I find it interesting the US jet was an FA-18, which entered service November 1983 (USN) is actually more than 30 years old as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hor...
Block III F/A-18E : FA-18 :: Core i7 : 386DX.
How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
51–60 of 86 posts
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#52This 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.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#53This 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.
It validates that the US military needs to test against other countries flares.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#54Earlier 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.
Was the Radar on the Mig-25 that a defector landed in Japan
There's a similar story about the "sloppy" riveting work on the Mig-25. Turned out to have significant beneficial effect in the airflow.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#55If you enjoy reading about electronic warfare, it is worth reading Steve Blank's "Secret History of Silicon Valley". Here's the bit about moths [1]: > John said, “Listen, you can hear the jammer.” The what? “The jammer,” he said, “Watch the moths.” It turns out the moths, through evolution, had developed their own electronic countermeasures to jam the bat radar. They had developed ultrasonic receivers and ultrasonic…
Reminds me about this piece about microbes using mechanical "weapon-systems":
http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/watch-militarized-mic...
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#56This 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.
I think ML will have a great impact in warfare.
Here's a funny story, ML people like to talk about the ROC curve and the AUC as a measure of how well a machine learning experiment worked on the test data. Do you know where the term came from? WW2 radar engineers.
Also consider that bread-and-butter ML techniques like logistic regression and k-means clustering have been around for decades.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#57This 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.
It validates that the US military needs to test against other countries flares.
And then they make new flares without telling us.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#58This 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.
[deleted]
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#59This 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.
You get your data when you fight an enemy airplane.
Re: How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X?
#60I've often wondered if a WW1 stringbag could fly right past modern air defenses without being detected or tracked.
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…
WW1 was wood and fabric, not tube and fabric.