How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X? • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by eggestad » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #74

mcguire wrote: post #40

Out of curiosity, anyone know the overall expenses for an AIM-9X and AIM-120, vs. an SU-22?

Wikipedia lists: AIM-120 400 000$ and AIM-9X 600 000$. Which is very surprising, typically short range missiles are cheaper. Apparently AIM-9X has gone through recent face-lift that still affects prices. Su-22 is harder to find, but comparable aircraft SEPECAT jaguar goes for about 8 million.

Check wikipedia again

an AIM120C is 300-400k

an AIM120D is 1.7M (I think it was listed as 1.2M last I checked this page)

According to this http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article1.html a sidewinder in 1999 had a unit cost of 55k-85k which would be 9L,M, or P most likely. 9X did enter service until 2003

These toys, much like the planes carrying them get progressively more expensive in newer version.

But the cost ratio stay much the same. You get 4-6 AIM-9 for the cost of one AIM 120

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

#82

Post by eggestad » Mon, Jun 26, 2017, 9:03 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #52

This unfortunately seems to again validate John Boyd's sentiment that a low tech, highly maneuverable, simple and reliable single purpose fighter with a simple gun is a better investment for actually winning a war than incredibly expensive high-tech planes tested by people with clip boards. Edit: Between 1 F35 for $85 million or 5 F16 for $73 million total my money would most certainly be on the F16s.

Nonsense.

All A2A kills since 1999 have been with missiles. The F-16 have very preciously few A2A kills using guns.

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

#83

Post by delazeur » Tue, Jun 27, 2017, 3:39 AM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #78

delazeur wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you suggesting? That the Su-22 wasn't actually shot down? That the AIM-9X was actually successful, and the AIM-120 wasn't used? You can't just say "blah blah propaganda, blah blah misdirection" every time you see a news article from a war zone.

Read what I said: this article may be full of misdirection and half truths.

No, you clearly did not say that the article may be full of misdirection. You very emphatically stated that the article certainly contained misdirection, but did not deign to tell us mere mortals what that misdirection might be:

"The answer: this is war propaganda. There are no real facts here, only half-truths and mis-direction." [Emphasis mine.]

Calling everything around you propaganda may seem like an easy way to look smarter than everyone else, but it is a painfully transparent move when you can't back it up with substance. It's even worse when you try to pretend you weren't doing it.

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

#84

Post by fit2rule » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 7:24 AM UTC

delazeur wrote: post #83

fit2rule wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read what I said: this article may be full of misdirection and half truths.

No, you clearly did not say that the article may be full of misdirection. You very emphatically stated that the article certainly contained misdirection, but did not deign to tell us mere mortals what that misdirection might be: "The answer: this is war propaganda. There are no real facts here, only half-truths and mis-direction." [Emphasis mine.] Calling everything around you propaganda may seem like an easy way to…

Okay, so the purpose of this article is what, exactly? To highlight the technological prowess of US forces when compared to their rivals?

And you think this doesn't involve any propaganda at all?

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

#85

Post by delazeur » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 1:03 PM UTC

fit2rule wrote: post #84

delazeur wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you clearly did not say that the article may be full of misdirection. You very emphatically stated that the article certainly contained misdirection, but did not deign to tell us mere mortals what that misdirection might be: "The answer: this is war propaganda. There are no real facts here, only half-truths and mis-direction." [Emphasis mine.] Calling everything around you propaganda may seem like an easy way to…

Okay, so the purpose of this article is what, exactly? To highlight the technological prowess of US forces when compared to their rivals? And you think this doesn't involve any propaganda at all?

That's a fairly obvious dodge.

I would assume that the primary purpose of the article is to generate advertising and subscription revenue.

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

#86

Post by greedo » Wed, Jun 28, 2017, 7:39 PM UTC

vlehto wrote: post #75

greedo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boyd hated the F-15. Funny how the F-15 is undefeated, and if you look at how it has fared in Israeli hands, it's one of the most exceptional fighters when it comes to actual combat... And you seem to be implying that numerous SU-22s would have fared well against the Super Hornet? You could put 10 Fitters up against the Bug, and it'd still win before going winchester.

The super hornet typically only carries 6 air to air missiles. While SU-22 can carry the most modern short range aa missiles. Hornet would not win with gun only against 4 missile armed fitters. If the missiles are modern. In air warfare numbers have always mattered and always will.

Iraqis thought the same thing, as did most of the Arab world when fighting the Israelis. While Stalin was partially right (quantity has a quality all its own), the most valuable factor in determining the outcome of air combat is pilot skill. And even if the Fitter pilots were as good as the Hornet pilot, they don't have as good ESSM/ECM systems, nor as good AWACs providing support.

The Bug doesn't even typically carry 6 AAMs. The one that did the shootdown probably only had 3-4 depending on its mission tasking. They have to worry about bring back weight when landing on their carrier. But for our hypothetical, the Bug can carry 12 missiles without a lot of trouble (1). It might not have much range, and the drag would be a bitch, but the Fitters would go down in flames...

1. http://runway.cz/img/zbr/aim120_2.jpg