A-A Missiles drag and lift

[GGTharos]

4 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

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.

 

Missiles are used 'as briefed' and according to training.  The specific engagement ended up with the 120 shot from 0.6nm after the pilot backed off and took a second shot ... thus why the Rmin guess by the pilot.   Other possibilities include fin failure, tracking failure, the works.

[TotenDead]

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Typical engagement for a sidewinder would be inside 5nm, although really you'd be shooting RF missiles until some 2nm, then switch to sidewinders.

 

5nm is more than 9 km, not 5km what you wrote before.

 

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

The Javelin has a 64x64 FPA with an effective tracking distance of a minimum of 2km vs a tank, which is a smaller target than a fighter. 

Yes and it doesn't flare, lol.

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

While it's no AIM-9X, the point here is that, if like the maverick, it has a minimum blob size requirement to gate a target, your assumption of the target aircraft being the same size as the flares makes no sense at almost any practical engagement range for the 9X.

It's incapable of seeing any difference in size if launched further than 3-5km. Both plane and flare would look like a pixel.

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

It isn't naive, it is correct. 

Because you believe it claims? Okay, i take your word than. 

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

You need different IRCCM capabilities to tackle FPA missiles. The existing flares won't do except as either preemptive measures or you dumb a enough of them to literally screen the target and break the tracking gate.  You don't have to believe me, go and do some research

Research? Are thare any official documents that show how the seeker sees its target from 10km?

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Really? What's wrong?

10 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

That's only for a few degrees of fov you can do the math yourself.

So you have no idea, i see

10 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

No not really its based on how the seeker works

So, naive.

10 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

I don't know what you see in the video as I don't see any flares deployed at all you can go listen to the interview with the pilot who shot the 9x the way he puts it is he pulled the trigger the missile just flew off into to space not even guiding.  I'd take his word over something that I don't see in the video.

What's happening at 0:20-0:25?

9 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Missiles are used 'as briefed' and according to training.  The specific engagement ended up with the 120 shot from 0.6nm after the pilot backed off and took a second shot ... thus why the Rmin guess by the pilot.   Other possibilities include fin failure, tracking failure, the works.

So hornets weapon control system is incapable of preventing the launch if the target is too close?

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

5nm is more than 9 km, not 5km what you wrote before.

 

Not sure why you're stuck on that detail.   The engagement zones I have show IR engagements out of 5nm and either way, that's sort of irrelevant - we know IR seekers work that far, and we know sidewinders fly that far.

 

Quote

Yes and it doesn't flare, lol.

 

Beside the point.  Ground vehicles have their own countermeasure types, and we're talking about having enough resolution to get enough pixels for a tracking gate.   It's not likely that a single pixel is adequate.

 

Quote

It's incapable of seeing any difference in size if launched further than 3-5km. Both plane and flare would look like a pixel.

 

That is incorrect, and you can do the rough calculation from the AIM-9X seeker videos online.  The size of the target depends on intensity, gain setting and the exact type of sensor (leaky pixels and high gain cause bloom)

 

Quote

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?

 

Nope, but like I said above.   And there's research on the effectiveness of flares against those seekers.  It's out there.

 

Quote

Really? What's wrong?

 

You seem to see flares where there aren't any, and also the footage is from an unknown source as well.   There is more than one Su-22 video out there, not all of them show this engagement.   This has been addressed before, but frankly I don't feel like looking for the arguments

Edited March 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[nighthawk2174]

9 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

 

5nm is more than 9 km, not 5km what you wrote before.

its 8km not more than 9...

9 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

It's incapable of seeing any difference in size if launched further than 3-5km. Both plane and flare would look like a pixel.

You can do the math to show this is not true balls in your court here.

9 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

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?

Hey there are documents out there about how this stuff works you can find it if you look.

9 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

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?

Looks to me like another angle of the target getting hit there were multiple aircraft in the area.  Hec you can tell its a different pod, but still looking at the same area from a higher alt and different angle, as the symbology is set up differently and you can see the big ditch/road in both but from different angles.

