with the SUN behind......

[Longbow116]

Hi Guys,

 

 

this question is primary to the developers of the brilliant A10C.

If i set up my approach to a target with sun right behind me, does this tactic minimise the chance when at low altitude, let's say so between 2000ft-7000ft to be shot at IR-looking Weapons, manpads and IR-SAM?

 

Would like to know that to plan my attacks proper.

 

best regards

Longbow

Edited June 25, 2011 by Longbow116

[Chrisakky]

We not good enough for you? :D

[Chrisakky]

As for the question, in real life, the older sidewinders only used ir to track their targets, however, newer ir missiles use a dual seeker, i believe, which is ir and uv to track the targets, and will not lock on to the sun. Also, Some missiles can memorize an ir 'shape' of the target aircraft, so that a the large ball of ir energy from the sun won't fool its seeker.

Please correct me if i'm wrong! :music_whistling:

[159th_Falcon]

True, but that's after the target has been locked.

 

So having the sun behind you may make it more difficult for the seeker

to lock on to you.

Same idea as dropping preemptive flares.

As well, the operator of the launching platform would have a real hard time

seeing you.

 

So i think in real live it will definitely help, don't know for the sim though.

[Conure]

Today I was using TrackIR and the sun shone through my window and screwed up my tracking (checked the software and it was red all over, picking up the sun). If my TrackIR receiver were a SAM, and my head an A10, then that sun coming from behind a cloud could've damn near saved my life.

 

True story.

[Chrisakky]

True, but that's after the target has been locked.

 

So having the sun behind you may make it more difficult for the seeker

to lock on to you.

Same idea as dropping preemptive flares.

As well, the operator of the launching platform would have a real hard time

seeing you.

 

So i think in real live it will definitely help, don't know for the sim though.

 

 

 

Ah yer.. defiantly would help to stop actual lock on.... but is it modelled in sim?

Edited June 25, 2011 by Chrisakky

[Longbow116]

.... but is it modelled in sim?

 

and this the point of interest ;) It would be great if this would be modeled....maybe a suggest for the next patch :thumbup:

[Chrisakky]

and this the point of interest ;) It would be great if this would be modeled....maybe a suggest for the next patch :thumbup:

 

Well, stick it in the wish list and you never know. I'f its not already modeled.

[nscode]

Today I was using TrackIR and the sun shone through my window and screwed up my tracking (checked the software and it was red all over, picking up the sun). If my TrackIR receiver were a SAM, and my head an A10, then that sun coming from behind a cloud could've damn near saved my life.

 

True story.

 

Yes, if missile seekers were toys, that would be a problem. Flares are also useless against newer stuff.

 

[Chrisakky]

Yes, if missile seekers were toys, that would be a problem. Flares are also useless against newer stuff.

 

 

Yep = second post.

 

Newer missiles remember the aircraft's ir 'footprint', and so anything that hasn't got the same shape is disgarded. Also, the addition of UV aswel as ir means that the 'blind spot' of an extreem ir producing object, is elimanated.

[Frostiken]

I'm *highly* skeptical that flares are 'useless' against IR missiles, even modern ones. Serious [citation needed] on that one.

 

Less effective? Sure. Useless though? Some points of contention:

 

- Flares can and probably have long since been configured to burn with UV light. Plus, the sun would confuse this wavelength as much as IR.

- The seeker head of an AIM-9M is INCREDIBLY tiny, with the actual aperture being smaller than the laser seeker head of a GBU-12 (not counting the argon bottle). I find the assertions that it can get a foolproof IR 'picture' of the aircraft 6-9 miles away absolutely laughable - flares at this distance would still be extremely effective. Compare the IR quality of an AGM-65 which has a much larger lens and aperture.

 

I have no doubt that modern IR-guided missiles are far less susceptible to countermeasures than they used to be, but I would only believe the word of a Raytheon engineer or perhaps an actual combat pilot as far as just how much less susceptible they are - not random speculation on the internet or understandably biased websites where military hardware is discussed.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Frostiken

[Rainmaker]

Also very much disagree. We would not be carrying them if that was the case. Also the fact that they are still used and can decoy the newer missiles at times...you can see the occasional HUD/test videos of this around the net. Is it less effective...yes. But are they completely ineffective...no way.

[159th_Viper]

I'm *highly* skeptical that flares are 'useless' against IR missiles, even modern ones.....

 

What flares are you speaking about? MTV, Pyrophoric or Dual-Spectral?

 

Against modern missiles the the MTV's (Magnesium, Teflon, Viton) are about as useful as a condom in a convent. While you have an added degree of comfort with Pyrophoric (pre-emptive release as opposed to reactive), you're still struggling/tanked in a modern furball which necessitated the development of the dual-spectral flare (HS1S as an example) that's now utilized together with the others in a type of 'cocktail' mix.

 

Bottom-line: Flares, or certain classes, are indeed useless and at best are always playing catch-up to the missile technology designed to defeat them. If I were a pilot and my CMS system began dumping flares I'd have one finger firmly on the 'Get-Me-Outta-Here' button: Will not be trusting flares against modern missiles, nosiree!

[Chrisakky]

I'd say that flares are more use in helping to stop a ir SAM system locking on to the aircraft releasing them. You've seen on the A to A training mission how the TGT pod locks on to the flares released by the SU-25's. I'm not saying flares are 'useless' against modern ir missiles, but manoeuvres make by the pilot himself are probably the thing that will save him. Again.... pilot needed to confirm....