

 

 

Even if this conspiracy were true and the Russia AF is using the K74M in secret throughout the entire airforce,(which is definitely not true!), how could ED ever gain access to the documentation to implement this in game today???

[nighthawk2174]

^^^^

[Kang]

Did you guys know that the 'S' in MiG-29S initially stood for 'spacegoing' as it was designed to have a capability of leaving the atmosphere on a ballistic suborbital trajectory for increased range? This would have cost the use of two hardpoints which would have been taken up by booster launchers, though, which - combined with the tremendous cost of testing - led to this feature being scrapped during development.

 

P.S.: Well, maybe not, just giving the conspiracies a new direction here.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Kang
Before someone takes this too seriously

[myHelljumper]

Did you guys know that the 'S' in MiG-29S initially stood for 'spacegoing' as it was designed to have a capability of leaving the atmosphere on a ballistic suborbital trajectory for increased range? This would have cost the use of two hardpoints which would have been taken up by booster launchers, though, which - combined with the tremendous cost of testing - led to this feature being scrapped during development.

 

You got me there boss :D.

[OfficerAMR]

That's the Russian airforce obvious tactic, to let other nations think that only very latest fighters (of which very few exist compared to MiG-29S) can use those missiles. Every smart airforce would do it this way, keep capabilities secret as long as possible.

 

I highly doubt it, and even if it could fire the missile it still would be unlikely be able to go further off boresight then the current R-73 considering it doesn't use the modern JHMCS style BINS-SP2 helmet used by the SU-57 and SU-35S

[jackmckay]

What SHOULD be simulated is 9X not caring about flares. It certainly didn't care in Syria - that Su-22 did not use flares against the 9X at all, according to the pilot who launched the missile. The 9X most likely suffered a fin failure.

What statements/references do you state your claims on? All I know is that there was Aim9X misguidence flaw and that Su22 had upgraded flare type. Count that, what do you get?

[jackmckay]

Even if this conspiracy were true and the Russia AF is using the K74M in secret throughout the entire airforce,(which is definitely not true!), how could ED ever gain access to the documentation to implement this in game today???

The most rock solid data would be sensor scan/track zone upgrade which is no big deal to implement into DCS, as same as engine data. That info is public available, no secrets there. I'm just wondering how come some "special" Aim9X guidance data got out in a first place except sensor cone upgrade. Geometry is not big change in reference to older Aim9s. So, based on evoution process of Aim9 and public data available, can we expect similar evolution of R73 to R74?

[Fri13]

What statements/references do you state your claims on? All I know is that there was Aim9X misguidence flaw and that Su22 had upgraded flare type. Count that, what do you get?

 

All I know now is that each time the US made missile fails to hit the target, it is the failure in the fins or mishab on the team loading the weapon, or the people working at the warehouse and testing each weapon before delivering it in the use. But the missile itself is perfection, if it just would have been attached correctly... Like think the odds that the specific missile unit, specific grew, specific aircraft, specific pilot, specific target and all in the specific timing, that the missile just had a malfunction causing failure in tracking or....

[Dehuman]

I highly doubt it, and even if it could fire the missile it still would be unlikely be able to go further off boresight then the current R-73 considering it doesn't use the modern JHMCS style BINS-SP2 helmet used by the SU-57 and SU-35S

 

I'm sure i they could fire the missile, but why equip your aging fighters (when you're rolling out a new fleet) with the new tech when there is still an arsenal of older, but still very capable weapons?

 

Spoiler: you wouldn't

[Kev2go]

All I know now is that each time the US made missile fails to hit the target, it is the failure in the fins or mishab on the team loading the weapon, or the people working at the warehouse and testing each weapon before delivering it in the use. But the missile itself is perfection, if it just would have been attached correctly... Like think the odds that the specific missile unit, specific grew, specific aircraft, specific pilot, specific target and all in the specific timing, that the missile just had a malfunction causing failure in tracking or....

 

yes and that is speculation then on your behalf on the flare theory which was written up by

sensationalist outlet.

 

You really think that IF US was already aware at least as far back as the 1970s that Russian flares burn under different intensity than US flares, that they wouldn't made design imprvoments to following missiles since AIm9P to address IR resistance against them ? Or are you really going to imply those working in the defense industry are that daft to neglect making any changes over so many years leading up to Aim9X in spite of having such information at hand? especially when US has had various soviet pilot defections in the past or have had opportunity to examine aircraft operated by former warpact states which would mean having actual Eastern Countermeasures to test their missiles against?

