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.
nah this argument about a dud 9X is STILL going on?! touch grass guys come on
5 Likes
He said why, he said the flares were “dirty” which means they are burning at different intensities, which brings in different spectral qualities rather than “clean” flares
They don’t need to go deeper into it, this is definetly a good source. They were there, they knew these things, they weren’t there to explain you a PhD level interaction between the seeker and flare, they are definetly a good source and you not liking what they said doesn’t nullify it.
Otherwise any source talking about abrams armor is meaningless because they didn’t go into microstructures
Accept the facts, if you don’t like them then walk away. Conspiracy theories are pointless and in this game the 9x will probably implemented in a way that allows it to be flared, too.
Like i said, keyboard generals don’t go above pilot+official when talking about what happened. pilot was there, you weren’t. official was told what happened, you weren’t.
You can’t get around these facts.
Thats not going deep into it, hes making a statement. Books arent valid sources on this kind of technical stuff themselves
Usaf pilots also claimed that they saw ufos. This kind of stuff needs some actual proof behind it regardless of the qualificstions all the time.
books alone aren’t however his statement is due to his background in there.
except his claim isnt extraordinary or something out of his experience while complex meteorological effects are easily out of scope of pilots and may be regarded as ufos
What he said falls inline with the experience of his role, is completely plausible, has no secondary motive and is not bizarre in thought content (as is with ufos)
Considering this, it is a trustable source that falls under expert opinion
If you liked his opinion, you would agree with it. You don’t like it however so you are making all kinds of excuses.
What hes claiming his just that a claim.
Also what youre extrapolating from it is nonsense. He was working with aim9p(export missile) going by the date hes talking about the aim9p-5 which wasthe irccm upgrade, this missile is unrelated to the aim9x development, and for the time had an even worse seeker than aim9m. Its early irccm tech and it wasnt even the best at the time, aim9x was developed off aim9m not aim9p-5
His position allows him to know these things; it isn’t a “claim”, it is him talking about his experience with what his role allowed him to see legally. No, it is not empty claim as you try to make it out to be.
“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.”
Like i also showed earlier, 9x has needed to receive further updates to it’s flare resistance because clearly it is not 100% flare resistant. If it could reject flares 100% flawlessly it wouldn’t need these updates
Accept the facts and stop complaining.
How is it not an empty claum when the only proof that its happened is words on paper?
Nothing is 100% effective, flares on a su 22 are unlikely to have had any effect on the aim9x modern seekers need more than big ir signatures to get spoofed. The missile was defective, nothing youre arguing here is factual.
Empty words.
The video is pretty eh but the full talk of the pilot is there. Your assumption that the “pilot chose aim120 because aim9x was flared” is nonsense, the pilot chose aim120 because if something didnt work you dont try the same thing again.
3 Likes
there we have it. it was a dud
They should have put it in the bread oven first :P
2 Likes
they didnt let him cook