Do you understand what we were originally talking about in this conversation?
Ah you said 9M not X fair enough!
2 Likes
Stop the nonsense, dirty flares don’t do anything to affect IIR differently and generally flares are pretty much useless, BOL is probably the only thing that could deal with s IIR missile from rear aspect.
The aim9x was dumb off the rails, stop making baseless speculations this has already been argued, you’re not illiterate you can scroll up and read this exact argument and how it already panned out
You’re dumb off the rails if you’re preflared
At the same time,
this is all in theory and is how it SHOULD work most of the time. However tracking algorithms are never fool proof, anything can happen in the real life. Theres a reason why he chose to use a radar missile instead of launch another sidewinder. He expected the other heat seeker to also get trashed.
The launch range was also very small, which could have potentially played it’s part in why the seeker got trashed.
To protect the look of their 9X they could have said if there had been a technical fault, however they didn’t.
After all, there is a reason the upgraded variant has upgraded algorithms for tracking and flare rejection. It isn’t fool proof.
ok?
it was dumb off the rails
you can tell this because there is no evidence that the target flared at all
2 Likes
I don’t care about your short term memory mate, this was already argued if your incapable of recalling arguments from last year it’s a you issue I’m not wasting my time dealing with your nonsensical assumptions again.
Scroll up.
Don’t bother, he literally has all the responses to his Arguments if he scrolls up.
1 Like
What’s hilarious is that he brings the possibility that the US possibly didn’t proof it against Soviet/Russian made flares cause they don’t know how they work. While it was a possibility in the cold war as seen with the AIM-9P, Russian weapons have been free market since 1991. Absolutely no doubt something as basic as RU flares made it to US laboratories if they managed to smuggle out S-300s to the US lmao.
'member how you could buy depot stolen Ratnik kits on ebay before 2022? I 'member.
“no evidence that the target flared”
It is interesting that you say this because they fully kept quiet on anything about it apart from the obvious not stating that it was a technical fault. Considering they were in hurry to fire a radar missile instead of another 9x at very close range that already tells me a lot.
i already know you’re wrong when you talk in absolutes. on paper you can say anything is whatever proof, in real life it isn’t neccessarily the same every time.
You could even say that the specific flares would have been in some laboratory however you’re never gonna be able to account for everything that happens in real life and what the algorithms do which is why they still upgrade the seeker’s against flare resistance as you saw above
It’s just that a lot of people have this ego and only read things off paper. It’s the same with electronic warfare, in theory this and that should work against this and that and have this and that effect but in real life we don’t even know what the russians EW looks like, even with the active war in ukraine we don’t know enough.
In real life it’s different than on paper. Things don’t go as they should. People need to understand this. You don’t have a 100% “flare proofness”. IIR is still advancing and will be. Theres only one thing you can be absolute about and it is the fact that the radar missile they fired at had a 100% “proof” against the flares.
its pretty interesting that you deny this fact
because every primary source on this shows that the target didnt know the F18 was there
so why do you think they flared?
This was actually a concern the US had, even up untill the early days of the ASRAAM’s preliminary target goals in the mid-80s. IIRC RU flares did/(do?) have longer rise time, and more total bloom than NATO ones, and there were fears about emission spectrum differences.
However, that being said, these fears were something largely anticipated, and basically the only thing they couldnt accurately account for was the emission spectra. However for single band missiles that difference would only at most be a mediocre increase in flare’s relative brightness.
Atleast this is as best as i can remember it, its brrn a while since I read things on it.
I agree with that, please read my post again. The USSR was very secretive and tight-lipped.
But his point was about the AIM-9X. The AIM-9X program kicked off mid-90s with first deliveries in 2002. The USA being unaware of Russian tech specification stopped being a thing after the collapse of the USSR due to a variety of reasons ranging from equipment sales, technology transfer(like the Yak-141 design, even though it influenced in no way the F-35B), and chronic countrywide corruption leading to the CIA smuggling rare technologies.
Like, by the 90s, the USA was test firing against Kontakt-5, cutting apart a S-300+using it as training opponent, and had access to as many Soviet/RU planes as they wanted due to Warsaw Pact nations rushing to join NATO. Let’s not forget Pepsi had the 6th largest navy in the world in 1989 after the USSR sold them a complete fleet due to how short on cash they were.
Btw, the US was originally part of the ASRAAM project, but left due to various reasons, including a desire to use up something like 30000 Aim-9Ms, so they instead pivoted to the Aim-9X, which used the same seeker or a version of the seeker, developed for the ASRAAM which entered service in 1998.
So its likely that Aim-9X and ASRAAM sources will be interchangable withwise to seeker performance
(If im recalling this correctly anyway)
1 Like
" “They saw the Su-22 approaching,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis,a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters Tuesday. “It again had dirty wings; it was carrying ordnance. They did everything they could to try to warn it away. They did a head-butt maneuver, they launched flares, but ultimately the Su-22 went into a dive and it was observed dropping munitions and was subsequently shot down.”"
Yeah the su-22 didn’t know they were there, eh? Are you going to continue with your nonsense?
ah yes, a quote showing that the Su22 didnt respond to them at all
Didn’t respond as in refused to stop bombing. Defiant. He wasn’t having a heart attack that would make him incapable of flaring. This would actually give him a reason to drop flares as needed during the bombing run. No wonder he switched to amraams after the 9X couldn’t do it. You’re not trying to be logical. Why would the pilot not be dropping flares during a bombing run if he was going to ignore commands not do it and had jets trying to warn him away prior.
When people lose arguments they try to use anything even if it lacks logic to try to win.
It wasn’t lack of awaraness, it was ignorance, you can’t not see maneuvers intended to be seen unless if your eyeballs have been removed. He just didn’t comply.
maybe idk
because he didnt notice them
and he likely didnt understand said commands even if he heard them because they would have been given in englilsh
and lets see, you still havent provided any evidence of him flaring or even responding to the F18s presence
It isn’t possible to not “see” these maneuvers. They were simply ignored. Heres a demonstration of the head butt maneuver. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J8JAejkeb14
Don’t pretend to be stupid or obtuse or that the pilot didn’t have eyeballs. As long as your argument relies on assuming the pilot was fully blind it is invalid. They were ignored, not “not seen”.
These maneuvers are used as something that provides visibility of you when someone ignores or can’t hear your communication on radio.
where does that even suggest that the Su22 flared?
9x couldn’t hit the target, su-22’s are equipped with flares, su-22 clearly was aware of it’s threat, the pilot switched to a radar guided missile instead of firing another 9x despite the minimal range where a 9x would be preferred. there is no reason the su-22 would have not flared, there are all the reasons he would have flared and the super hornet pilot’s actions are akin to that of reacting to a missile being flared instead of a singular dud.
It is very logical, unlike the idea that the su-22 pilot did not have eyeballs and was operating blind.
“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.”
Pay attention to the last line, it wasn’t just aim-9p. Still in the system. Why do you think they had to enhance flare resistance in the later 9x’s?
That is, regarding the earlier conversation.