 

.Except for this single instance there is no other examles of Aim9X's being used in Real life combat conditions. This sensationalist "theory" isnt enough of a reason to change Aim9X missile behavior in DCS.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kev2go

[Exorcet]

What statements/references do you state your claims on? All I know is that there was Aim9X misguidence flaw and that Su22 had upgraded flare type. Count that, what do you get?

Purely from a statistical point of view, you don't get much. There is a sample size of one.

 

 

I did some ridiculously simple confidence analysis and despite the missile having missed, it can still have a pk higher than 50% using 95% confidence.

 

 

https://www.socscistatistics.com/confidenceinterval/Default3.aspx

 

 

For the standard deviation I just used a rough estimate of missile Pk on the low side (.3). I think SRM's are higher than that on average but I don't have any info off hand.

 

 

In short, there aren't really any conclusions to draw from a single launch.

[GGTharos]

What statements/references do you state your claims on? All I know is that there was Aim9X misguidence flaw and that Su22 had upgraded flare type. Count that, what do you get?

 

What upgraded flare type? Do you have any real citation for that? :)

 

 

In case you don't realize what's happening at the end, that's a pylon with flare launchers spitting out flares like there's no tomorrow.

 

That's before we even get into the actual research for the seekers IRCCM capability , part of which is available publicly. You can look for that yourself though.

 

 

Interview with pilots (18:00+, describes the AIM-9X launch ... no mention of flares at all, missile is simply lost):

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017/videos/162478715

 

Video of the shoot-down: Only missile hits, no flares

 

 

 

Now, can an AIM-9X be defeated by flares? Yes - if you use flares pre-emptively, the missile may lock onto the flare instead of the aircraft to begin with.

[nighthawk2174]

^ beat me to it :P but yeah, here is a source talking about imaging seekers a bit, there is one that goes into far more depth but I still have to re-find it.

 

 

keep in mind this is just an imaging seeker in general not the 9x's one in particular

[jackmckay]

http://www.flir.tw/uploadedImages/Research-Science/Products/RS6700-Series/Single%20Angle%20Low%20and%20Close%201%20rainbow.jpeg This is FLIR image.

 

 

 

Engine hotspot is simmilar to flare in motion. Sensor has gain treshold limit, and it has to be if it wants track hot zones fast. Theres also gain compesation speed on seaker sensor, menaning that missile processor has to filter some data, fast. Is algorithm right? None knows. Its everlasnig battle. Can seeker be fooled. Definetly. Can Aim9X in DCS be fooled? It looks like not. There's 1% chance of countermeasures effectivenes in DCS according to my online experience in last 6months. Regardless of missile-plane spect. I had single sucesfull headon evasion in 50 hits with tons of flares. It behavies like on rails. Not real at all BMO. Trouble is that all seekers refresh rate in DCS is 2-5 secs and (AIM9X) can't stick to countermeasures right as it cant even process its appereance. On other side all soviet missiles stick to 1st flare. 1st, regardless of aspect, 95percent of time! Is tha real? Then, we have confirmed RL AIM9X malfunction - confimed! I see manny soviet other type missiles malfunction regullary - like 30% of all fired goes balistic after 3 secs. Can DCS simulate that random faliure or seeker deception? It loks like ED doesnt want that. OK. Its their decision. Can ED introduce some post 2010 missiles into game? Looks like only Aim9X has that privilege. Why not give R74? I dont know. Its simple step in modification of R73 version and can be done easily if theres a will. There's not.

 

 

 

From my perspective, odds of survival engagement are hard on side of AIMs, as they are not closely prone to any kind of malfunction or deception. Hard to believe that. Booth missile poles suck same in RL. Difference must not be that drastic. Its ED choice, not statistical fact BMO.

 

 

Nevermind, red wil have hard time learning some other evasive tactics. Blue will become comformists. Who wins?

[Kev2go]

You really think that IF RF (SSSR) was already aware that US was already aware at least as far back as the 1970s that Russian flares burn under different intensity than US flares and made design imprvoments to following missiles, that they wouldn't made design imprvoments to following flares? Or are you really going to imply those working in the defense industry are that daft to neglect making any changes over so many years leading up to Su-57 in spite of having such information at hand? especially when RF has had various spies in the past infiltrating into american dream life or have had opportunity to examine aircraft shot-down and gifted to RF?

