How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?

More:

>That proved to be a very important test. “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.

>The Syrian ‘Fitter’ in the latest incident appears to have had success with flares against the AIM-9X. There are also reports that the SyAAF ‘Fitters’ had received upgraded flare packs.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
Wow I hate American missiles now.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

File: 1460399289523.jpg (47KB, 600x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x502px

>>34376978

>Flying CAP for Islamic Jihadists and ISIS

Nice one America.

>>34376978
>Burgers will ignore this
lmao fatniks btfo'd

>>34376978
>"defeat"
>still shot down
Silver linings, everyone.

Aim-9x confirmed for shit.

>>34378302
More like Can't Aim-9x right dudes?

File: 1497829595335.jpg (34KB, 490x360px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x360px

>>34377036
>>34377062
>>34377074
>>34377083
>>34377130
>>34377148

You guys okay?

>>34377254
Just how like Hillary won the election

>>34376978
We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said ‘I love that flare’.

>USSR flares stored in a darky musty bunker for 30 years FTW

>>34376978
This wouldn't happen to the IRIS-T.

Are there proofs that it was a 9X and not a 9M?

>>34376978
Pentagon hasnt confirmed the type of IR missle, popular mechanics and the rest are full of shit

>>34379010
Yes

File: chink master race.jpg (92KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x639px

>>34376978
>>American technology, everyone...
Turkey F-16 *cough*
Su-24M4 *cough*

>>34377149
This. Syria isn't exactly our buddy, but we really should not be fucking with them given that Russia plays nice with them. Besides that, Syria and Russia aren't even fighting against the Kurds at the moment. There's no point in fucking with them. Was there ever any solid evidence of chemical weapons being present at Shayrat other than the containers that showed evidence of their contents being disposed of as per the request of various international organizations? Even if they did use chemical weapons, was it worth attacking them over gassing some jihadis who would just as soon attack us as Assad's boys?

So we tweak the code slightly to open up flare rejection parameters.
What's the big deal?

>>34379106
this

the article is full of shit, make up by internet Vatnik

Turkey shot down their Su-24M4, IS shot down their Mi-35M

and now Vatnik make up story about flare with no flying proof

File: 6667.jpg (23KB, 317x267px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 317x267px

>>34379142
>SU-24M4
No such thing retarded chink shill

D-damage control

>>34379201
doesn't change the fact that Turkey shot down one of your newly upgraded Su-24M

what more, you have to lick Erdogan ball to built the gas pipeline and sell him S-400

BREAKING NEWS

US ARMY INFANTRYMAN KILLED WITH AK-47 IN AFGHANISTAN

HOW DID A 1940s-ERA WEAPON DEFEAT A CUTTING-EDGE US ARMY SOLDIER???

>>34376978
Just use fucking AMRAAMs. If you're that close you have identified the radar anyways. I thought Russians and Americans converse for safety reasons and Russia doesn't fly Su-22s in Syria, or at all at this point. Why even bother with the Sidewinder.
As for how, no one knows what this looked like and IR can be spoofed very easily, heat is heat at the end of the day.

>>34379331
the Su-22 was flow by Syrian

>>34376978
>weapon built to destroy american aircraft
HMMMMMMMMM

>>34376978

What I find most incredible here is...it was ONE firing.

ONE.

Literally no-body with any degree of sense thinks that EVERY missile will hit EVERY target EVERY single time.

Developing high end missiles is about reducing the chances of this happening as much as possible. But it doesn't mean and never meant that they will become perfect weapons that never miss and should be considered useless because they missed once.

But /k/ is too obsessed with the IF ITS DESIGNED TO DO SOMETHING THAT MEANS ITS TARGET IS NOW USELESS meme to care, as usual. Just the same as the MUST BE PERFECT AT EVERYTHING OR ITS SHIT crowd.

tl;dr - /k/ is shit.

>>34379351
Almost as bad as the "if a tank can be destroyed, its useless" shit.

>>34379351
>But /k/ is too obsessed
this bullshit have been posting all over Russian social media the last week

>AIM-9X
>X
proofs?

>>34379343
I know.

>launched from half a mile
Without knowing the position of the F/A-18 in relation to the Su-22 this "miss" means absolutely nothing.

If it was right behind it when it launched then this is very concerning, but I doubt that's the case.

Anon, half a mile is pretty much point blank in air combat.

>>34379913
There is such a thing as Rmin you retard.

If he was very close and HOBS then the missile may have not had time to do its super wicked thrust vectoring turns and land a hit.

>>34379010
No

>>34378712
kek

>>34379331
You understand that SRAAMS are superior too LRAAMS when you're shooting something at short range, right?

>>34380330
You understand that my argument was about not being in a short range situation in the first place, right?

>>34379010
Maybe so.

>>34380432
You need to work on conveying your ideas.

>if you're that close you have identified the radar anyway.
Where did you say anything about remaining at standoff range?

>>34380464
It's pretty obvious in my eyes. The radar remark is regarding the need to get close for identification. It isn't really needed though unless you're telling me the radar on the Hornet can't identify its targets unless the aircraft is within working range of the AIM-9. Which I don't see because the Hornet had AIM-120s in the first place. So the real question here, for me at least, is why the Hornet didn't fire the AIM-120 to begin with.

>>34380548
Probably intercepted it and did a show of force to try and make the Su-22 leave the area. That would explain why it was so close.

Can you repeat the question?

>>34380673
how was a 1980s-era ‘Fitter’ able to defeat a cutting-edge US air-to-air heat-seeking missile?

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
>>34376985
Haha oh wow.

>>34376978
that female "helping"

>>34379061
Let alone proofs that it happened.

>>34380693
wouldn't flares just do it?

>>34380816
If it is an older missile.

