Well, there is nothing really else to say other than I’ll wait, you kind of answered everything right there and makes sense.
Thanks.
1 Like
No worries, glad we came to an agreement.
3 Likes
InSb and PBs seekers are both highly susceptible to the emissions wavelength of rocket motors… the gasses not only are within the 1.5 to 5.5 um range but also has an obscuring effect.
InSb detection is 3-8um
PBs detection is 1-5um
The plume of the rocket motor is not obstructed by the misisle at all, and the plume size is comparable to that of a jet engine on 60%. It’s narrower but much much longer.
5 Likes
2 Likes
60% makes total sense and sounds reasonable. It gets hot, but It’s a small, short lived solid fuel rocket.
But what do you mean by much longer though, because afterburning jet engines, for example the Mig29 and F-14 shoot out darn near 3/4 the length of the jet flare out and can pretty much be seen from the front as well.
I see. Yeah, that is pretty long and that is just the length that we can on the visible light spectrum.
It’s much longer in infrared.
Last thing though gun. Yes we are working with “mays”.
But flares are proven to decoy missiles.
A sidewinder never decoyed another IR missile away from a defending aircraft ever.
There is no “may” but only an unproven theory.
As for modern missiles. The aim9P was the first to implement flare resist logic designed to ignore Soviet “dirty flares” that burned lower on the IR spectrum to mimic the signature of western aircraft exhaust. The Soviet Union found out that the US inadvertently designed their aim9s like the J to seek emissions consistent with their own fighters instead Soviet Unions MiGs.
I’m assuming the theory was proven using acquisition rounds. Very little in the tactics manuals isn’t the result of various trials.
7 Likes
My understanding is that IR missiles did not fully have this capability until dual band IR seekers. It is said that modern flares today attempt to reproduce heat emissions similar to that of the aircraft in order to decoy modern dual band seekers.
2 Likes
Flares have been proven to be the single most effective tool when it comes to defeating IR guided missiles.
Using a theory the British developed which doesnt have a single smudge of evidence other than “Dr.Trustmebro said it may work” as a hail mary… On top of that, this is taken out of context and has become the go to strategy and for some reason this is acceptable… Now that I think about it, if the 27ER still is how it is, I dont fail to see why sci-fi gets implemented in the game.
Despite all this. If what is suggested in the tornado manual was proven, dont you think it would become standard on every single NATO flight manual available since? Its one thing to use flight manuals to develop systems and their operation properly and completely another to use them as tactics guides… The later simply doesnt work…
Also I dont see anything posted in regards to the phoenix going stupid and tracking other missiles which was the main point…
In any case… All this is pointless because nothing is going to get fixed since nothing in GJ’s eyes requires fixing… Fixing takes time and resources which are better utilised making new vehicles… Oh well…
2 Likes
Funnily enough the American’s also think that it is possible for one Sidewinder to lock onto another Sidewinder.
8 Likes
Ahh the trust me bro guarantee? I must’ve misread all the primary materials which show they aren’t a guaranteed decoy. You’re right I should trust and your source materials… I’m sure you will produce something of equal weight.
Primary source materials aren’t evidence now? Let me time travel back to the 1980s to ask them for proof. Pull the other one. Ahaha
Oh I missed this. Even more hilarious, it’s called a “TACTICS MANUAL” it’s not a flight manual it’s not about operations…
8 Likes
I want to get home but it’s an interesting topic (it’s been a while) but the aim9P iirc was designed inadvertently to ignore their own US flares instead of Soviets. The Soviets found this out and designed their flares “dirty” and had different burn time, intensity and separation.
The aim9P ignored US flares but loved to decoy to Soviet flares. This was discovered during the Constant Peg program. Soon after the air force developed the aim9P-1 to ignore Soviet flares that burned differently on the spectrum.
This indicates that IR Missiles going back to the original P already had logic that would ignore certain wavelengths on the IR spectrum. Even bright flares.
The same would be obvious for lower IR signatures such as IR missiles.
Which has been my argument. That IR missiles would largely ignore such random smaller, short lived IR signatures. If the aim9P was already programmed to ignore certain infrared signatures on the spectrum such as its own US flares (by mistake) in which the Soviet Union took advantage of, then certainly missiles as far back as the Aim9P are programmed to ignore smaller signatures of missiles when they are already tracking an aircraft.
Yes, but that is in regards to ripple firing. Firing two air missiles in quick succession will certainly leave the trailing missile in close quarters with the lead missile and its rocket motor burning brightly in front of it as they both race to a single target.
The issue is using a missile to decoy an opponents missile away from yourself. Which even the F3 tornado tactics manual does not say will happen. All they said (if read correctly) is that your missile may just intercept the opponents missile.
Not that the opponents missile will stop tracking you and decide to instead go for your own missile as it does almost without fail every single time in WT.
Can we move on from this. It’s not even hard to find footage of rocket motors viewed in IR.
Just like a decoy flare, it’s very bright in IR and is moving away from the aircraft.
4 Likes
Sure I guess. But I don’t understand how this video proves anything. Missiles have IR signatures? That is true.
Flir tracks infrared. That’s the video.
Surface to air missiles have immensely powerful rocket motors and are larger and brighter than sidewinders.
All burn differently on the spectrum. Now look at Flir footage of an F-14 tomcat or any fighter. The signature difference is immense.
Yes, but it’s not burning long enough to reach the same temperature to match the IR emission of an afterburning turbofan engine. It “looks” bright to us but its emitting different wavelengths.
Interestingly, the AIM-9M type IRCCM may very well be vulnerable to decoying to a fired missile. The signature is similar to afterburners, and the missile will usually take a trajectory similar to the fighters. The “push-ahead” IRCCM may decoy to this. Since the FoV is “pushed ahead”, and the missile is being fired ahead… it seems to the seeker that the target is instead just banking, or creating large angular velocity increases when in reality it is chasing a missile.
The other type of IRCCM relying on small FoV and sometimes focusing the detectors wavelength closer to that of the targets would also be vulnerable… they rely heavily on the flares having a slow rise time so that they are no longer within ~15m of the target by the time the signature picks up. (In the case of the Magic 2)… for example.
A missile does not have rise-time, it is a hot signature present in the FoV from the moment it is launched.
Had the same though about flare rate bias actually being a disadvantage when trying not to track a launched missile. Suppose this is exactly what IIR and the image recognition is there to fix. And why stuff like BOL IR making a big chaff like IR cloud is to help fool.
3 Likes
Got any information on IIR seekers being immune to DIRCM by any chance?