A-A Missiles drag and lift

Then I suggest you don't mix 1986 MiG-29s with late 2000's Vipers and Hornets. It's still down to the mission maker, no matter how you slice it.

If you want more modern MiGs, fund a 3rd party who wants to do it. No one wants to? I feel you, no one wants to do a full DCS version of my fave jet either.

But making them 'more competitive'? How? Elevating their capabilities to the point where they no longer represent what they are?

There's war thunder for that.

Then I suggest you don't mix 1986 MiG-29s with late 2000's Vipers and Hornets. It's still down to the mission maker, no matter how you slice it.

So, if you don't mix, you'll have no pvp, you know. Or your solution is to fly on homo (not sapiens) servers? Like, where F-16s fight against F-16s? Nope, thanks, still not ready for that

If you want more modern MiGs, fund a 3rd party who wants to do it. No one wants to? I feel you, no one wants to do a full DCS version of my fave jet either.

When it comes to "noone wants" - go check chit-chat. There you go https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=272136.

I don't need any particular plane, i just want a competitive one for the red side so that servers were at least somewhat more realistic because fighting in F-18C vs F-16C is a little bit absolutely not realistic.

But making them 'more competitive'? How? Elevating their capabilities to the point where they no longer represent what they are?

By adding new planes, for god sake. New. More capable. Planes.

Well you are the one arguing what we see in the tape can't have happened... that the radar must be wrong in someway.

Idk, I simply do not agree that the AIM-120A/B (especially C) is able to have almost the turn radius of an AIM-9X. With an starting wing loading of about 1300kg/m^2 (about 3-4 times greater than that of agile fighters), the required total lift coefficient (missile's aerodynamic lift + engine thrust at 29AoA) must be incredibly high in order to get the low enough required turn radius and required time in order to turn within those small room interception parameters. That is simply impossible for the Aim-120, unless there's something wrong about how we interpret the launching conditions, which ultimately let you guys believe that an Aim-120A/B can get close to the turn radius of an AIM-9X! Just like "stefasaki" said, the missiles get their greatest turning capability through the thrust + AoA combination at lower dynamic pressures, not from the missile's aerodynamics alone. At lower altitudes or simply higher dynamic pressures gained, the airframe aerodynamic lift generates most of the resulted forces perpendicular to V! With the Cy (which is basically a lift slope value) within the data file that has been inputted in the latest updates (1.4 for AIM-120C and 1.5 for the AIM-120B), the AIM-120C alone is turning about as good as a clean F-15! Does that make sense to you? Doesn't that make you wonder if something might be wrong? I personally consider that we misinterpret the very little data from that footage and create monstrous errors by trying to model our DCS AIM-120 from just that! Sorry, but without some detailed analysis of the missiles aerodynamic lift and drag, that's pretty unprofessional to just model a missile that you don't even see by what you try to imagine that would've happened and simply force some results just to make it credible. The video is not a fake as some are trying to bully me with or to make it look as I've said something like that. I repeat again and again, that we're missing something from the whole truth and try to model a missile using absurd assumptions! It's a fact that a known half truth can lead to an opposite conclusion than the real one if we try to fill the other half only with our imagination!

Can't do this in DCS I don't know why this is so hard to understand that how both the circle and steering dot are programmed isn't the same as IRL!!!! Hec its even marked as bugged and WIP by ED.

Copy! I didn't know about this as I'm not standing all day on the forum to know everything. The WIP of the HUD data symbology is not a of big concern as long as the error isn't unacceptably great.

more like .85'ish Mach actually.

You might wanna recalculate the Mig's Mach at 30000ft for that closure rate, knowing that the F-16 was at around 25500ft (climbing) at around 380 KCAS. I was wrong also to initially consider it was at Mach 1.4, but it wasn't as low as 0.85 either, because the F-16 wasn't supersonic at the time he launched the AIM-120, as just seconds after the "splash" call he was descending at around 280 KCAS.

yup

Well, if it makes sense to you then...!

No the remaining factors are probably related to safety distance, guidance algorithms, and pitch moments/max aoa. Before this change it would miss by even more than it does now.

Yes! Before this change, the maximum AIM-120's lift was far more realistic!

Well thankfully the radar provides a hint:

the T on the right wall below the closure rate represents the TTG. Now i'm not 100% sure if this indicator appears right when the missile comes off the rail or after after the safety distance but that doesn't really matter as it indicates the video and voice are in sync.

Copy that! So the "T" might probably appear once it goes off the rail or after calculating that it's within the safe minimum distance and not below.

...Really, and what in their design says they can't turn well?

D) I mean if you look at what I originally posted with how a sidewinder given the same nose cone and similar fins to a 120 became substantially more maneuverable

Indeed, equipped with the AIM-120's fins (at their actual size) and AIM-120's nose cone, the AIM-9M will surely generate greater overall lift force compared to it's original fins, but ONLY at an AoA as high as 29 or 30 which the AIM-120 can reach before stall, but otherwise if you limit the AIM-9's AoA to the originally low value, you'll get surprised to see that it has even worse lift now! So yes, the AIM-120's much higher AoA allows it to get a lower radius turn through the greater lift forces (AIM-120 airframe lift + thrust * sin(AoA)) even though it has more than 5 times greater wing loading compared to the AIM-9M. After the motor quits though, the AIM-9M still has a lower minimum speed (and as such, lower turning radius) than any AIM-120 simply due to the greatly lower wing loading! All of these matter! From what I've determined from my personal analysis though, if you'd put the AIM-120B fins (the best of AIM-120) and cone even on the AIM-9X, you won't see much difference in the resulted lift! This happens because even though the original 9X's fins are giving a slightly worse lift slope compared to the fins + cone of the 120B, the greater AoA it can get before the stall occurs, gives the 9X a maximum CL * the corresponding reference area with a result that leads to about the same lift! But still..., the AIM-120A/B/C are very heavy for the reference area they have (wetted or conventionally projected), thus the AIM-120 will still turn much worse even than the AIM-9X. In fact, the AIM-120 is probably the worst when it comes to turning capability (with engine running or not) among most modern BVR missiles. It's not meant for dogfight turning capabilities, but for higher speed and ranges.

plus as the footage shows the amraam is in fact a very maneuverable missile.

What footage you've got of the actual missile's maneuvers? Again, you're only counting on imagination for what actually happened! If you want good footage with how missiles can actually turn, here's one good evidence:

Useless irony. Planes shouldn't be the same, shouldn't have same characteristics. But they should be competitive enough or there won't be any interest in playing anything except some offline stuff. MiG-29A vs F-18C is not competitive, and you can easily see that people prefer more capable jets because noone likes to suffer. If you think that forcing mission creators to give blue planes for each side so that the game could be somewhat not one-sided is a nice idea then you probably live in some other world than me and most of online players.

It was irony, yeah.

Ok, I've been speaking about a list of the things that I wanted to talk about regarding what the missiles data file contains, which ultimately simulate most of our air to air missiles flight performances. There's so much to talk that I'll simply quit the idea of listing everything that would be useful to be discussed and stick to what's more important!

I have spent about more than 2 months since that post in order to gather enough important data needed to conduct some personal analysis (using part CFD, part further math corrections) and also to see how our missiles are modeled in DCS. For the air to air missiles model used in DCS, I've found both good and not so good stuff, which the data file proves.

First of, the flight model of the air to air missiles in DCS (which is basically made up of series of equations that require some input variables) is quite rudimentary so to speak! I only hope the planes are not simulated this way as well, although when it comes to transonic regimes, our planes in DCS also don't simulate any kind of lift reduction and drag increase, but I'll just completely ignore that..., although speaking of witch ("Nighthawk" also mentioned it as an example), the BMS Falcon does simulate a bit of aero coefs fluctuations as the planes accelerate/decelerate through transonic Mach regions. Not a great enough variation in there either from my opinion, but at least there is something, other than nothing! Now, about the DCS missiles model alone, the transonic region coefs are either non-existent for being taken into the sim's built in equations or simply the equations don't respond to what it's being inputted for those particular coefficients.

That k1 Cx0 coef simply adds up to both the subsonic and supersonic drag coeffs. It just adds it up as a constant. If you put zero to both the k0 and k3 coefs, you'll have a flat line (zero derivative) kind of Cx0 versus Mach function. So basically, the k1 can be left at zero and you can control the missile's drag for the 2 remaining conditions (subsonic and supersonic) only from the k0 and k3 coefficients.

The lift model is just basically made up of a lift slope (Cy0) and an AoA at which you want the missile to be limited to. No stall onset curves, no transonic regime coefficients..., only two slopes (one for subsonic, one for supersonic) and a max AoA. Falcon BMS for example, uses data tables (or matrices if you will) which very nicely model how the aero coefs behave upon many factors, not just one, but anyway, I don't wanna talk about other sims, only DCS!

From what I've determined, as I was also forced to use CFD to some extent, I admit it, but I didn't take whatever rose from there without a bit of reasoning and thrown it into the data file. I've taken the CFD determined lift slope at the lower AoAs, maximum lift coefficient and critical AoA (I didn't use the CFD for determining the critical AoA, but equations), done the corrections, extrapolated the results for different conditions (Mach regimes), finally determined the minimum speed for 1G on the normal axis of each missile that I've analyzed and then determined the numbers required to be used (partly calculated + trial and error tweaking) in the data file in order to have these missiles start falling at the more realistically determined speed.

Surprisingly enough for those who believe that the AIM-120 can reach some alien lift, cause this is what we've mostly talked about here, the AIM-120B should start falling at ISA sea level at some 420km/h, while the AIM-120C would normally start falling at some 460km/h. Wow...! Well, translated to the difference in maximum lift or lift coefficient for the same AoA, the inputted lift slope was indeed almost 3 times greater than it should normally be. 3 times...! So "stefasaky" (I personally don't know him, but I'm glad he's also within the aerodynamics domain) was right when he talked about the insane G-loads that he witnessed in DCS on the AIM-120! An AIM-9M for example, has it's minimum (so called stall) speed at some 370km/h according to a realistic lift slope generated on all it's fins + body while being limited to just 7 AoA (or 0.13 radians as it's used by default in the data file). So even at 7 AoA, the AIM-9M, would beat the AIM-120 in terms of minimum speed and/or turning radius, but, ONLY after their motors quit (zero fuel), otherwise, the AIM-120s prove better turning performances compared to the AIM-9M alone. So on with most of other missiles that I took the time and passion to work on, missiles which listen to that data file. Some missiles, such as the AIM-54, R-530, R-550 Magic II and other, don't listen to that file so I probably won't use my time trying to correct them.

Using the drag coefficients that I was able to determine (part CFD (but very little), part equations) for the missiles that I've modified, their maximum range is much greater (at least double) as they decelerate a lot more realistic. Basically, the lift and drag as a function of AoA that I was able to determine were adjusted to the DCS missiles using the few available coefficients of the missiles model. The drag is substantially more realistic as the missile's AoA gets higher. With the original numbers, you couldn't even tell much difference in deceleration between a straight flying or hard turning missile.

From all the available missiles for players, only the AIM-7, AIM-54 and AIM-120 use loft navigation logics, while all of the Russian missiles are too dump to use loft? To make it fair for all the players, I would either turn loft logics on for all the player (at least, if not for the AI as well) launched missiles or simply have that option turned off! The lofting navigation can double or even triple a missile's traveled range, so it's kind of greatly unfair for a R-27ER (which also goes quick for chaff) using player to see that he has to already evade an incoming head on AIM-120C before he even launches his R-27, giving the fact that both aircraft close in on each other at the same altitude and speed.

Now, the IR missiles immunity to flares seems quite exaggerated. It's known that lately an F-18 has fired an AIM-9X at a Syrian Su-22, and with a few pops of flares, the AIM-9X went for them like honey. The pilot then used an AIM-120 to shoot it down. By a lot of trial and error tests for similar scenarios, I consider to have come up with more appropriate flare resistance coefficients for most IR missiles!

I would also increase the amount of seconds before the missile's electronics die, effect which simply makes your missile start pitching up and falling, no matter the actual speed (it can be 9999), as if the aerodynamic lift disappears (strange behavior). I'd also increase the time before the missile self-destructs. Now I don't know the actual real numbers, but I find it odd that an AIM-120's internal battery dies in just 100 seconds after launch and it's still far from it's head on target before reaching it from a realistic distance! It doesn't make sense that so many missiles have so little self-destruct time (and not minimum altitude) or so little battery life time, so I've personally increased those numbers to about double.

This is the file that I've modified with the purpose of discussing and concluding right from wrong, only with the purpose of increasing their performances realism and give everyone a better view of how actually a real missile performs:

missiles_data.lua

I'm pretty sure that I'll probably deal with a lot of rough/tough response, but I'm looking forward to see both some true aerodynamicists opinions about how they fly with this modification as well as how the players (which can have more or less knowledge) find it!

All the best for DCS!

It was irony, yeah.

Irony or not, he's ironically right, and not because an MIG-29A dies easier from an F-18 in real life in close combat, but because the DCS F-18's engines are a bit overrated at both MIL and full AB power (same goes for the M-2000) which gives the F-18 an undeserved turn rate! Cheers!

Idk, I simply do not agree that the AIM-120A/B (especially C) is able to have almost the turn radius of an AIM-9X. [/Quote]

 

Ok you don't even need 9x turn performance. Even then go in game right now and take a look at the massive difference between the two. The 120b/c are likely at a minimum just as maneuverable (to maybe a bit less depending on the max G of the missile frame) as the 9M.

 

With an starting wing loading of about 1300kg/m^2 (about 3-4 times greater than that of agile fighters), the required total lift coefficient (missile's aerodynamic lift + engine thrust at 29AoA) must be incredibly high in order to get the low enough required turn radius and required time in order to turn within those small room interception parameters.

