Military Review

The National Interest: Why America’s Mighty Warrior Doesn't Always Dominate the Battlefield

51
One of the main themes of recent days is the recent incident in the skies of Syria. A fighter plane of the United States Navy shot down a Syrian Su-22 aircraft. Discussion of this event, its causes and possible consequences does not stop until now. In this case, mainly military-political aspects are discussed. However, the recent incident had some interesting technical features. They also could not hide from the eyes of experts.


The technical features of the air battle in the sky of Syria became the reason for the appearance of the article “Why the mighty warrior of America does not always dominate the battlefield” in the American edition of The National Interest. The article, authored by well-known weapons specialist Dave Majumdar, was published on June 25 under the heading “Security”. As is clear from the title, the subject of the article was the incomplete correspondence of the statements of officials and the actual characteristics of existing weapons.

The American author began his new article with a reminder of recent events and a statement of obvious facts. So, a few days ago, an American carrier-based fighter shot down the Sy-22 Su-XNUMX fighter-bomber over the Syrian province of Rakka. According to D. Majumdar, this incident perfectly demonstrates the truth of the modern war: not always weapon It works exactly as it says in its advertising.



Two fighter-bomber Boeing F / A-18E / F Super Hornet, taking off from the deck of the USS aircraft carrier George HW Bush (CVN-77) met the Syrian Su-22 aircraft and entered with it into a dogfight. The battle was fought at short distances, and American aircraft used missiles of the appropriate class. As reported by CNN, for the first time in stories F / A-18E / F aircraft engaged in combat with the Su-22 and used the AIM-9 Sidewinder guided air-to-air missiles. It is noteworthy that American journalists used the epithets “vintage” and “antique” to describe the Su-22.

D. Majumdar notes that the US military has not yet published any details regarding the course of the air battle and the material part used in it. Nevertheless, there is every reason to believe that the US aircraft used AIM-9X missiles - the latest model of the “long-playing” Sidewinder family, which has a high potential in the context of a close air combat.

The pilot of the F / A-18E / F aircraft launched a missile with an infra-red homing head from a distance of about half a mile, which is not enough even by the standards of the early AIM-9 missiles. Despite this, the rocket shifted to the false heat targets released by the Syrian aircraft. After that, the pilot of the United States Navy was forced to use the Raytheon AIM-120C AMRAAM rocket - an incomparably more expensive weapon with a significant superiority in range and active radar seeker. Only the launch of the second rocket led to the defeat of the target.

Based on the available information, the author of The National Interest wonders how it turned out that the air battle looked that way? Why was the outdated Su-22 aircraft able to use not the newest false thermal targets, which successfully “lured” the latest model AIM-9X guided missile, equipped with the most modern homing head?

D. Majumdar recalls that one of the goals of the AIM-9X project was to create a new homing vessel capable of working even in the face of serious opposition from the enemy and using false thermal targets. Similar capabilities appeared in Sidewinder rockets as early as the eighties of the last century, but in the case of the project with the letter “X” we are talking about a significant increase in such protection. However, there are still some serious problems. First, technology is never perfect. In addition, the opponent can always have "aces in the sleeve."

However, as the author notes, the American air-to-air missiles have always demonstrated rather high rates of combat effectiveness and the probability of hitting the target. During various tests and exercises, such as the Combat Archer, high performance has been confirmed repeatedly. However, the indicators of rocket weapons during real conflicts differed in the most noticeable way from those obtained during the exercises.

D. Majumdar calls the war in Vietnam the best example of such an unpleasant phenomenon. At that time, the main air-to-air missile of the air force and the sea aviation The United States was an AIM-7 Sparrow. During tests and checks, the probability of hitting the target at the level of 80-90% was obtained. Later, during operational tests in the armed forces, this parameter was reduced to 50-60%. Thus, as the author notes, the actual deployment results were literally disastrous.

The situation was no better with the early versions of the AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The first products of this type were used at the beginning of the Vietnam War, during the operation of Rolling Thunder. Then the success of the entire 16% runs. Of the 187 missiles, only 29 hit their targets. As for the AIM-7 Sparrow rocket, its real effectiveness was lower than the worst expectations. 340 launches were conducted and only 27 targets were hit - only 8% success. By the later stages of the Vietnam War, the situation had changed slightly. Thus, during the operations of Linebacker I and Linebacker II in 1972-73, the probability of hitting the target with AIM-7 missiles increased to 11%, and AIM-9 - to 19%.

