Live data from Hacker News

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

combataircraft.net

21–30 of 86 posts

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

#21

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

North Korea deploys canvas-on-wood Antonov An-2 biplanes as "low observable" stealth aircraft. Most of the radar energy goes right through it, there's very little metal to generate a return.

(Similarly, during the Battle of Britain the Hawker Hurricane was notable for the way German 20mm cannon shells passed through its doped cloth-on-tube airframe. No impact to trigger the fuzes.)

Another interesting property of the An-2 is the incredibly high cross-section of the aircraft means slow flight speeds and very high lift, the aircraft really doesn't have a stall speed due to spring-deployed slats that snap out as airspeed drops... but whatever you want to call the stall speed it's lower than 30 kts. So in a stiff headwind you can fly the aircraft onto the ground in full control at zero ground velocity, or actually while being pushed backwards by the wind.

Wouldn't be enough to deter a dedicated attacker at short range especially with a sufficiently high radar frequency (the engine and other metal parts become a bigger multiple of the wavelength), but would you be able to pick it up at 50-100 miles with longband search radar? especially at low altitude? Probably not. Especially random ex-Soviet crap like a lot of countries have.

Don't knock primitive tech, sometimes it works. The An-2 is archaic but it's a very competent bushplane/light cargo aircraft for squad-level paratroop or liason operations. And it's well-adapted for rustic operations like Russian/Canadian bush, or Korea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3tpV9vUTPo

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-north-korea-usi...

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

#22
post #11

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

Probably not, since modern air defenses are effective against small missiles and even mortar rounds. Here's a CIWS in Afghanistan shooting down incoming mortar rounds.[1] (Read the comments for more explanation from people who have been there.) The CIWS has radar which can track not just the target, but its own bullets. It makes quick adjustments until bullets and target are in the same place at the same time. On one…

An ababil UAV is larger than a hobbiest drone and the PAC5 apparently missed it and it was downed by a derby missile fired from a near by SPYDER battery.

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

#23

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

There were some incidents doing WWII where both the British and soviet ran successful raids using low and slow flying biplanes that was simply too low and slow for the motors guiding the anti aircraft guns of the day.

Doing the Taranto raid the low altitude of the Swordfish bombers caused the Italian navy to not just miss the planes but inflict collateral damage on themselves.

Today it's much harder to pull a similar stunt mostly due to night vision goggles/binoculars. But especially the US have a vulnerability as they have replaced proven effective systems based around cheap ammo and smart people, with systems based on dumb computers and expensive missiles.

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

#24

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

I remember someone expressing surprise, years ago, that glass fiber gliders were detected by air traffic control radar. The most massive metal parts would be the undercarriage (single-wheel), but my guess is that the control cables, laid out in a cross at 90 degrees, would be the most reflective feature.

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

#28
post #2

Call it a hunch, but if the flares spew dirty and irregular, maybe there's an awareness that this sloppy spread of IR readings has benefits.

Would not surprise me. Soviet era designs and engineering seems to always having been more pragmatic, out of basic necessity.

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

#29

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

There were some incidents doing WWII where both the British and soviet ran successful raids using low and slow flying biplanes that was simply too low and slow for the motors guiding the anti aircraft guns of the day. Doing the Taranto raid the low altitude of the Swordfish bombers caused the Italian navy to not just miss the planes but inflict collateral damage on themselves. Today it's much harder to pull a similar…

The same thing, combined with daredevil pilots (or in this instance, navigator), enabled the Bismarck sinking.

Basically the Bismarck AA guns either had problem tracking them, or the ammo didn't do much.

And the torpedo that hit the Bismarck rudder was fired in part by the plane's navigator hanging over the side of the aircraft, and telling the pilot when to release to avoid the waves.

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

#30

I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.

There were some incidents doing WWII where both the British and soviet ran successful raids using low and slow flying biplanes that was simply too low and slow for the motors guiding the anti aircraft guns of the day. Doing the Taranto raid the low altitude of the Swordfish bombers caused the Italian navy to not just miss the planes but inflict collateral damage on themselves. Today it's much harder to pull a similar…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN