the pilot has always said the missile didnt get flared but was dead off the rails
3 Likes
TBH in my experience with the r73 its also not the most flare resistant under 2km.
IMO its slightly harder to accidentally flare 9m from a longer distance while the r73 is VERY hard to intentionally flare at closer ranges
that would explain it more. a dud missile
This is a flatout lie
The pilot actually confirmed that the missile left the rails
name is Lt. Cdr. Michael Tremel
" According to Military.com, as the Su-22 climbed after dropping ordnance, Tremel would respond, firing an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile which missed the Fitter for reasons MOB didn’t explain."
And considering it was later on confirmed by an official that it was flares, it is a clear cut case.
No clear secondary motive. Official was also correct on everything else.
dead off the rails doesnt mean it didnt launch, just that it didnt track or maneuver once it left the rails.
if it didnt leave the rail I would say failed to launch
1 Like
bug report from 2 years ago
Yeah…
didn’t track (because decoyed by flares)
Clearly it tracked the target before the launch as it was launched
The official already confirmed the reason as to what happened and pilot+gov official is something ill trust more than keyboard generals
especially because none of you were there, none of you were briefed on it none of you launched the missile. however the pilot launched the missile and the official was briefed on what happened
so be quiet.
people really have hard time accepting that their favorite missile is not impossible to flare
Clearly if it was 100% flare rejection rate, it couldn’t be improved later on with upgrades
So, the flare rejection rate wasn’t 100%. It can be decoyed by flares.
(this is so hard to accept for some people)
Im not gonna ague with someone who doesnt understand basic terminology yet claims to have read confidential briefings on it
On your second point you clearly dont understand that there are different circumstances with different probability’s of a missile getting flared. Because you seem to be implying that these upgrades must have been to help against minimally evasive targets with very limited numbers of flares launched.
1 Like
They don’t need to be best at terminology, they just need to know what happened and be able to explain it sufficiently which they did
these upgrades exist because the aim9x isn’t immune to flares. simple as that.
if it could filter a flare out perfectly every single time, then these wouldn’t be needed. clearly it can’t.
Like i said, the officials statement together with pilots support the fact that the missile was flared, there is no secondary motive and their information supports each other and is logically plausible
You weren’t there, one of them was there and the other one was told what happened.
What argument are you even trying to make. Missiles fail sometimes thats it
1 Like
scroll up. why is someone arguing against facts with me?
that he somehow knows for sure that the missile was flared and wasnt just dead off the rails, despite him not knowing what “dead off the rails” means while somehow with the same lack of knowledge having read understood briefings and reports that are likely classified
1 Like
Hardly any facts here, lots of assumptions. Very illogical at that, youre trying to argue that the su22 3rd gen with old ass flares is the likely reason for the aim9x missing, when the alternative would be a defective missile(far more logical)
1 Like
considering the hornet was able to lock the target with a functioning seeker
the fact that instead of firing another 9x at these close ranges they instead picked amraam which wouldnt be decoyed by flares
the fact that the official themselves said it was flares and correlated with pilots story
or you just saying it wasnt flares because you dont want to believe that your favorite missile doesn’t have 100% hitrate
i already sent this;
""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.
“I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about.”"
Considering different flares burn at different heats and different volumes and therefore present differently in IIR it is very possible that this happened
notice this?
This doesnt say anything though? He shot an aim9x that was ineffective for whatever reason(couldnt have known at the time) so he simply switched to amraam, which btw despite what youre saying is a perfectly good missile for any range
1 Like
no he didn’t. now youre lying.
Yeah the 9x is useless and meaningless. Shouldn’t exist, ill use amraams for the dogfights. and 9C in my hornet.
A book from an engineer which doesnt even delved remotely deep into the what or why isnt a source.
Its called a typo.