[/Quote]

And what if you take the missiles body into account? The wings aren't the only surface providing lift. + are you taking the missiles as pulling (for lack of better terms) in a + configuration with the lift vector pointing straight up or an X configuration with the same vertical lift vector? The difference between the two can be very large.

 

That is simply impossible for the Aim-120,

[/Quote]

Welp we have video proof that it isn't

 

unless there's something wrong about how we interpret the launching conditions,

[/Quote]

I mean the burden of proof is on you here.

 

Does that make sense to you? Doesn't that make you wonder if something might be wrong?

[/Quote]

Depending on the missile yes, and nope.

 

I personally consider that we misinterpret the very little data from that footage and create monstrous errors by trying to model our DCS AIM-120 from just that!

[/Quote]

Welp once again burden of proof on you that something is wrong with the video.

 

 

Sorry, but without some detailed analysis of the missiles aerodynamic lift and drag, that's pretty unprofessional to just model a missile that you don't even see by what you try to imagine that would've happened and simply force some results just to make it credible. The video is not a fake as some are trying to bully me with or to make it look as I've said something like that.

[/Quote]

What exactly the video is pretty clear cut.

 

I repeat again and again, that we're missing something from the whole truth and try to model a missile using absurd assumptions! It's a fact that a known half truth can lead to an opposite conclusion than the real one if we try to fill the other half only with our imagination!

[/Quote]

?

 

Copy! I didn't know about this as I'm not standing all day on the forum to know everything. The WIP of the HUD data symbology is not a of big concern as long as the error isn't unacceptably great.

[/Quote]

But it could be very wrong so using the hud in DCS is not a direct comparison. And considering how big of a difference even just a very basic lofting code made I would lean towards more than less off.

 

You might wanna recalculate the Mig's Mach at 30000ft for that closure rate, knowing that the F-16 was at around 25500ft (climbing) at around 380 KCAS. I was wrong also to initially consider it was at Mach 1.4, but it wasn't as low as 0.85 either, because the F-16 wasn't supersonic at the time he launched the AIM-120, as just seconds after the "splash" call he was descending at around 280 KCAS.

[/Quote]

 

Well we know from the radar the MIG-25's KCAS was 520-530kts. Which puts him at ~760kts TAS at 30,000ft for stp and if its hotter lets go 25C then its ~775 TAS or ~1.29-1.32M for the bandit which should put our F16 at around 440kts TAS too 425kts TAS or ~.7M-.734. (So I was wrong admittedly I didn't do a great conversion on my part until now)

 

 

 

Well, if it makes sense to you then...!

[/Quote]

Yup

 

Yes! Before this change, the maximum AIM-120's lift was far more realistic!

[/Quote]

hahaha before the recent changes it missed by even more.

 

Indeed, equipped with the AIM-120's fins (at their actual size) and AIM-120's nose cone, the AIM-9M will surely generate greater overall lift force

[/Quote]

They stuck a 120 nose and very small fins on a 9M and it turned better so...

 

 

compared to it's original fins, but ONLY at an AoA as high as 29 or 30 which the AIM-120 can reach before stall, but otherwise if you limit the AIM-9's AoA to the originally low value, you'll get surprised to see that it has even worse lift now! So yes, the AIM-120's much higher AoA allows it to get a lower radius turn through the greater lift forces (AIM-120 airframe lift + thrust * sin(AoA)) even though it has more than 5 times greater wing loading compared to the AIM-9M. After the motor quits though, the AIM-9M still has a lower minimum speed (and as such, lower turning radius) than any AIM-120 simply due to the greatly lower wing loading! All of these matter! From what I've determined from my personal analysis though, if you'd put the AIM-120B fins (the best of AIM-120) and cone even on the AIM-9X, you won't see much difference in the resulted lift! This happens because even though the original 9X's fins are giving a slightly worse lift slope compared to the fins + cone of the 120B, the greater AoA it can get before the stall occurs, gives the 9X a maximum CL * the corresponding reference area with a result that leads to about the same lift! But still..., the AIM-120A/B/C are very heavy for the reference area they have (wetted or conventionally projected), thus the AIM-120 will still turn much worse even than the AIM-9X. In fact, the AIM-120 is probably the worst when it comes to turning capability (with engine running or not) among most modern BVR missiles. It's not meant for dogfight turning capabilities, but for higher speed and ranges.

[/Quote]

 

Well lets keep in mind the 9X has thrust vectoring so I'm not sure if the amount of lift the missile produces really matter in comparision to the performance the thrust vectoring gives it. Also who said that it had no short range capabilities? Were you on the design/specification team?

 

What footage you've got of the actual missile's maneuvers? Again, you're only counting on imagination for what actually happened! If you want good footage with how missiles can actually turn, here's one good evidence:

 

?????? it isn't even that high off borsight of a shot I don't even get your point here.

 

- 7min 30sec

First of, the flight model of the air to air missiles in DCS (which is basically made up of series of equations that require some input variables) is quite rudimentary so to speak!

[/Quote]

 

Yes it is, it is LOMAC code after all.

 

I only hope the planes are not simulated this way as well,[/Quote]

Lol no their not.

 

although when it comes to transonic regimes, our planes in DCS also don't simulate any kind of lift reduction and drag increase, but I'll just completely ignore that...,

[/Quote]

Wait wut? Do you have proof of this?

 

although speaking of witch ("Nighthawk" also mentioned it as an example), the BMS Falcon does simulate a bit of aero coefs fluctuations as the planes accelerate/decelerate through transonic Mach regions. Not a great enough variation in there either from my opinion,

[/Quote]

Hold on Mav has been working on the 16's FM for years from overwhelmingly extensive NASA data on the aerodynamics of the jet. What you said here is nothing but pure speculation.

 

but at least there is something, other than nothing! Now, about the DCS missiles model alone, the transonic region coefs are either non-existent for being taken into the sim's built in equations or simply the equations don't respond to what it's being inputted for those particular coefficients.

[/Quote]

They do for sure, having been working on my missile mod for well over a year now changing this value can dramatically impact the performance of a missile.

 

That k1 Cx0 coef simply adds up to both the subsonic and supersonic drag coeffs. It just adds it up as a constant. If you put zero to both the k0 and k3 coefs, you'll have a flat line (zero derivative) kind of Cx0 versus Mach function.

