AIM-9X

By the way? Is the smokeless engine already present in our current version? I have only tested it for 5 minutes the other day but IIRC it had a smokey motor.

Yes I believe so. Just like the AIM9M and AMRAAM, the term "smokeless" is a bit relative. The missile will still leave a faint plume behind, it's just dramatically less visible than that of other missiles (and functionally invisible to all but the closest of targets). I imagine atmospheric conditions may have some effect IRL too.

I imagine atmospheric conditions may have some effect IRL too.

Atmospherics will definitely have a role in this, all combustion produces water whether its a candle, jet engine or rocket motor, so if you fire the missile under the right conditions it will leave some sort of contrail as that water freezes.

Atmospherics will definitely have a role in this, all combustion produces water whether its a candle, jet engine or rocket motor, so if you fire the missile under the right conditions it will leave some sort of contrail as that water freezes.

Indeed. For instance compare the trail from a surface launched AMRAAM

Atmospherics will definitely have a role in this, all combustion produces water whether its a candle, jet engine or rocket motor, so if you fire the missile under the right conditions it will leave some sort of contrail as that water freezes.

Technically even without producing water vapor the exhaust plume can cause condensation. If the exhaust plume contains small particles (say, from incomplete combustion) then these particles can serve as condensation nuclei on which existing water vapor can condense.

A question, why does all combustion produce water? I get it for fossil fuels, but does it also hold for solid propellants? All you need for a solid propellant is to have a violent reaction of two solid components producing a gas. This does not require the presence of hydrogen or oxygen, per se. Perhaps all currently known solid propellants do produce water? I don't know, that's why I am asking ...

A question, why does all combustion produce water? I get it for fossil fuels, but does it also hold for solid propellants? All you need for a solid propellant is to have a violent reaction of two solid components producing a gas. This does not require the presence of hydrogen or oxygen, per se. Perhaps all currently known solid propellants do produce water? I don't know, that's why I am asking ...

Remembering back to chemistry classes, I believe that combustion creates water in two ways, one from the actual consumption of oxygen in a flame and two the intense heat combines hydrogen and water molecules in the atmosphere around the burning substance. Thus if you fire a solid fuel rocket in a vacuum like space no water would be produced and it would be a straight chemical reaction (this is why rocket motors fired in space don't produce visible flame even though extreme heat is present). This would explain the visible contrail from a missile with a solid propellant motor creating a contrail under the correct circumstances.

I'm sure i botched that explanation somehow but its the way I at least understand the physical phenomenon.

Remembering back to chemistry classes, I believe that combustion creates water in two ways, one from the actual consumption of oxygen in a flame and two the intense heat combines hydrogen and water molecules in the atmosphere around the burning substance. Thus if you fire a solid fuel rocket in a vacuum like space no water would be produced and it would be a straight chemical reaction (this is why rocket motors fired in space don't produce visible flame even though extreme heat is present). This would explain the visible contrail from a missile with a solid propellant motor creating a contrail under the correct circumstances.

 

I'm sure i botched that explanation somehow but its the way I at least understand the physical phenomenon.

Substitute combustion with burning liquid hydrogen fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer together and your explanation is correct. The process of contrail formation is actually much simpler. Think breathing on a mirror and the fog created by the heat of your breath on the cold surface of the mirror. That's condensation at work and it's the same process at work behind the hot exhaust of everything from a missile to any jet or turboprop engine provided the upper atmosphere is at the correct level of humidity.

BTW Spud, big fan of your YouTube channel!! :)

Remembering back to chemistry classes, I believe that combustion creates water in two ways, one from the actual consumption of oxygen in a flame and two the intense heat combines hydrogen and water molecules in the atmosphere around the burning substance.

Hydrogen + water = More water? That doesn't compute. ;) Either there's hydrogen that reacts to water with free oxygen or there's no excess water.

this is why rocket motors fired in space don't produce visible flame even though extreme heat is present). This would explain the visible contrail from a missile with a solid propellant motor creating a contrail under the correct circumstances.

I'm sure i botched that explanation somehow but its the way I at least understand the physical phenomenon.

There's always a "flame" present in a rocket motor, that is a plume of plasma leaving the exhaust, whether it is visible depends on surrounding light conditions and the chemicals present in the exhaust. Visible light is a result of free electrons being caught by atoms/molecules in a plasma or bound electrons changing from a higher to a lower orbital state in an atom/molecule. The wavelength of light that is dissipated is dependent on the amount of energy of that state change, which is in term dependent on the electron configuration of the atom/molecule.

Whether a contrail is formed or not depends on whether the exhaust or parts thereof are liquid or solid at atmospheric conditions. If there was a fuel compound which formed only colorless gaseous exhaust, there would be no contrails at all.

Will we be able to maintain 9X seeker lock on a target after switching weapons?

AFAIK the 9X seeker wont stop tracking unless its caged again or loses sight of the target.

Thus we should be able to

-select 9X #1

-uncage and track target A

-switch to 9X #2

-uncage and track target B

then when within range, quickly cycle between the 9X missiles and immediately launch as both seekers were already tracking their targets.

Will we be able to maintain 9X seeker lock on a target after switching weapons?

 

AFAIK the 9X seeker wont stop tracking unless its caged again or loses sight of the target.

