
How did a 30 year-old Su-22 defeat a modern AIM-9X? - vinnyglennon
http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/06/23/how-did-a-30-year-old-su-22-defeat-a-modern-aim-9x/
======
shoo
If 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 jammers and physical
> countermeasures. When they picked up the bat radar illuminating them by
> sensitive hairs on their antennas, they would send out their own little
> squirt of ultrasonics by rubbing their legs together, jam the bat radar, and
> then they would immediately take evasive action and dive to the left and
> right.

> Through Darwinian selection over millions of years, these moths had
> developed an entire electronic warfare, electronic countermeasures,
> electronic countercounter-measures suite, and here was a guy in 1973 in
> Thailand who was figuring this stuff out. To be honest, it was my first
> insight that there was really a bigger picture.

> So, John’s point was, “I keep trying to tell officers way above me that
> there’s probably a ton we could learn from watching these natural systems.
> What we’re doing in the air war over the North is just nothing more than
> something that’s been going on in nature for millions of years, but I can’t
> seem to get anybody’s attention.” (Thirty years later MIT would develop the
> Insect Lab and work on swarm behaviors for UAV’s and robotics.)

[1] [https://steveblank.com/category/secret-history-of-silicon-
va...](https://steveblank.com/category/secret-history-of-silicon-
valley/page/4/)

~~~
cel1ne
Reminds me about this piece about microbes using mechanical "weapon-systems":

[http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/watch-militarized-
mic...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/watch-militarized-microbes-use-
some-sophisticated-weapons-to-snare-prey/)

------
Animats
It's a 14-year old missile.[1] It's a variant of the Sidewinder missile from
the 1950s. The Sidewinder has a good track record partly because it's so dumb.
Classic versions are tail-chasers; the pilot must get on the opponent's tail
before firing. Newer versions are supposed to be "all-aspect", but they still
work better if they can see the hot end of a jet engine.[2]

[1]
[http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/aim-9x/](http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/aim-9x/)
[2] [http://www.donhollway.com/foxtwo/](http://www.donhollway.com/foxtwo/)

------
jacquesm
Overfitting to the training data. Sounds vaguely familiar.

------
pavement
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.

~~~
_e
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.

~~~
noir_lord
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.

~~~
gaius
_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.

~~~
noir_lord
The USSR was brilliant at doing more with less (advanced technology).

That was brought home to me in a documentary I watched about the Mig-29, the
US/Nato avoided FOD (Foreign Object Damage) by scrupulously walking the
runway/apron every day and cleaning up.

The USSR just put air intakes on the top for taxiing so crap didn't get sucked
into the main inlets.

It was such a simple design and yet the advantages in a war situation
operating from crappy debris strewn airfields where obvious, they had Mig-29's
taxing over rough dirt berms and all sorts of crazy things (at least from a
western viewpoint).

------
alkonaut
Obvious 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?

~~~
fit2rule
The answer: this is war propaganda. There are no real facts here, only half-
truths and mis-direction.

~~~
delazeur
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.

~~~
fit2rule
Read what I said: this article may be full of misdirection and half truths.

~~~
delazeur
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.

~~~
fit2rule
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?

~~~
delazeur
That's a fairly obvious dodge.

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

------
wcdolphin
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...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet)

~~~
Elv13
This is equivalent to say a couple years old Ford F-150 is a truck from 1975.
The branding is the same, the shape is similar, but it ain't the same plane.

Super Hornets are still being produced, upgraded and improved and will
probably still be in the assembly line in 20 years. A 30 second Google didn't
show the year of the F/A-18 in question, but I assume it is from the mid 2000
or something like it.

This was even more true for Soviet tech. The American B-52 are ancient, but
the Soviet Bears were produced, upgraded, replaced and improved until the very
end. Cost-plus programs like the F-35 with enormous upfront R&D are good for
the manufacturer, suppliers and lobbied politicians, but iterative designs,
like evolution, also just works.

~~~
arethuza
The Tu-95 "Bear" is still is service:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95)

~~~
Elv13
Yes, but my point was more about the Soviet program of continuous improvement
associated with it. According to your link, they stopped the assembly line at
the collapse of the USSR. It doesn't prevent them from upgrading the existing
airframes like for the B-52, but it isn't a true rolling
replacements/improvements program anymore like the F/A-18 [almost] is.