[/Quote]

Thankfully Chizh posted what the curve that DCS generates looks like:

 

Surprisingly enough for those who believe that the AIM-120 can reach some alien lift, cause this is what we've mostly talked about here, the AIM-120B should start falling at ISA sea level at some 420km/h, while the AIM-120C would normally start falling at some 460km/h. Wow...! Well, translated to the difference in maximum lift or lift coefficient for the same AoA, the inputted lift slope was indeed almost 3 times greater than it should normally be. 3 times...! So "stefasaky" (I personally don't know him, but I'm glad he's also within the aerodynamics domain) was right when he talked about the insane G-loads that he witnessed in DCS on the AIM-120! An AIM-9M for example, has it's minimum (so called stall) speed at some 370km/h according to a realistic lift slope generated on all it's fins + body while being limited to just 7 AoA (or 0.13 radians as it's used by default in the data file). So even at 7 AoA, the AIM-9M, would beat the AIM-120 in terms of minimum speed and/or turning radius, but, ONLY after their motors quit (zero fuel), otherwise, the AIM-120s prove better turning performances compared to the AIM-9M alone. So on with most of other missiles that I took the time and passion to work on, missiles which listen to that data file. Some missiles, such as the AIM-54, R-530, R-550 Magic II and other, don't listen to that file so I probably won't use my time trying to correct them.[/Quote]

 

Really? Well this chart is from a wind tunnel test of an AIM-7:

- if I understand the paper right ofc i'll need to double check this is what i'm saying it is.

 

 

From all the available missiles for players, only the AIM-7, AIM-54 and AIM-120 use loft navigation logics, while all of the Russian missiles are too dump to use loft?

[/Quote]

Yes none of the Russian missiles in game of lofting logic.

 

To make it fair for all the players, I would either turn loft logics on for all the player (at least, if not for the AI as well) launched missiles or simply have that option turned off! The lofting navigation can double or even triple a missile's traveled range, so it's kind of greatly unfair for a R-27ER (which also goes quick for chaff) using player to see that he has to already evade an incoming head on AIM-120C before he even launches his R-27, giving the fact that both aircraft close in on each other at the same altitude and speed.

[/Quote]

 

I mean though its realistic and gives missiles such as the 120 a massive advantage same with the 54.

 

Now, the IR missiles immunity to flares seems quite exaggerated. It's known that lately an F-18 has fired an AIM-9X at a Syrian Su-22, and with a few pops of flares, the AIM-9X went for them like honey

[/Quote]

 

The su22 never dropped flares that was a myth that spread right after the shootdown that was not true. There is a document out there that it all probability shouldn't be on the internet that investigated the 9X's flare rejection. And they found that it was for all intense and purpose totally immune to both pyrotechnic and pyrophoric flares. I'd be glad to PM you the details of the paper if your interested. Finally, its been pretty much confirmed that the cause of the missile missing is linked to some kind of human error. Whether that is a control system failure (this is my theory) or maybe the pilot just forgot to uncage the seeker.

 

I would also increase the amount of seconds before the missile's electronics die, effect which simply makes your missile start pitching up and falling, no matter the actual speed (it can be 9999), as if the aerodynamic lift disappears (strange behavior). I'd also increase the time before the missile self-destructs. Now I don't know the actual real numbers, but I find it odd that an AIM-120's internal battery dies in just 100 seconds after launch and it's still far from it's head on target before reaching it from a realistic distance! It doesn't make sense that so many missiles have so little self-destruct time (and not minimum altitude) or so little battery life time, so I've personally increased those numbers to about double.

[/Quote]

These are just assumptions most of the battery lifes in the files are 100% accurate to the actual missiles to the best available data. And the 200sec battery you set for the 120 is quite ridiculous considering the phoenix has only 160sec battery.

 

 

 

Irony or not, he's ironically right, and not because an MIG-29A dies easier from an F-18 in real life in close combat, but because the DCS F-18's engines are a bit overrated at both MIL and full AB power (same goes for the M-2000) which gives the F-18 an undeserved turn rate! Cheers!

 

Wait as far as I could tell they should be right do you have proof of this?

Yes none of the Russian missiles in game of lofting logic.

Nope, not true, there is one, but of course we can't use it. R-33

Ahh forgot about that one didn't even register on my radar.

Ok you don't even need 9x turn performance. Even then go in game right now and take a look at the massive difference between the two. The 120b/c are likely at a minimum just as maneuverable (to maybe a bit less depending on the max G of the missile frame) as the 9M.

As a matter of fact Tacview shows that the AIM-120B with a Cy_k0 (lift slope) of 1.5 is basically turning slightly better than the AIM-9X which has 0.9, completely proving that "Stefasaki" and I were right all along when we've mentioned that the AIM-120 has greatly exaggerated lift! So you might start wondering why on Earth would have they ever needed to build the 9X when you already have the AIM-120B which turns at least as good as the 9X? This is very ridiculous and from what I get, you still don't want to accept it! I know..., it's the pride/image, but for me, what's more important is the truth! We must also take into account the fact that the 9X should find the Cy_k0 value set to approximately 0.59 in order to match the real missile's turning performances, not at all as high as 0.9 as it is set by default! Thus, if the 9X would have it's lift slope set realistically to a Cy_k0 of ~0.6, the current AIM-120B would out turn it by far, further proving how unrealistically well it turns! How much of a proof do you guys still need to understand that the AIM-120's new lift has nothing to do with reality..., in fact it's some more than 2.5x greater than real!

Here's the comparison using the default aero data using both the track file as well as Tacview:

[ATTACH]239599[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]239598[/ATTACH]

And for the second phrase you mean about an 9M that is set to 2.5 as "Cy_k0", when a more realistic value of 1.875 should be used for it? Coupled with a maximum attainable AoA of the 9M, which if it's only of 0.13 rads (7.5 degrees AoA) as set by default, it makes sense (as I've already posted earlier) that an AIM-120B and C can out turn an AIM-9M during engine burn if all of the data within the equation is carefully put together, but as their engine dies out, the high 29-30 AoA of the AIM-120C still turns somewhat worse than a 7.5 AoA AIM-9 due to the much higher weight to surface area ratio (whatever reference comparison) of the AIM-120B/C vs that of the 9M. The 9M still finds it's 1G minimum speed below that of an AIM-120, so the 120 is still a less maneuverable missile than an 9M for no motor thrust conditions.

And what if you take the missiles body into account? The wings aren't the only surface providing lift. + are you taking the missiles as pulling (for lack of better terms) in a + configuration with the lift vector pointing straight up or an X configuration with the same vertical lift vector? The difference between the two can be very large.

Haven't I detailed about this already? Overall, it's the fins that provide most of the lift at any AoA before the flow separates. Yes, again, the main factor contributing to having the airflow still attached is the vortex system that "washes" (my term) most of the missile's body and whatever it finds in it's path, including the fins, but it's the fins that make this effect valuable, until, of course the vortexes start breaking into themselves above some point (AoA).

Don't you think that the rest of the missiles which don't have the ogive cone shape don't have the vortex system on them as well? Cause you're saying as if that cone alone provides most of the lifting properties for the missile! Wrong, and I don't get it where do you get that idea from! The cone does increase the vortexes diameter and intensity, but not as great as you would otherwise imagine from what the over-exaggerated maximum lift of the new AIM-120B/C leads you to believe! Even the fuselage of any airplane, including an airliner if you will, generate/start a long streak of vortexes as the airflow lines travel from the high to low pressure areas, but depending on the shape of the nose and any other vortex generator elements (such as the MIG-29's nose spike design or the F-16's generators on the radar's radome), their intensity will grow a bit, but can never be as great as those generated by a LERX for example which can be many times more intense.

It's simple mathematics that through the usual lift equation prove that your new AIM-120C (for example) has it's maximum lift coefficient above 2.2, for a reference area of 0.123m^2 (conventional area taken similar to that of a plane). Wow! Well that's the maximum CL of an F-16 at 35 AoA at Mach 0.3 (usually the best lift Mach for fighters) for it's conventional area of 27.87m^2! So, how can this be?

Welp we have video proof that it isn't

A proof it would be when you can actually see more data that can confirm the little data that we have from the footage! I'm pretty sure that the angles or distances were different than what we try to wrongly predict through the little video data, which leads us to try injecting some monstrous lift into the AIM-120B and C in order to validate something that we can't simply cannot see using only that little data that we have in the footage. Ok, we have that T that you talked about which tells the moment of launch, but I don't see a real range from which that missile was actually fired, except for the target's range relative to the artificial horizon bars on the radar display and some timings that we can calculate based on the audio range calls which may be quite different for the time they were given.

The reason why I believe that the F-16 has either shot at that MIG-25 from some much lower angle displacement (not 15 degrees up from the plane's nose at 2.5nm, closing that fast) or indeed from that angle displacement (so the radar antenna indication wasn't faulty) but from a higher distance, is because the missile has to turn like wild in that very small room and this leads me to understand that we misinterpret the footage data which we call "proof" and that an AIM-120C has a lifting capability greater than that of an F-16! This continues to be nonsense, sorry!

For me, using that footage with so little data to model missiles lifting performances, more by imagination doesn't look professional!

I mean the burden of proof is on you here.

Again, you don't have a proof of how the missile actually turned, using just that little video footage data and we have both tested that even with this crazy and very exaggerated AIM-120B lift, it still misses by flying behind the arget if we try to launch it from even 2.5nm (more room than from 2nm as you initially said) and from +13 deg radar antenna up (less than +15)..., so again, something is wrong in how we interpret that footage, taking us back to the beginning! No non-thrust vectoring missile, especially a BVR optimized one can ever turn like the new AIM-120 does. Do you want to actually make it happen that the AIM-120B will hit the target from those exact conditions of altitudes difference, angular difference, range at the moment of launch, speed of the target and that of the launcher? Try to add some 50% more lift slope than that crazy 1.5 which is already written in the file and you'll obtain the absurd at even greater levels! It's simply ridiculous, not real! Why have we shut our common sense, logics and good knowledge for the sake of stretching something absurd from that incomplete data which only drags us into blind beliefs?

Depending on the missile yes, and nope.

What missile? The very high wing loading AIM-120B/C which now turns almost as good as a much lesser wing loading and T/V AIM-9X??? Is that a real performances comparison? There's also Tacview that proves it, not just my calculation based on what is inputted in that file or how the missiles behave after these absurd modifications. After the analysis that I've done I concluded that the AIM-9X is also having some 50% higher lift slope than it should and the AIM-9M also has some 33% greater maximum lift, but the AIM-120B/C is the master of all, having almost 3 times greater lift slope compared to what a real one should have.

Welp once again burden of proof on you that something is wrong with the video.

Again..., not with the video, lol! How many times must I repeat? But I'll do it every time if needed if I say one thing and someone replies that I've been saying another. This isn't honest! There is something wrong with our interpretation of that video and according to the replies, it seems that there's also something wrong with our interpretation in general!

What exactly the video is pretty clear cut.

Agree! With some very limited numbers and symbols that we try to use and say that the puzzle is complete, when in fact the bigger pieces of it are still missing!

?

Well..., like I've said and keep on saying!

Well we know from the radar the MIG-25's KCAS was 520-530kts. Which puts him at ~760kts TAS at 30,000ft for stp and if its hotter lets go 25C then its ~775 TAS or ~1.29-1.32M for the bandit which should put our F16 at around 440kts TAS too 425kts TAS or ~.7M-.734. (So I was wrong admittedly I didn't do a great conversion on my part until now)

There you go!

hahaha before the recent changes it missed by even more.

Again, common sense and reality should not confirm something absurd that we consider true based on the very limited data for which we fill in some of our imagination data (absurd inputted lift values) just to make it work! That's not professional analysis!

They stuck a 120 nose and very small fins on a 9M and it turned better so...

You must take everything into consideration if you want the truth out of it, not just one part and leave the rest away, as your interpretation and result can lead you directly in the wrong direction. Very good picture of tested AIM-9M with an AIM-120 nose cone and very good that you showed it. So the very small fins that you talk about are only the aft fins, but the canards are identical. Indeed the no fuel CG is a bit forward on the modified model, but compared to the great reduction in lift of the aft fins + the nose cone's more intense vortexes, the center of lift has now moved much greater forward than the CG. This ultimately leads to greater achievable/sustainable AoA alone which squeezes more lift down the lift to AoA slope. If the initial AIM-9M barely reaches some 7.5..8 AoA (if that's real according to the missiles_data.lua file), this one could go past beyond 20 (my guess for now, no analysis). So, this non-TV missile will indeed get a somewhat greater lift through the higher vortexes intensity (greater lift slope alone, besides greater AoA) and through the greatly higher achievable AoA even if the overall aft fins area is reduced (hence the accountable greater wing loading), the missile will turn somewhat better. This makes a lot of sense and by using just this example you can understand that the AIM-120 gets most of it's aerodynamic lift (excepting the lift through thrust) from the great AoA that it can sustain through the help of the cone's vortexes, helping the fins offer more lift before the flow actually starts separating. As I repeat, usually the leading edge vortexes generated (by anything that generates them, LERX, high sweep sharp delta wings, small vortex generators, etc.) behave such as to progressively increase the lift to AoA slope (the CL function having some higher than 1 exponent of AoA), but it's not something incredibly great even for the best cases (LERX) and as such are less progressive for the nose cone example. Most of these nose cones benefits are for greatly increasing the stall AoA, besides a relatively low increase in the overall lift vs AoA slope (if linearized, cause it's otherwise a positive curve on various AoA ranges).

Well lets keep in mind the 9X has thrust vectoring so I'm not sure if the amount of lift the missile produces really matter in comparision to the performance the thrust vectoring gives it. Also who said that it had no short range capabilities? Were you on the design/specification team?

Yes, let's keep in mind that the much greater thrust to weight, much lower wing loading and much greater maximum AoA AIM-9X shapes about the tightest turn (smallest radius) among modern air to air missiles and that the newly modified AIM-120B/C from the latest updates which has more than 2 times greater wing loading and some 5 degrees lower AoA during burn time, turns almost as good as the AIM-9X! Doesn't this make you wonder which one doesn't turn right, the 120 or the 9X? As I repeat, they both turn better than they should, but the AIM-120 a whole lot greater than it should.

