This is a perfect example where machine learning will overcome the issues of variability in burn times and intensity. I think ML will have a great impact in warfare.
ML isn't going to help if all your training data comes from friendly flares.
How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
41–50 of 86 posts
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would not surprise me. Soviet era designs and engineering seems to always having been more pragmatic, out of basic necessity.
The other way to read the article is to blame Soviet quality control. If we assume the variation in burn is random, it may mean overall better protection of your airborne resources, but you could not assess the protection of any individual aircraft. That sounds Soviet to me.
Like taking a vaccine. There will be a few who have a negative reaction but the positives greatly outweigh the negatives which makes it worth it for the greater good.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#43Call 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.
Interesting. Sloppy is random is simple is robust. This reminds me of a story where the USA got its hands on a new MiG and when they opened it up found that it used some kind of antiquated technology. Some time later the USA found out that this was intentional because the older tech could withstand nuclear radiation whereas the new tech would instantly fail.
Was the Radar on the Mig-25 that a defector landed in Japan, they used Valves when all the US radars had moved almost entirely to transistors.
Fun history, the Russians demanded it back off the US/Japanese so the Japanese government let the US take it apart, photo and test the parts (as quickly as possible) then shipped it back in crates and billed the Russians for the shipping. Which iirc they never paid.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a team from a Large Defense Contractor at my local airfield recently with thermal-imaging equipment that seemed to be doing a good job of tracking light piston-engined aircraft, many of which are tube-and-fabric construction like WW1 machines. They wouldn't say what they were testing but it seemed fairly obvious. The whole engine block glowed hot as did the uppersides exposed to the Sun, let alone the exhau…
The engines also reflect radar quite nicely, even if the wood and fabric doesn't.
Not to mention the guy wires holding everything together.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#45Call 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.
The AIM-9X uses an infrared imager which is why it is "all aspect" -- it is chasing a plane and not a hot spot per se. Dirty flares should not impact this too much in principle.
Given the age of the software in these missiles, the issue is likely relatively weak and brittle classifiers being used to separate noise from signal. It is not based on any kind of modern deep learning techniques.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Sloppy is random is simple is robust. This reminds me of a story where the USA got its hands on a new MiG and when they opened it up found that it used some kind of antiquated technology. Some time later the USA found out that this was intentional because the older tech could withstand nuclear radiation whereas the new tech would instantly fail.
Was the Radar on the Mig-25 that a defector landed in Japan, they used Valves when all the US radars had moved almost entirely to transistors. Fun history, the Russians demanded it back off the US/Japanese so the Japanese government let the US take it apart, photo and test the parts (as quickly as possible) then shipped it back in crates and billed the Russians for the shipping. Which iirc they never paid.
Thank you! I searched for more background and found another guess why the Soviets used valves instead of transistors:
"Unable to afford the thermal-resistance provided by a titanium frame, the MiG-25’s designers used vacuum tubes over transistor-based modern electronics — which made the planes resistant to high-temperatures and cheaper to maintain."[0]
[0] http://warisboring.com/one-soviet-defector-shoved-japan-into...
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#47still waiting for the answer, how was it able to do it?
The AIM-9X uses IR signature and it was trained to ignore US type flares which have a very consistent burn between different batches. Soviet era decoy flares are very irregular and for some reason the missile IR targetting prefers some of the Soviet flares to the Su-22 engine.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. Sloppy is random is simple is robust. This reminds me of a story where the USA got its hands on a new MiG and when they opened it up found that it used some kind of antiquated technology. Some time later the USA found out that this was intentional because the older tech could withstand nuclear radiation whereas the new tech would instantly fail.
Was the Radar on the Mig-25 that a defector landed in Japan, they used Valves when all the US radars had moved almost entirely to transistors. Fun history, the Russians demanded it back off the US/Japanese so the Japanese government let the US take it apart, photo and test the parts (as quickly as possible) then shipped it back in crates and billed the Russians for the shipping. Which iirc they never paid.
I think that detail about the billing USSR for the return shipping of the plane is propaganda meant to humanize the US/Japanese side and dehumanize the USSR side by showing that we have a sense of humor and they don't.
USSR could have replied by sending an invoice for the rental of the plane, reassembly of the components, and the intellectual property licensing for all of the technical data obtained. All of that would no doubt ought weigh the cost of crating and shipping the plane by orders of magnitude. Not that either side would ever have considered paying, of course.
In reality, some entirely secret concession could have been made that we might never find out about unless it was documented and is some day declassified.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#49Obvious follow up question: soviet tech is easy to come by, at least the kind that's now used in dozens of countries. How is the missile not designed to be effective against the most likely target? Surely Raytheon must have a dozen versions of Russian and European flare dispensers and not just the US kind?
[deleted]
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#50still waiting for the answer, how was it able to do it?
The AIM-9X uses IR signature and it was trained to ignore US type flares which have a very consistent burn between different batches. Soviet era decoy flares are very irregular and for some reason the missile IR targetting prefers some of the Soviet flares to the Su-22 engine.
That's in the article, but it's pure speculation as applied to this particular event. It's possible the pilot screwed up or the missile just failed.