 

Do you really think only US is capable of running continual R&D programs?

 

 

Nice trolling attempt.

 

 

Except in the situation that occurred that was a Su22 not a Su57 ..... So your argument is already invalid.

 

so it wast going to be using more" modern" flares and Yes considering the USSR collapsed Russia and didn't recover from the economic depression from until years following, thats a at leasts a decade and a half worth of a technical gap they have needed to catch up on to the USA.

 

THe debrief video the pilot did not mention seeing any flares even deployed from the Su22. Aim9x simply didnt track a target.

 

. Aim9x imagery recognition. It will recognize the prior target IR image it has already locked onto and will track that after launch and ignore anything else generating heat signature (IE flares) irregardless of what intensity or pattern they burn at.

 

and as pointed out from a post above with excerpt above... Even if the object doesn't look like fighter through the missiles POV, it still rejects tracking other heat signatures ( IE decoy flares) simply because " tracker can reject the decoy because it does not correlate with the energy distribution seen a short time a go"

Edited March 24, 2019 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

My argument is not invalid. Lessons learned from T-50 project or any other R&D program could more or less easily find its way to older technology. We see that happens frequently in US, and it's not illogical to assume other countries are capable of doing that as well.

 

Technical gap present is not consequence of economic depression, at least it's not main factor, it could be contributing though. There are some other more obvious reasons for tech gap. The depression could be one of factors responsible for big quantity gap.

 

Now, I do not really know or care what happened with Su-22 and aim-9x. That intel is way out of my reach, and I don't strive for it. That's not why I joined discussion. If you think you can easily filter what's true and what's not, then good luck with that.

 

People tend to observe reality through prism of this game, and it just doesn't work. This game, as much as I like it, does not correlate to real world. If someone really believes that, for example, DCS F-18 closely matches the real world one, he needs reality check. Matt Wagner himself stated that they protect real world data by obscuring ingame behavior. In that sense, given that DCS doesn't follow rw data blindly, and in relation to OP wish, it really wouldn't be out of line to have some weapons not properly documented in public sources.

 

 

these are flares we are talking about, Nothing else. Not complicated electronic avionics equipment. There is only so much you can do with that concept of flares.

 

randomizing the pattern of flares, and their burning intensity? It not gonna work anymore based on the general understanding of how the 9x works.

 

AS its been already explained posts earlier doesn't matter if they burn hotter that a Fighter aircraft given programming of the 9x ( and very likely other contemporary missiles).

 

 

So I dont know where you get the idea ( or proof to back up those claims) that the T50 project has resulted in the development of some sort of magical flares, and found its way to legacy aircraft that can negate current missiles like the 9x or their contemporaries.

 

 

Also this had nothing about using this sim as a replacement of reality. Its Not at all about using SIm performance to declare this is exactly how it performs in real life but rather to point out Its very much rational analysis to model missile performance based on actual known public data than some fanboys here who would rather use personal beliefs and unsubstantiated claims to petitioning ED to degrade performance of a missile for the sake of "balance" or in this case of the OP of this thread, asking for newer generation Russian contemporary to the Aim9X, where there is no documented proof that they are in service in unmodernized Cold war 80s level tech Redforce fighters we have in DCS via FC3. This thread here is analogous to the old "Gib R77 for Su27S Plox" threads that kept popping up back in the day.

 

 

If someone really believes that, for example, DCS F-18 closely matches the real world one, he needs reality check. Matt Wagner himself stated that they protect real world data by obscuring ingame behavior. In that sense, given that DCS doesn't follow rw data blindly, and in relation to OP wish, it really wouldn't be out of line to have some weapons not properly documented in public sources.

 

 

What protection? You really think Boeing or Pentagon is going to share confidential or secret material deemed compromising with a consumer flight sim team based in Russia?

 

The Hornet is not a result of a defense contract for the military simulator but to develop an off the shelf product for consumer based enthusiasts for study level sim.

 

ED did this based on publicly sourced and declassified information, which means just basically anyone can attain for research, if a Russian company can. Certainly some weapons/missiles and certain aspects of avionics are going to be estimated due to lack of publicly available information, But General Operation and Flight modeling is as accurate as can get in a virtual environment as its all documented in Flight and performance manuals.

 

Even for the commercial version TBS, ED advertises that they allow customers to adjust performance data of weaponry and of avionics , SO that if a military were to use it for training they don't have to share any classified performance data with the company developing it the sim itself.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Kev2go