[GGTharos]

22 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

So hornets weapon control system is incapable of preventing the launch if the target is too close?

 

There are no system-enforced restrictions.  The pilot has a DLZ representation and the decision is left to the pilot.   If he shoots out of parameters, that's his problem.  This assumes there's something that will give you an accurate distance, like a radar lock.   Modern sidewinders have a (0.3nm) 1000' Rmin in a non-maneuvering tail shot.

The out-of parameters shot is one suggestion for what happened.   There are others, like I said, including fin/guidance failures, power failures (maybe the battery failed to activate when the missile launched?) - it wouldn't be the first physical failure of an AAM.

Edited March 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[TotenDead]

3 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Not sure why you're stuck on that detail.   The engagement zones I have show IR engagements out of 5nm and either way, that's sort of irrelevant - we know IR seekers work that far, and we know sidewinders fly that far.

 

Because the seeker is incapable of seeing a plane as a plane from 5nm, only as a bright dot.

3 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Beside the point.  Ground vehicles have their own countermeasure types, and we're talking about having enough resolution to get enough pixels for a tracking gate.   It's not likely that a single pixel is adequate.

It is, because if ground vehicles uses multispectral smoke nothing will see through it regardless of the quality of the seeker image

3 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

 

That is incorrect, and you can do the rough calculation from the AIM-9X seeker videos online.  The size of the target depends on intensity, gain setting and the exact type of sensor (leaky pixels and high gain cause bloom)

 

 

 

Now that surely looks like a plane. I can clearly see its wings, fins and cockpit

 

3 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

Nope, but like I said above.   And there's research on the effectiveness of flares against those seekers.  It's out there.

Reasearch, huh. I can write my own research, will it be valuable? I doubt that. That's why i asked you for documentation. 

3 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

You seem to see flares where there aren't any, and also the footage is from an unknown source as well.   There is more than one Su-22 video out there, not all of them show this engagement.  

How do you know that?

 

[TotenDead]

14 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

its 8km not more than 9...

I heared that schools in US are... poor. Anyway, 5*1.85=9.25. 

14 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

You can do the math to show this is not true balls in your court here.

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"

14 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Hey there are documents out there about how this stuff works you can find it if you look.

Could you send me a link? Or how they're named? Surely you know how that docs are called.

14 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Looks to me like another angle of the target getting hit there were multiple aircraft in the area. 

Huh, okay, believe in whatever you want to believe.

14 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Hec you can tell its a different pod

It is, so what? There was more than a single hornet in the air

[GGTharos]

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Because the seeker is incapable of seeing a plane as a plane from 5nm, only as a bright dot.

 

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

It is, because if ground vehicles uses multispectral smoke nothing will see through it regardless of the quality of the seeker image

 

Sure, but that's still beside the point.

 

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Now that surely looks like a plane. I can clearly see its wings, fins and cockpit

 

So you chose the one image of many that somehow managed to make your point, right?  But I'll tell you what, I don't actually disagree with you on that - it's a non-issue.  I'm talking blobs, not object recognition.

 

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Reasearch, huh. I can write my own research, will it be valuable? I doubt that. That's why i asked you for documentation. 

 

Ok - we're going around in circles, so here's a first step:

 

http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf

 

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

How do you know that?

 

Because I read up on the engagement when it happened.  There were writings, there were videos, there were arguments about the videos and about flares decoying the AIM-9X.   Feel free to dig up the historical facts, I really don't care to spend the time to do that.

[GGTharos]

 

Quote

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"

 

Skip the math, go directly to machine vision - that's what we're dealing with here.  You can safely assume that there are blobs and that nothing smaller than a certain size of blob will be considered to be a valid target.  Regardless of what the maximum distance at which a blob of appropriate size can be obtained, assume that you're dealing with the smallest acceptable blob size, which is going to be larger than a pixel.