Now, we've mostly debated on lift in the latest posts, but what about the drag? All of the default missiles have the drag due to lift (or due to AoA) coef very very low. It was as hilarious as I've never imagined to see an AIM-120 do a 270 turn on me before it actually started falling (when it reached some 285km/h at very low altitudes)!

As I've meticulously calculated and re-calculated the drag to AoA of most of the missiles that I've modified and shared with you to test them, they now lose speed more accordingly. I still get the feeling that they still decelerate a bit faster than they should (the Cx0 still being slightly higher than it should) at very low AoA (such as flying straight) and still quite slower than they should close to critical AoA, but due to not wanting to make it look like I'm exaggerating (although I'm not), I've left them like this..., with a slightly greater low AoA drag and not great enough high AoA drag!

?????? it isn't even that high off borsight of a shot I don't even get your point here.

I agree that it would be more plausible if the missile has to turn at it's limited or critical AoA to turn towards interception from a higher offset angle rather then from lower offset angles or if the target is just ahead and changing it's course while the missile is only constantly keeping it's interception course (case which you probably consider from that footage). Yeah, this wasn't the most useful missile's maximum turning performance from the maximum lift coef. point of view, but rather from the maximum G-load pov.

Thank you for this interesting video! Apart from 7:30 when we can nicely see how that AIM-54 was turning at it's G-limit above Mach 4 at probably above 15000ft, I've watched the rest of the video. The fact that we see these missiles turn at very high speed we can mostly depict their G-limit or actual G which takes place at a lower than critical or sustainable (depends on it's flight mechanics) AoA, so we're unable to determine their maximum possible CL. A better reference can be when the missile is initially fired at low speed and it has to turn for a while to correct it's interception course which forces it to fly at critical or limit AoA for a while and from there we can better see how good it's maximum CL can be.

 

As we're replying with videos, here's another clue:

 

I find myself lucky to have found this example in which a launched R-73 turns wildly up and down (over-corrections) at critical or limit AoA until it finds it's target. This helps compare our DCS missile's maximum turning rate capability at similar launching speeds and altitude for a high-offset angle and compare the turning radius..., cause in the end it's the equations which show that the turning radius is a function of lift coefficient in the end if all other variables remain constant.

 

And here's another with the AIM-9X itself (many more are out there, not just this one):

 

I have managed to model our in-game lift and drag vs AoA for the R-60, R-73, AIM-9M/9X and most of other A-A missiles with a respectful level of accuracy -I dare to say- giving the results I've obtained compared to these life tests. The only missiles that I couldn't correct are the AIM-54s which still have too much low AoA drag and too little high AoA drag as well as a bit higher than real lift (but closer to realistic by default compared to other missiles though), as well as the M-2000's missiles which don't listen to that file.

Yes it is, it is LOMAC code after all.

And? Can't it be "upgraded" so to speak? As you've talked about Falcon BMS, well, we both know that it uses tables (the calculations were done elsewhere, not in-game) which are being read during the simulation and if the right numbers are already in there, it can provide a simulation as realistic as you can ever get. XP11 (as an example) uses a combination of initial values tables and does further determinations during simulation. DCS's model does determinations (similar to XP I suppose) but with fewer functions that cannot cover all the needed effects. I personally consider the data table model (but filled with correct numbers) that BMS uses as among the best modelling techniques.

Lol no their not.

Copy that! But still, I'll wait to see the day when passing through the transonic region, the shock stalls in and out and the Mach drag rise in and out effects would also be included. BMS already did it.

Wait wut? Do you have proof of this?

Proof? I wasn't expecting that from you! Haven't you ever heard of these effects? The last sentence of the previous paragraph is a hint (BMS)!

Hold on Mav has been working on the 16's FM for years from overwhelmingly extensive NASA data on the aerodynamics of the jet. What you said here is nothing but pure speculation.

Same answer as for the earlier paragraph! If you never heard of shock stall effects, then at least you should've heard of Mach drag rise! They haven't inputted that data from out of their "back" and please stop being dishonorable and do some more learning then!

They do for sure, having been working on my missile mod for well over a year now changing this value can dramatically impact the performance of a missile.

They do for sure...? Show me how you'll make "your" aim-120 vary it's drag in the transonic region. I'll be pleased to see that you can do it without altering the actual model from the "missiles_data.lua" file.

Thankfully Chizh posted what the curve that DCS generates looks like:

Very nice graph. There you go! So it seems we can do it if we truly want to...! But again, relating to the earlier paragraph, show me that you can do it with your aim-120 or any other missile using just the file that we talk about.

Really? Well this chart is from a wind tunnel test of an AIM-7:

- if I understand the paper right ofc i'll need to double check this is what i'm saying it is.

A very valuable chart indeed. The lift curves are very credible as they include all of the effects that we've talked about and for different Mach numbers. If they would've shared the reference area for those lift coefs, much of our general puzzle would also prove what direction we're going into!

Yes none of the Russian missiles in game of lofting logic.

I copy, but are the Russian missiles navigation logics that dumb or they're not yet implemented in DCS? After all, as I say again it's unfair that the AIM-120, AIM-7 and 54 benefit from the loft which can almost triple their maximum flight range compared to a non-lofting condition.

I mean though its realistic and gives missiles such as the 120 a massive advantage same with the 54.

Exactly! In that condition, we should no longer be playing BVR Su-27 with it's damn dumb R-27ER vs F-15/16/18 with AIM-120C if we fight against a similarly skilled player. Most PVP should start turning into western vs western jets or eastern vs eastern, otherwise, the unfairness gets even higher than it is already! You'll probably say: "Well, you now have the JF-17 with PL12". Indeed! So this will probably turn more like into a pay to win credit instead of having things realistic and fair at the same time.

The su22 never dropped flares that was a myth that spread right after the shootdown that was not true. There is a document out there that it all probability shouldn't be on the internet that investigated the 9X's flare rejection. And they found that it was for all intense and purpose totally immune to both pyrotechnic and pyrophoric flares. I'd be glad to PM you the details of the paper if your interested. Finally, its been pretty much confirmed that the cause of the missile missing is linked to some kind of human error. Whether that is a control system failure (this is my theory) or maybe the pilot just forgot to uncage the seeker.

Oh, I see then! I didn't waste much time to see the whole truth, maybe it's not for us to know anyway, but I'll take your word on it that the AIM-9X is very flare resistant in the real world.

These are just assumptions most of the battery lifes in the files are 100% accurate to the actual missiles to the best available data. And the 200sec battery you set for the 120 is quite ridiculous considering the phoenix has only 160sec battery.

Ok, if you say that the electronics of each missile starves of electrical power after a given number of seconds with a 100% accuracy (not a second more or less than written in there), then the maximum ranges of the missiles are mostly based on just that rather than maximum flight range due to the aerodynamic performances. So basically you can say that the longer range of a missile variant is achieved by having it's brain still powered for longer and less due to aerodynamic improvements. Makes sense, but, really, that little battery life does an A-A missile has?