 

Thus we should be able to

 

-select 9X #1

-uncage and track target A

-switch to 9X #2

-uncage and track target B

 

then when within range, quickly cycle between the 9X missiles and immediately launch as both seekers were already tracking their targets.

This is more like tracking in TWS mode. That would be interesting.

Except its not, really. Because its a Fox 2 :D

I wonder: If there is only one 9X remaining on the left wing, does the fuselage block the missiles field of view to the right ? :)

And in regards to the smokeless motor :O :

.Impact;3604797']I wonder: If there is only one 9X remaining on the left wing, does the fuselage block the missiles field of view to the right ? :)

 

And in regards to the smokeless motor :O :

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Current state of the Aim9X

Done a couple of tests with my friend and the results are quiet bad. Basically, it has 100% hit ratio. Cooling down the engines on the Su27 to 400° and popping tons of flares didn't help. So what to expect when you are in a close fight with your afterburners on, then you notice the enemy firing it and you throttle back to reduce the heat signature and pop many flares? There is nothing to expect, except to get hit by the missile.

9X alredy has the highest flares rejection capability in the DCS.

Its ok to go after the juicy hot engines, but why does it go after engines a lot colder than the flares?

I mostly fly the Hornet since it's release, so please refrain from stupid comments.

The AIM9X doesn't necessarily home in on the engine heat signature. Unlike the other heat seeking air to air missiles in DCS, the AIM9X uses an imaging Focal Plane Array seekerhead. This allows it to home in on

NB. The image above is purportedly from an AIM132 ASRAAM. Nevertheless, the ASRAAM uses the same ex-Hughes 128 x 128 element FPA seeker as the AIM9X, so it shows what I'm talking about reasonably well.

It takes 0.016 megapixels to make our flares useless. What is this world coming to

~depressed flanker driver~

^Not useless, just a lot less useful. The same would be true of ASRAAM, MICA IR, PL-10 and probably K74M2 (not sure yet if it has an IIR seeker, if not then the Izedeliye-300 probably will). I take it DIRCM systems have been touted as a potentially useful/complementary countermeasure going forward.

Its ok to go after the juicy hot engines, but why does it go after engines a lot colder than the flares?

It must have a chip inside that's capable of recognizing an aircraft's shape. It's pretty easy to make when you think about it, it's just image recognition sotware.

You have to understand that we, the average Joe, really don't know much about the capabilities of the missile in real life. So making a statement that it should be that way or this way just isn't reasonnable.

I'm not saying the weapons in DCS are perfect but the thing is, without any proof or any data to support your statement you have to consider that there's a very high chance of it being false.

Wait until Russian/Chinese/Iranian planes develop better IR missile countermeasures, then wait for DCS to simulate that.

Until then, AIM-9X will not be going away or "nerfed" in the name of "balance"

Anyways, the Russians have a long-range IR missile thats literally impossible to know when its coming.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/

"So why did the AIM-9X miss? A contributor to Combat Aircraft magazine proposed a plausible theory: While the 9X is designed to resist the allure of defensive flares, but it may have been too specialized in rejecting American flares"

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/

 

"So why did the AIM-9X miss? A contributor to Combat Aircraft magazine proposed a plausible theory: While the 9X is designed to resist the allure of defensive flares, but it may have been too specialized in rejecting American flares"

That's based on the theory of how the AIM-9P performed, which uses a totally different type of seeker. The AIM-9X is better at rejecting flares because it's looking for something plane-shaped, and flares are not plane-shaped. You can see it in those videos linked above, most of those hits are aimed at the middle of the plane, they're not even aiming for the hottest part of the plane. Consensus seems to be that the AIM-9X just went dumb off the rail: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14344/heres-the-definitive-account-of-the-syrian-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

^Indeed. The idea that the AIM9X ate flares in that incident came from the blogosphere (Kyle Mizokami). AFAIK nobody that was actually there has reported the Su22 exhibiting any defensive response of any kind to the AIM9X launch.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a27094/su-22-dodge-aim-9x-sidewinder/

 

"So why did the AIM-9X miss? A contributor to Combat Aircraft magazine proposed a plausible theory: While the 9X is designed to resist the allure of defensive flares, but it may have been too specialized in rejecting American flares"

How about quotes from the actual pilots involved in the engagement and not a random "contributor" to a magazine?

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14344/heres-the-definitive-account-of-the-syrian-su-22-shoot-down-from-the-pilots-themselves

What's also worth discussing is the conjecture surrounding the AIM-9X's failure in this engagement. By the panel's account it sounded as if the AIM-9X just went stupid/malfunctioned on its own. There was no talk of the Su-22 launching flares, and even if it had, the fact that many military pundits are definitively claiming that the unique infrared signature of Russian-built low-end decoy flares threw the AIM-9X off course is just silly. Missiles fail, especially air-to-air ones. They are complex devices that get battered around under high gravitational forces and slammed down onto carrier decks and runways throughout their lifetime.

I read all links above before I posted mine. I merely interested in this statements

Wait until Russian/Chinese/Iranian planes develop better IR missile countermeasures, then wait for DCS to simulate that.

Aim-9x fooled by flare ? Its just a theory. Silly theory ? Probably.

Also now with later generations the missile seeker will recognise the heat from the engine and disregard say, a flare popping off at a thousand or so degrees.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk