Sure, a very long walk from Norway.. from my place, less so.. your stupid stubbornness on matters which you have zero clue about only shows the attitude of you as a poster in general..

Good night

If that were true, what does your incessant trolling say about you? Honestly read your last few posts in this thread… impotent rage, all because Germany is moving towards buying the F-35.

Maybe it is time to consider why you are so emotionally invested in the F-35 failing…something that isn’t going to happen.

Nope, you are right, German defence needs should be decided and outlined by a F-35 fanboy with morbid urge to force his crap of an aircraft to all air forces in the world. Sorry that I did not recognize that earlier..

You think the Germans requested the briefing because of me? Flattering, but I somehow suspect their own assessment of their needs had something to do with it.

Germans don’t need that.. just few years ago they have depended on ancient F-4F ICE and suddenly a Typhoon is not enough? Makes no sense..

Right, as usual MSphere thinks he knows best.

:stupid:

Operate in defended airspace…

And to interrupt this fascinating, ahem, conversation pitting a professional opinion and sources vs. half-baked opinions, actual F-35 news:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-l…-idUSKCN18D13X

Germany asking for classified briefing on F-35.

Sounds like the F-35 has a sale coming unless Germany just shrinks their fleet. It doesn’t have any real competition for the Tornado replacement.

IMO, there is no difference here, just semantics.. but it was not my claim, so you gotta ask lukos on that one..

Well then there isn’t really anything to talk about because the one thing we can be sure he won’t do is just admit he was wrong.

That article of yours pretty much proves that IIR seekers already are virtually immune to flares at all ranges over 600 m.. On top of that, they are pretty much immune even below 600 m at angles beyond 30 deg in azimuth and 40 deg in elevation.. Further improvements in image recognition will have furthermore reduced the flare effectiveness cone to even more narrow angles and shorter range..

Once again I am left to wonder whether you are playing dumb. That article was a very basic examination of the feasibility of employing flares against an imaging seeker. What it showed was that under some circumstances they had the potential to be effective. One can expect the techniques employed in the real world to be quite a bit more sophisticated.

DST Group is undertaking developmental research to ensure the Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM), the primary weapon carried by Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) F/A-18 Hornet aircraft, remains capable against evolving threats.

New algorithms have been developed that enhance the ability of ASRAAM to acquire and maintain lock-on to target aircraft despite their deployment of new-generation infrared countermeasures.

These algorithms were tested at the Port Wakefield Proof and Experimental Establishment using the Reusable Aerodynamic Flare Ejection Capability to deploy countermeasures at speeds representative of fighter aircraft.

DST algorithms will be incorporated into a new missile software load being developed jointly by the UK and Australia, which is expected to result in a substantial improvement in weapon performance.

https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/projects/advanced-short-range-air-air-missile-asraam

Here again… different countries, a different weapon, and yet they continue to invest scarce resources in developing new approaches against flares and foresee the potential to achieve “substantial improvement in weapon performance.”

Use your head, either IIR seekers are “virtually immune” to flares, or there is room for “substantial improvement” against them.

Countermeasures and counter-countermeasures continue to evolve.

By the time ASRAAM entered RAAF service in 2004, awareness had been growing in Defence circles of a need for an iterative software upgrade path to align the missile to Australian tactical requirements and to keep it ahead of evolving countermeasures.

…

During choreographed encounters with target aircraft, ASRAAM operators on board the jet operated the missile via integrated video cameras and recorded data streams for later analysis. This enabled performance evaluations to be made of target acquisition and tracking when targets undertake aggressive manoeuvres, when flying against difficult backgrounds such as broken sunlit cloud and when flares are deployed as infrared-guided missile countermeasures. Researchers were able to run new and old software during the same flight to ascertain the level of improvement new versions offer.

https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/news/2016/11/08/honing-hornet%E2%80%99s-sting-with-science

The Block 6 seeker activities included DST Group airborne pod trials, DST Group field trials at Port Wakefield and several rounds of DST Group HWIL testing. These trials included testing performance against advanced and experimental flares. The projects to develop Australian software Load 3, and the replacement seeker (Block 6) made substantial use of existing infrastructure, skills and facilities. The two projects became heavily interwoven as the organisations pursued a common interest.

http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACILAllen_EconValueDST_2016.pdf

Yes, a limited capability, but clearly an extant capability. Obviously any LOAL without a datalink will have limited capability as the missile will be flying blind from the time it leaves the rail until such time as its seeker can acquire the target. Any target maneuvers during that time will have a high likelihood of defeating the missile. Besides, all Mercurious said was that LOAL IR missiles without datalinks existed, which this establishes is a factual statement.

Similarly, “greater capability against aircraft employing flares” does nothing to establish that IIR seekers are immune to flares, which was Ryan/Lukos’s assertion. In fact, it proves the opposite as the AIM-9x went operational with a deficiency against flares.

So why are they even bothering if flares work against IIR? Although I have some experience in DSMAC and image recognition and can tell you flat out that they don’t.

As usual, you could have saved some typing with a little thinking.

But that doesn’t change the fact that the aircraft must maintain at least one flare more or less permanently between them and the missile’s seeker, such that their aircraft is completely obscured, and even having succeeded in this, the technique is far from full proof, since the missile may reacquire the target after passing the flares. But 99/100 a flare will not remain in the way at all times. A target plane between a hail of flares will be seen by IIR, even part of one will be enough. Lot’s of tests, missiles scored many, flares scored zero. I can tell you that I would not want to be in the target plane and if you put the same opportunity to the manufacturers of these flares, I bet they wouldn’t want to back up their words by putting their backside on the line.

Ryan/Lukos, just FYI, “I don’t understand” is not the same thing as “It’s impossible.” Do please keep that in mind moving forward.