Wow, this guy will be astounded when he learns of the concept of situational awareness.
4 Likes
are you actually joking
it doesn’t matter any of this if you can just press a single button to make the missile go away
so suddenly you will be ignoring the rwr and not caring about it. “so useful”
Fun fact: That’s historical accuracy for you.
We should bring things up to parity with documentation, when it can be done. If that means the missile has issues such as poor flare rejection, oh well. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Reread what I said, slowly.
exactly so you will be ignoring rwr and you agree with me that you will instead be using your eyeballs for situational awaraness because the rwr isnt actually reliable. fun fact you cant actually know whether a person is just pinging you for fun or intending to attack you from looking at the rwr. you have to rely on your eyes and ignore what the rwr says.
Yeah and I’ll kill you from an angle that you can’t see since you aren’t paying attention to your RWR.
My original point is, is that not having IFF RWR is a decrease to your situational awareness since you are unable to determine exactly what is locking you and from where.
A person who ignores rwr at 11.7 will just get slapped my a SARH or ARH.
2 Likes
no you wont because i can look 360 around my aircraft. and the more funny thing is RWR is actually limited in its angles, i can come from a funny angle and kill you, rwr will say nothing.
ever heard of eyes?
Sunshine, you realise all the tools available contribute to situational awareness? Rwr, visual ID, and your radar? Neglecting these things leads to bad decisions, not matter how grand you think your eyes are. If they’re anywhere close to your comprehension skills, I can only assume woe be to you.
5 Likes
does rwr contribute to situational awaraness when you believe someone is tracking you but in reality they are doing it only to fool you? no it contributes to decrease in situaational awaraness. neglecting the fact that rwr is not trustable is foolish
End of day, R60M was brought into the topic for no reason
530F has been proven to have Chaff filtering, so they should give it that, and it will have 2 great missiles + 2 good missiles at 12.0, with an okay flight model, and would thus be perfect if they just did that
5 Likes
Your RWR is trustworthy. It can alert you to possible threats. POSSIBLE threats. You can then verify this, either through checking the direction visually or validating the type of emission if your RWR presents that information. And if these 2 are not enough for you, you can then check with your radar.
Is this written plainly enough for you to grasp?
1 Like
and the aim-9x has flare filtering yet it was flared by a su-22 and the navy hornet had to use an amraam to kill it. just because you say it on paper that the missile is resistant to something does not mean it will always work that way. F/A-18 Super Hornet Missed Syrian Su-22 With Its First Sidewinder Missile
people really can’t grasp that just because you have something on paper does not mean that it will actually work that way. just because a jet is designed to be an air superiority fighter jet it does not mean that jet will always be able to shoot down everything else and gain air superiority.
you just want everything to have perfect filtering while in reality things aren’t perfectly resistant to counter measures even when designed so.
Just wait until mate finds out chaff and IR countermeasures work differently, and one is significantly easier to filter.
1 Like
So? 530F is proven to have Chaff filtering. That means it should be harder to chaff
Right now, it takes 1 chaff and its done for. It should take maneuvering and chaff to make it redirect itself. If that gets fixed, F1C is right at home. I never said it was immune, just that it should be more difficult
1 Like
wait until mate finds out that it still applies because changing variables doesn’t change the logic and the aim-9x is considered flare resistant where the radar missile is considered chaff resistant yet both of them can fall to countermeasures and you pretending like that can’t happen is foolish.
if it falls for chaff it falls for chaff simple as that, the second or third burst of chaff in airplanes isn’t any different to the first one and they contain dipoles of same frequencies.
That uh, that ain’t how chaff filtering works, mate. (Simplified, but I’d need to write a short paper to explain the defeat mechanisms more accurately) Chaff tends to slow down at a different rate to the target. One might even say it ends up become static to the seeker head on account of air resistance. You want to know a method for filtering targets? Rate of closure, which can be used to ascertain speed. If the thing is closing the same speed your missile is traveling, the thing ain’t a plane in most circumstances. This obviously (shouldn’t need to say it, it is self explanatory) can be defeated by holding a direction/maneuver that will keep thrown chaff in the seeker view until the aircraft is outside of the FOV, at which point chaff has functioned to defeat it.
either it has the capability to filter out the dipoles or it does not, the dipoles are the same frequencies as in the earlier dropped chaff. therefore if 50 drops of chaff confuse the missile there is no reason one drop of chaff won’t do it. same dipoles. youre only resistant in chaff against chaff that is made for wrong frequencies.
Mate’s so close to working out how IR emissions work and he’s applying it to chaff defeat mechanisms instead of IR defeat mechanisms.
3 Likes
I beg to differ. IRCCM missiles are crazy strong. 9Ms are only found on the A-10 at 11.7 of which the Mirage F1C is not comparable to