Edit: Maybe the F-104 starfighter program would be another good example.

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

~~~
Animats
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 occasion, a US ally shot down a hobbyist-sized drone with a Patriot
missile. Very expensive, but it hit the target.

[1] [https://youtu.be/KsVUISS8oHs](https://youtu.be/KsVUISS8oHs)

~~~
dogma1138
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.

~~~
dogma1138
Pac3 not 5 don't know why 5 got in there.

------
brawny
Are we certain that the first missile actually missed or could this just be
America saying, "Oh, gee whiz, our missiles sure are terrible. No need for
anyone to upgrade their countermeasures."

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

~~~
vlehto
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.

~~~
eggestad
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](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

------
mnglkhn2
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.

~~~
mcguire
ML isn't going to help if all your training data comes from friendly flares.

~~~
mnglkhn2
You get your data when you fight an enemy airplane.

~~~
valuearb
That's not a lot of data

------
ehosca
still waiting for the answer, how was it able to do it?

~~~
stevenwoo
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.

~~~
gozur88
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.

------
angelic
Obvious 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?

------
ryanmarsh
Cancer on mobile. Kept sending me to the App Store to install various spammy
apps.

------
edsheeran
Ah, but the modern AIM-9X is not so modern anymore. AI will be able to
decrease false tracking.

------
PeterGerlie
No mention, of course, that the American pilot was actually protecting the
terrorists(even Michael Flynn talked about US financing the terrorists in
Syria before he got sacked) the SU-22 was targeting but this is a different
story here( here we are talking about geeky technical things like why the
exceptional missile from an exceptional country was not so successful)

~~~
pas
What acts of terror did those commit? Oh, none? So why are they terrorists and
not freedom fighters?

How come "anti-establishment" doesn't mean anti-Russian/Syrian-dictatorship?

~~~
PeterGerl0
I just mention what your ex defence minister has told the public. Period. And
there are no freedom fighters in Syria. Just missionaries on washington's
payroll.
[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47311.htm](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47311.htm)

~~~
pas
I'm not even on the same continent as the USA, and I don't reckon belonging to
or owning any secretaries of defense.

That's certainly a nice collection of links, yet don't seem to answer my
question at all.

Also, claiming there are not freedom fighters in Syria is denying the whole
civil uprising in 2011, and all of the utmost brutality and horrors
perpetrated by the Assad regime against those protesters.

I'm not advocating funding terrorist groups, nor do I think the CIA and the
Pentagon did a great job. (The whole intel/defense community is in shambles.
Too much internal infighting, too few people taking responsibility, too much
politics, funding issues, too much corruption because too much high-tech
gadgets that must be maintained, produced, supported. You know.) But your
worldview is overly simplistic if you think the story is that "a US plane was
protecting terrorists". Those fighting on the ground probably have a very
flawed sense of religion and what's right, how the world should be, but
they're are currently fighting a fucking dictator. And that's a good thing.

The situaion around Raqqah (where Tabqah is) is basically the Rojava trying to
purge ISIS from Raqqah while keeping Assad at bay at Tabqah.

see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava)
for who these folks are.

------
ajmurmann
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.

~~~
greedo
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.

~~~
vlehto
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.

~~~
greedo
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](http://runway.cz/img/zbr/aim120_2.jpg)

------
myth_drannon
Reminds me how su-24 completely shutdown a sophisticated Aegis defence system
on US destroyer in a Black sea recently. The crew was so demoralized that they
all quit upon return to the shore.
[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11015434](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11015434)

I bet it was some old Soviet tech from the sixties.

~~~
mikeyouse
That never happened and for people to incredulously report that it did is
absurd.

[https://medium.com/dfrlab/russias-fake-electronic-
bomb-4ce9d...](https://medium.com/dfrlab/russias-fake-electronic-
bomb-4ce9dbbc57f8)