Wait as far as I could tell they should be right do you have proof of this?

As far as you can tell? From the fact that the DCS F-18 can fly as fast as Mach 1.14 with MIL power? From the fact that the DCS F-18 will outaccelerate everything in the vertical, being just slightly ahead of the M-2000 which also has a crazy engine thrust at both full MIL and full AB?

Even the maximum speed at high alt is much higher than what the real F-18 pilots can confirm. What are we talking?

Who modeled the DCS F-18's FM simply got too much drag on it at every AoA. So my guess is that in order to compensate for the very high drag that he obtained (CFD + whatever other methods), he has tweaked and increased the F-18's engines thrust so to make it reach some credible speeds, but simply created a monster in terms of turn rate, subsonic speeds acceleration and as such vertical climb speeds. The F-18's T/W ratio is much higher than real. You can verify that for yourself, you don't need me for that! Same goes for the M-2000. In fact, the M-2000, if you'll be able to have it fall on it's belly close to 80-90 AoA (I can do this every time), you'll see that it's CAS (outside view IAS if you will) is incredibly low, which leads to the conclusion that the drag function simulated for the M-2000 shows a very high drag at higher AoA. Usually, most modern fighters fall close to 70-90 AoA towards the earth at some 120-140KCAS. Indeed the wing loading plays a good role, but how much of a difference will there be? Our M-2000 falls in that condition as slow as 60KCAS or 110km/h. What a hell? Even a skydiver would fall by it with 80km/h more=))).

On 5/27/2020 at 4:30 AM, nighthawk2174 said:

?????? it isn't even that high off borsight of a shot I don't even get your point here.

Well, does it matter? As long as it goes for that flare (that was actually the practice target) and there were no turning radius changes as the missile accelerated (thus it was flying at it's max AoA) which is clearly visible by the smooth and constant radius plume trail. The missile was turning as good as it could until meeting the interception course. It seems to me that these discussions go nowhere near being productive as I've already done about everything I could to make you understand that whoever modeled the new AIM-120 in DCS, is simply out of his mind (sorry to say this, but this is the truth) to let it have so little drag increase with AoA as well as such a tremendous lift slope.

On 6/13/2020 at 1:06 AM, 85th_Maverick said:

I copy, but are the Russian missiles navigation logics that dumb or they're not yet implemented in DCS? After all, as I say again it's unfair that the AIM-120, AIM-7 and 54 benefit from the loft which can almost triple their maximum flight range compared to a non-lofting condition.

It was said that the R-77 will be receiving a lofted trajectory when it receives the rework.

If they decide to finally fix the radar ranges for the MiG-29, especially the MiG-29S, then Redfor will have a somewhat capable aircraft (compared to the junk that the MiG-29 + R-77 is right now).

R-27ER should also have increased range after the CFD is done, as well as wasting a little less energy (variable PN until it is 25 km from the target).

But until then playing on the red side is just pure suffering.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

They do for sure...? Show me how you'll make "your" aim-120 vary it's drag in the transonic region. I'll be pleased to see that you can do it without altering the actual model from the "missiles_data.lua" file.

Check the missiles_table.lua, very bottom.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

I copy, but are the Russian missiles navigation logics that dumb or they're not yet implemented in DCS? After all, as I say again it's unfair that the AIM-120, AIM-7 and 54 benefit from the loft which can almost triple their maximum flight range compared to a non-lofting condition.

From all indications, from chizh and others, the russian missiles AP is just incredible antiquated.  I'm not even sure if they use much more than raw PN for ranges under 25km (variable above that).  Which, while not awful, is far from the most efficient guidance.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Exactly! In that condition, we should no longer be playing BVR Su-27 with it's damn dumb R-27ER vs F-15/16/18 with AIM-120C if we fight against a similarly skilled player. Most PVP should start turning into western vs western jets or eastern vs eastern, otherwise, the unfairness gets even higher than it is already! You'll probably say: "Well, you now have the JF-17 with PL12". Indeed! So this will probably turn more like into a pay to win credit instead of having things realistic and fair at the same time.

Realistic and fair often don't occur at the same time in hyper realistic games.  Especially in the subject of modern BVR missiles.  The ER is just not as good of a missile as the 120C or 54.  

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Oh, I see then! I didn't waste much time to see the whole truth, maybe it's not for us to know anyway, but I'll take your word on it that the AIM-9X is very flare resistant in the real world.

It is beyond doubt that imaging seekers are essentially immune to pyrotechnic flares.  There are just too many ways to accurately and reliable filter out this decoy type with FPA's seen on the 9x/irst/python5.  

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

 then the maximum ranges of the missiles are mostly based on just that rather than maximum flight range due to the aerodynamic performances. So basically you can say that the longer range of a missile variant is achieved by having it's brain still powered for longer and less due to aerodynamic improvements. Makes sense, but, really, that little battery life does an A-A missile has?

Yes, at high alt (35k +) in particular.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

As far as you can tell? From the fact that the DCS F-18 can fly as fast as Mach 1.14 with MIL power? From the fact that the DCS F-18 will outaccelerate everything in the vertical, being just slightly ahead of the M-2000 which also has a crazy engine thrust at both full MIL and full AB?

No, unless i'm just a complete fool the mig29/F14B (wings swept)/F15 will outclimb the hornet without much issue.

On 6/12/2020 at 5:06 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Even the maximum speed at high alt is much higher than what the real F-18 pilots can confirm. What are we talking?

The accel and level speed performance charts exist, feel free to compare:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xly60w457wkrvqf/61908290-A1-F18AC-NFM-200.pdf?dl=0

the pages of concern start on pg304 of the pdf.  And if it is in fact off, which I just don't see it being too far off, then i'd be right there with you calling for fixes.

10.12.2020 в 06:15, nighthawk2174 сказал:

 

It is beyond doubt that imaging seekers are essentially immune to pyrotechnic flares. 

Really? Can you proove it?

10 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Really? Can you proove it?

There are studies that are not classified relating to it, you can do your own search for it - the gist of it is using an IR FPA for image processing vs a single detector in any configuration has incredible advantages for IRECCM vs flares.   Yes, you could decoy these seekers with the types of flares that we have in-game now under very narrow (ie. not likely to ever happen) circumstances once the seeker is locked on.

Using the flares pre-emptively (before the seeker is locked on) should be the most (pretty much almost only) successful means of decoying these or any other IR seekers - the idea being that they lock onto the wrong target to begin with.   This is why the procedure is to check where the seeker is looking and to shoot when there are no flares in the FoV for pretty much every IR missile out there.

What Tharos said just the basic way the FPA seeker works basically makes them essentially immune (except in very specific circumstances, wrong target before launch or complete loss of los).  They can reject flares based on their size and energy distribution/spectrum. Pyrotechnic flares, the ones we have now, are pinpricks of intense IR energy compared to an aircraft.  And as such can be filtered out just based on that fact.  I'm sure you could also filter by position, los rate, or energy rise time to supplement the filtering done by shape/energy.