Yay, a single data point of failure.
A SINGLE OCCURRENCE
now if it happened multiple times that's when one ought to be concerned

File: Aim-120 AMRAAM.jpg (26KB, 924x295px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 924x295px

At least our radar guided missiles still work. I think the Turks used an AIM120 in 2015 as well.

>>34380548
>>34380591

Its also possible that visual ID be required by the ROE.

>>34376978
>HOW CAN SOMETHING OLD BEAT SOMETHING BRAND NEW IN ITS FIRST COMBAT USE

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>34381278
>implying

>>34376978
how does he know what it was that was fired when no one has confirmed what was fired in the first place?

>>34381251
Nope, AIM-9X was used to shoot down the Su-24. Reports that an AMRAAM were used were incorrect.

>>34376978
Strange, I though 9X had a vastly different inferred seeker system than previous missiles, and be much more resistant to flares.

>>34379351
One firing. One miss. Not good. Typically new weapons do good, since the enemy hasn't quite figured out how to counter them yet.

If the next one hits its target, that gives the missile a 50% PK. That is terrible for as expensive and advanced the missile supposedly is.

>>34379893
>>34380096
A pilot won't launch within Rmin because its dangerous to him, and because he knows he can't depend on the shot.

Half mile is pretty much a perfect shot. AIM-9X is supposed to be all aspect kill machine.

This is a big deal for F-35, since it "doesn't need to turn" because it has off foresight missiles. Here the weapon failed, against a 30 year old strike fighter design. Against a Su-27 series, Eurofighter, Rafale, or Gripen. Even an early model F-16 or F-18 will have better chances than the Su-22.

>>34381344
Was it AIM-9X? I wouldn't have expected the Turks to have upgraded to them. I would have guessed M.

>CNN
"sources say an AIM-9 missed"

>every clickbait rag regurgitating the story without fact checking
"HOW DID THE LATEST AND GREATEST AIM-9X MISS A 30 YEAR OLD PLANE!?!"

>>34381392
We have no idea what model of AIM-9 was fired (if it even was), but saying an X missed instead of an old M missed is much better clickbait.

>>34381445
The source is some guy from the ship who said so on facebook. Could be true, could be not true. It is known that most of those hornets have been carrying AIM-9Xs when their flying sorties.

File: never forget MP.net.jpg (39KB, 490x233px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 490x233px

>>34379362
This sort of crap attracts the most harden Russian Nationalist fervor, same happened to MP.Net (RIP) when Ukraine kicked off.

>>34381523
>It is known that most of those hornets have been carrying AIM-9Xs when their flying sorties.

Source

>>34381428
>muh everything major press says is click bait
CNN is more trustworthy than you anon

>>34381638
>combataircraft.net
>major press

You tried

>>34381654
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/21/politics/us-syria-russia-dogfight/index.html

>>34381670
I'm sorry, please screencap aim-9x

>>34381392
never post again

>it missed
>flares caused it to miss!!!
It could have been any number of malfunctions. I fail to believe flares have any impact whatsoever on an imaging infrared seeker. That is, if it actually even was an AIM-9X

>>34381638
I realize you are a liberal that is hyper defensive because CNN got outed as the shitshow they are but you need to work on your reading comprehension. Badly.

>60-year-old missile misses 30-year-old aircraft

who cares?

>>34376978
Why hasn't anybody thought of combining IR with TV?

>Follow heat signature
>The heat signature is now two heat signatures
>TV sensor says one signature is a bright little ball, and the other one is a larger object with low brightness in the visual spectrum
>"Fuck your flare, I'm coming up your ass"

You can make a flare mimic a turbojet exhaust signature, but you can't make a flare mimic the shape of an aircraft in the visual spectrum.

Am I missing something?

>>34382354
>what is Image infrared homing

Whether an AIM-9X did or did not miss, this would be the only case of it being used in combat. I would not use one case of a missile being used to determine how good the missile is. Sample size is one, how can you judge anything off that?

>>34382419
Then how the fuck did it confuse a flare with a Sukhoi?

>>34382532
It more than likely didn't.
IIR uses kalman filtering and creates an estimated projection of the target, a hot flare falling off in a ballistic arc isn't going to fool it. Just one of the reasons this story is bullshit

>>34382532
what makes you think it did ?
air combat is complex, maybe hornet pilot launched from unfavorable position and su pilot maneuvers and flares were enough to escape kill zone?

>>34382565
>>34382568
I guess.

Then again, an SU-22 outmaneuvering a properly launched AIM-9X sounds equally unlikely.

>>34382511
One was used by Turkey to shoot down that Su-24

>>34382532
because flare technology too has evolved
;DD (deceiving IIR, 2 color seeker, UV etc)

you should know there are no such things as guidance system which is 100% immune to countermeasures.
in short it's all about increasing the hit probabilty and so do the countermeasures.

btw, most of(or all) TV seekers have been used in missiles targeting ground objects with low heat signature unlike fighters, but eventually are less widely used than more effective laser(SALH), IR and wire guidance.

>>34379010
i dont know

>>34379010
could you repeat the question?

>>34377149
>Hurr durr hulping ISIS durr

>>34376978
Has the DoD actually said what happened yet? The AIM-9X at 0.6mi thing originated from an aviation photographer citing #RUMINT

>>34379161
Assad used chemical weapons on his own citizens.
But you aren't mentioning that.

How many windows do you have open for your sockpuppetry, Ivan?

>>34379351
Exactly
If anything else had a sample size of one, you would disregard it as luancy. But not this?

>>34383194
Yes it really makes sense that someone winning a civil war will start gassing his own civilians
That's not even cracking into the """evidence"""

>>34385376
what is that?

>>34385376
...t-the scenario stands!
>>34385610
Command Modern Air Naval Operations