 

Flares aren't going to be pixels either, you'd have to lose too much gain to accomplish this (the aircraft would become invisible), so there right away you're subject to sensor bloom - basically the source is so intense that electrons will leak into neighboring pixels, so that flare will always have a significant halo around it unless it is very far away.

 

You'll always have flares that can look like the aircraft, but the difference here is that it's the target that's gated, and therefore it receives a much higher weight in consideration than the next blob that appears.  Further, because you can process multiple frames so incredibly fast with dedicated hardware, you can reject flare blobs by their motion compared to the target.

 

So yes, an AIM-9X will be next to immune to the common flares used today once it is locked on target.  This is why you need to get it tracking a flare before it's locked on - and that works against any IR system.  This is why operators are trained to shoot when there's no IRCMs in the missile's FoV.

Edited March 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[TotenDead]

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

 

Sure, but that's still beside the point.

 

 

So you chose the one image of many that somehow managed to make your point, right?  But I'll tell you what, I don't actually disagree with you on that - it's a non-issue.  I'm talking blobs, not object recognition.

 

How many do you need?

Скрытый текст

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Ok - we're going around in circles, so here's a first step:

 

http://general-vision.com/pub3rdparty/3P_Labonte_Deck.pdf

 

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.

 

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Because I read up on the engagement when it happened.  There were writings, there were videos, there were arguments about the videos and about flares decoying the AIM-9X.   Feel free to dig up the historical facts, I really don't care to spend the time to do that.

 

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.

 

Скрытый текст

You'll always have flares that can look like the aircraft, but the difference here is that it's the target that's gated, and therefore it receives a much higher weight in consideration than the next blob that appears.  Further, because you can process multiple frames so incredibly fast with dedicated hardware, you can reject flare blobs by their motion compared to the target.

 

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

Скрытый текст

 

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

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.

 

First, like I said, forget distance.  It's irrelevant to anything but maximum engagement distance, period.  And so, given your statement above ... so what?

 

Quote

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.

 

I never said it was fake, I said there had been videos presented showing other engagements instead of the actual engagement.   I believe the pilots, they were there and they saw what happened up-close, not something that you can interpret whichever way you want.  Do you see a Su-22 anywhere in the 20-25 seconds you mentioned?  Can you verify the video yourself?

 

Quote

 

  Reveal hidden contents

You'll always have flares that can look like the aircraft, but the difference here is that it's the target that's gated, and therefore it receives a much higher weight in consideration than the next blob that appears.  Further, because you can process multiple frames so incredibly fast with dedicated hardware, you can reject flare blobs by their motion compared to the target.

 

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.

 

Maybe this, maybe that.  Nope, no, just no.  You're going to be very hard-pressed to decoy that missile.   You can do research on how easy or hard it would be to transfer the target gate from aircraft to flare; those studies exist, and they don't support your view.  No, I'm not going to dig them up for you.  If you want to learn this stuff, it's on you now.  What you believe will happen is really not an argument.

 

Quote

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

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Sure they can.  1/1000 times.    The flare rejection capability offered by image processing is not trivial.   New types of IRCCM are literally being invented to deal with this.  I'm not making any assumptions about shape recognition (ie. identify object as aircraft - even if the missile can do it).

 

You can experiment with machine vision yourself - install python and get opencv or a more advanced toolkit and have at it, build yourself a tracker.

Edited March 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[nighthawk2174]

38 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

 

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.

Yes but the blobs shapes and ir spectra will be different than that of the target and can be filtered purly off of that not even mentioning the fact that they have separated greatly from the target and could be filtered that way.

Quote

 

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.

I just don't see what you see i'm going to go with what has been stated by multiple pilots that flares were not deployed against the 9x.

Quote

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.

?

Quote

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

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Even at longer ranges it would still be easy to reject flares.   The missile could check: is the new target the same size as the the old?  The same shape?  The same emission spectra?  Is the new target moving at the same rate as the one I was just tracking?  Has the intensity of the target changed radically? (above images in your post take note of how much brighter the flares are).  All of these could cause a flare rejection.  There is a pretty detailed study about this out there as well, ontop of what GG, posted and it was shown that the seeker had an exceptional ability to filter out this new target the moment it could separate the two.  Which even at far range would happen quite quickly considering the rate a flare would separate from an aircraft.  You don't need much distance especially as you get closer to the target.