11 часов назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

There are studies that are not classified relating to it, you can do your own search for it - the gist of it is using an IR FPA for image processing vs a single detector in any configuration has incredible advantages for IRECCM vs flares.   Yes, you could decoy these seekers with the types of flares that we have in-game now under very narrow (ie. not likely to ever happen) circumstances once the seeker is locked on.

 

Using the flares pre-emptively (before the seeker is locked on) should be the most (pretty much almost only) successful means of decoying these or any other IR seekers - the idea being that they lock onto the wrong target to begin with.   This is why the procedure is to check where the seeker is looking and to shoot when there are no flares in the FoV for pretty much every IR missile out there.

 

I think you're overestimating imaging IR seeker capabilities. Its seeker resolution prevents it from distinguishing a flare from a plane from distances greater than a few kilometers. Of course it will be more than capable of doing that in "after the merge" situations, but even than it can be fooled by flares. Like in case of Su-22 in Syria. Funnily enough, US pilot dicided to use Aim-120 for the second launch instead of launching a second 9X.

 

13 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

 

I think you're overestimating imaging IR seeker capabilities. Its seeker resolution prevents it from distinguishing a flare from a plane from distances greater than a few kilometers.

More like 10+km, and for the IRST (and probably 9x) even more so considering it has 4x the resolution of the theoretical sensor used in the graph I posted, even then filtering by size is not the only mechanism though there is still the flares IR spectrum which can be used to filter it out.  Plus the other possible filtering mechanisms I mentioned as well. 

Quote

Of course it will be more than capable of doing that in "after the merge" situations, but even than it can be fooled by flares. Like in case of Su-22 in Syria. Funnily enough, US pilot dicided to use Aim-120 for the second launch instead of launching a second 9X.

 

The 9x over syria was not decoyed by flares there are multiple pilots who have said as much.  

17 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

I think you're overestimating imaging IR seeker capabilities. Its seeker resolution prevents it from distinguishing a flare from a plane from distances greater than a few kilometers. Of course it will be more than capable of doing that in "after the merge" situations, but even than it can be fooled by flares. Like in case of Su-22 in Syria. Funnily enough, US pilot dicided to use Aim-120 for the second launch instead of launching a second 9X.

You're severely under-estimating them.  The average shot will be inside 5km, and it'll distinguish the aircraft just fine.  Kinetic + blob processing will keep tracking gate on target.  These missiles use a telescope (and so do earlier missiles), and the blob at those distances would likely cover well over 4-5 pixels, as well as look different from a flare blob, which will either remain a point or become elongated.   There's a possibility of decoying it with an area flare but there's kinetic processing to defeat this.  A lot of things change when you have a proper image.

As for Syria no flares were employed against the AIM-9X (pilot's testimony and video evidence), it was either shot in Rmin (pilot's own suggestion) or just failed by itself.   And yes, if one type of missile fails, you use another.

Edit:  nighthawk beat me to it.

2 минуты назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

More like 10+km

More like less than 3-5km, huh

2 минуты назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

, and for the IRST (and probably 9x) even more

So, for 9X more than for 9X. Sounds just right. 9X has 128x128 resolution, what do you really expect from such poor numbers?

2 минуты назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

so considering it has 4x the resolution of the theoretical sensor used in the graph I posted, even then filtering by size is not the only mechanism though there is still the flares IR spectrum which can be used to filter it out.  Plus the other possible filtering mechanisms I mentioned as well. 

All modern missiles are capable of filtering flares out. The question is how effective. Thinking that 9X has flare resistance = 99.9% is naive at best.

2 минуты назад, nighthawk2174 сказал:

The 9x over syria was not decoyed by flares there are multiple pilots who have said as much.  

 

Really? Well, seems like they're lying
 

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

The average shot will be inside 5km

Whut? Are you kidding? First missiles would be fired right after the targer reaches WEZ, others would follow shortly after if necessary. Ranges less than 5km are possible, for sure, but mainly when you're low and slow, against such opponents as a harmless Su-22 or if something went wrong and missiles fired earlier missed.

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

, and it'll distinguish the aircraft just fine.  Kinetic + blob processing will keep tracking gate on target. 

Still can be fooled when flares cross the flight path of the aircraft

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

These missiles use a telescope (and so do earlier missiles), and the blob at those distances would likely cover well over 4-5 pixels, as well as look different from a flare blob, which will either remain a point or become elongated.   There's a possibility of decoying it with an area flare but there's kinetic processing to defeat this.  A lot of things change when you have a proper image.

Yeah, but you still need to get close enough to the target. 

4 минуты назад, GGTharos сказал:

 

As for Syria no flares were employed against the AIM-9X (pilot's testimony and video evidence), it was either shot in Rmin (pilot's own suggestion) or just failed by itself.   And yes, if one type of missile fails, you use another.

 

You're more than welcome to watch the video i sent above. No flares at all, eh?
 

Just now, TotenDead said:

More like less than 3-5km, huh

Typical engagement for a sidewinder would be inside 5nm, although really you'd be shooting RF missiles until some 2nm, then switch to sidewinders.

Just now, TotenDead said:

So, for 9X more than for 9X. Sounds just right. 9X has 128x128 resolution, what do you really expect from such poor numbers?

The Javelin has a 64x64 FPA with an effective tracking distance of a minimum of 2km vs a tank, which is a smaller target than a fighter.    The main limitation comes from the CLU having less resolution (apparently) than the missile itself, therefore the effective engagement distance is 2km, but there are talks of making that missile fly further.

While it's no AIM-9X, the point here is that, if like the maverick, it has a minimum blob size requirement to gate a target, your assumption of the target aircraft being the same size as the flares makes no sense at almost any practical engagement range for the 9X.

Just now, TotenDead said:

All modern missiles are capable of filtering flares out. The question is how effective. Thinking that 9X has flare resistance = 99.9% is naive at best.

It isn't naive, it is correct.  You need different IRCCM capabilities to tackle FPA missiles.   The existing flares won't do except as either preemptive measures or you dumb a enough of them to literally screen the target and break the tracking gate.  You don't have to believe me, go and do some research

Just now, TotenDead said:

Really? Well, seems like they're lying
 

 

It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

5 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

More like less than 3-5km, huh

So, for 9X more than for 9X. Sounds just right. 9X has 128x128 resolution, what do you really expect from such poor numbers?

That's only for a few degrees of fov you can do the math yourself.

5 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

All modern missiles are capable of filtering flares out. The question is how effective. Thinking that 9X has flare resistance = 99.9% is naive at best.

No not really its based on how the seeker works

5 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Really? Well, seems like they're lying
 

 

I don't know what you see in the video as I don't see any flares deployed at all you can go listen to the interview with the pilot who shot the 9x the way he puts it is he pulled the trigger the missile just flew off into to space not even guiding.  I'd take his word over something that I don't see in the video.

Just now, GGTharos said:

It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

+1