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[TotenDead]

10 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

First, like I said, forget distance.  It's irrelevant to anything but maximum engagement distance, period.  And so, given your statement above ... so what?

It's relevant to the ability of the missile to see the aircraft as an aircraft, not a flare-like blob

10 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

I never said it was fake, I said there had been videos presented showing other engagements instead of the actual engagement.   I believe the pilots, they were there and they saw what happened up-close, not something that you can interpret whichever way you want. 

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.

10 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

Do you see a Su-22 anywhere in the 20-25 seconds you mentioned?  Can you verify the video yourself?

 

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?

 

10 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

What you believe will happen is really not an argument.

And still you posted no facts here. What makes your claims more believable than someones, as you say, beliefs?

10 минут назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

Sure they can.  1/1000 times.

 

I'd recommend you to read the file you sent me youself

 

 

[TotenDead]

27 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Yes but the blobs shapes and ir spectra will be different than that of the target and can be filtered purly off of that not even mentioning the fact that they have separated greatly from the target and could be filtered that way.

One word. Aspect.

27 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

I just don't see what you see i'm going to go with what has been stated by multiple pilots that flares were not deployed against the 9x.?

Pilots words during the fight, huh... Any videos? Or mine is the only available? If so than sorry

27 минут назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

Even at longer ranges it would still be easy to reject flares.   The missile could check: is the new target the same size as the the old?  The same shape?  The same emission spectra?  Is the new target moving at the same rate as the one I was just tracking?  Has the intensity of the target changed radically? (above images in your post take note of how much brighter the flares are).  All of these could cause a flare rejection.  There is a pretty detailed study about this out there as well, ontop of what GG, posted and it was shown that the seeker had an exceptional ability to filter out this new target the moment it could separate the two.  Which even at far range would happen quite quickly considering the rate a flare would separate from an aircraft.  You don't need much distance especially as you get closer to the target.

Go ahead. Study the study. Which is, actually, just a study, not a document from trials.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Not worth much but, more likely than not the AIM-9X failed as a result of not being well maintained.

Even just sitting on the hard point inflight after a few sorties they need to be serviced.

 

Remember, a Turkish F-16 did shoot-down a RuAF Su-24M some time ago with an AIM-9X

 

Given the amount of planes doing strikes from a carrier nonstop and how you'd have probably a worse ground crew to plane ratio I see it as very possible they loaded an AIM-9X that was long overdue for an overhaul on accident.

 

 

The AIM-54 comes to mind, in US Service it was less than stellar but in Iran it produced amazing results.

We also know for a fact from American experience in Vietnam that proper maintenance can greatly gut into Pwe, if it was even in question.

Edited March 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[nighthawk2174]

13 hours ago, TotenDead said:

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.

A few notes

A) the theoretical seeker they used for the testing their pattern recognition AI was limited in comparison to what you'd see on a 9x.  For example it couldn't filter out flares based on the ir spectra, which makes sense considering its purpose is to filter just based off of shape

B)The theoretical seeker was only given one frame to filter based on unlike irl on the 9x where it compares what it currently sees to previous frames if you had read further they would have noted that this ability to compare to previous frames has significant flare filtering power:

Quote

They reported success rates in the 90 − 95% range. Labonté and Morin [42] then used temporal features of the objects, extracted from a few successive video frames, to discriminate between the aircrafts and the flares. They report a success rate of 92 −100%

C) The value of this paper is not in its ECCM (there is another study that focuses purely on this without any limitations) but rather it gives us a pretty well layed out explanation of how FPA seekers work and what they "see".  The pattern recognition you see the results of in the image above is the writers first prototype of a neural network to help improve pattern recognition of the seeker.  It lacks though the other tools to improve upon just the raw size and shape discrimination.  Even then with all these limitations both it and other seekers have a 90-95% filtering success rate.  

[GGTharos]

The important takeaway from the study isn't that their algorithm classifies aircraft vs flare right here - this helps when you're trying to lock the missile on target, it's much, much less relevant after the target is locked.  You've already told it 'follow that blob' and you're applying algorithms to discriminate against decoys at that point which attempt to pull the tracking gate off.   This is much harder to do when machine vision is involved - right on the 'time to buy a lottery ticket' level.

Edited March 10, 2021 by GGTharos

[TotenDead]

6 часов назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

A few notes

A) the theoretical seeker they used for the testing their pattern recognition AI was limited in comparison to what you'd see on a 9x.  For example it couldn't filter out flares based on the ir spectra, which makes sense considering its purpose is to filter just based off of shape

B)The theoretical seeker was only given one frame to filter based on unlike irl on the 9x where it compares what it currently sees to previous frames if you had read further they would have noted that this ability to compare to previous frames has significant flare filtering power:

C) The value of this paper is not in its ECCM (there is another study that focuses purely on this without any limitations) but rather it gives us a pretty well layed out explanation of how FPA seekers work and what they "see".  The pattern recognition you see the results of in the image above is the writers first prototype of a neural network to help improve pattern recognition of the seeker.  It lacks though the other tools to improve upon just the raw size and shape discrimination.  Even then with all these limitations both it and other seekers have a 90-95% filtering success rate.  

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

[nighthawk2174]

41 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

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

No the maneuvering of the bandit is irrelevant to the filtering out of the flares as it can still filter flares out based on shape/intensity/location/los rate/ir spectrum/ and a whole slew of other factors.  The signature of a flare is in not comparable to that of an aircraft and can always be filtered out because of this on fpa seekers.

Edited March 11, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[lester]

I'm genuinely curious in your logic. You don't want to believe (US in the context of discussion above) pilots here:

23 hours ago, TotenDead said:

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.

 

but you also suggested Chizh to believe US pilots here:

not to mention two "adequate enough" RuAF pilots you wrote about and ask on regular basis:

 

 

[TotenDead]

54 минуты назад, lester сказал:

I'm genuinely curious in your logic. You don't want to believe (US in the context of discussion above) pilots here:

 

but you also suggested Chizh to believe US pilots here:

not to mention two "adequate enough" RuAF pilots you wrote about and ask on regular basis:

 

 

 

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

Edited March 11, 2021 by TotenDead

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/11/2021 at 12:10 AM, TotenDead said:

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

The difference in temperature between traditional flares and the exhaust is rather high and the rapid deceleration gives even older missiles two clues to use to discern between flares and the target iirc this was at the core of the AIM-9Ms IRCCM and other similar missiles of the 1980s.

 

The trend has been towards a combination of DIRCM and Maneuvering flares to defeat FPA seekers.

 

The Su-22 did nothing of the sort.

 

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2003/11/30/2003december-smart-flares-being-designed-to-defeat-heatseeking-missiles

Edited March 12, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TotenDead]

Только что, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

The difference in temperature between traditional flares and the exhaust is rather high and the rapid deceleration gives even older missiles two clues to use to discern between flares and the target iirc this was at the core of the AIM-9Ms IRCCM and other similar missiles of the 1980s.

 

True, but those missiles still managed to get confused by flares

 

Только что, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

The trend has been towards a combination of DIRCM and Maneuvering flares to defeat FPA seekers.

 

DIRCM? I can name only one fighter with it - Su-57, so how's that really a trend?

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

 

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?

There are other aircraft as well with it, USAF F-16s recently received the Elbit PAWS DIRCM/MAWS for example.

 

Its rather new technology just now getting out there as it's hit that point in maturity, I think the first system ever for it was from 2002

 

[TotenDead]

48 минут назад, TaxDollarsAtWork сказал:

There are other aircraft as well with it, USAF F-16s recently received the Elbit PAWS DIRCM/MAWS for example.

 

Could you send a photo or an article?