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, by the start of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the probability of solving a problem increased markedly. The latest AIM-7 modifications now hit the target in 51% of cases, and the AIM-9 missiles showed an 67-percent probability of solving the problem.

The probability of hitting a target with AIM-9X and AIM-120C missiles is classified, although it is well known that such weapons, in general, show themselves well during tests and exercises of the armed forces. However, like some of the previous models of rockets, the AMRAAM product has not yet been used in battles in large quantities, and therefore sufficient statistics of its combat use is missing. For the first time, AIM-120 rockets were used during Desert Storm. Subsequently, such weapons were equipped with aircraft participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Total American pilots used against targets that are out of line of sight, 13 missiles. Of these, 6 hit its targets. Also on account of AMRAAM rockets recently there is a Syrian Su-22, but in this case the weapon was used at a short range, i.e. in fact not according to its purpose.

D. Majumdar does not have information about previous cases of the use of AIM-9X missiles. At the same time, he suggests that the recent incident over Tabka became the “debut” of such weapons in the fight against manned aircraft. However, during the air battle, the newest American rocket was "deceived" by the heat traps of the old model, still of Soviet manufacture. If we take into account the advanced technologies used in the creation of the latest model Sidewinder rocket, the “ancient” false thermal targets still remain a serious problem. This situation can be shocking.

Interestingly, this problem is not new and has been taking place since at least the eighties. At that time, a new modification of the AIM-9P rocket was developed and put into service, which initially had the opportunity to work in conditions of the use of false targets by the enemy. However, it soon became clear that the homing heads still prefer to be directed not at targets that imitate airplanes, but at heat traps. As an illustration of this problem, D. Majumdar cites the story of John Manklerk - the former commander of the 4477 Squadron, who was responsible for conducting tests and evaluating new samples. The officer’s story was recorded in 2012 by aviation journalist Bill Sweetman.

In the mid-eighties, the CIA provided the 4477 squadron with a device for ejecting false heat targets, shot from a Su-25 aircraft shot down in Afghanistan. Mastering this device did not take long - the specialists needed only to deal with the wires going outside. Within four hours after the commencement of work, the squadron had the MiG-21 aircraft equipped with the most modern Soviet defense equipment.

In 1987, the Air Force experts received for testing missiles AIM-9P Sidewinder, who had some protection against false targets. When used for testing traps made in the United States and American projects, experienced missiles ignored them and successfully aimed at the target. At the same time at the disposal of the testers there were a number of similar products of Soviet manufacture. The Soviet goals were dirty, none of them was like the others. However, the AIM-9P rocket literally said “I like this trap!” The results of such tests made a great impression on the specialists and made them pay attention to a serious problem.

J. Manklerk explained the reasons for such unpleasant phenomena. The AIM-9P rocket was developed and tested using American false heat targets. Analogs of the latter, produced in the Soviet Union, had a lot of differences. They differed in time, intensity of burning and other parameters. A similar situation occurred when attempting to create simulators of anti-aircraft missile systems: having received real samples, American experts saw the most serious differences. The former commander of the test squadron noted that he can tell similar things about the AIM-9P rocket only for the reason that it is being decommissioned. At the same time, similar things happened with other American products, which are still in service and which cannot be talked about yet.

Summing up his article, D. Majumdar suggests that one of the models of promising weapons, which showed ambiguous results, but still being commissioned, may well be the newest AIM-9X Sidewinder rocket. That is what explains the results of the recent air battle in the sky of Syria. The article ends with a free quote from a poem by Robert Burns “To the Field Mouse”: “The awesome definition” - “Oh, dear, you are not alone: ​​rock deceives us, and it falls through the ceiling through us need ”(translation by SJ Marshak).

***

18 June in the airspace of the Syrian province of Rakka Su-22 aircraft carried out a blow to the positions of one of the terrorist groups. According to American reports, fighters from one of the opposition armed structures were hit by a fighter-bomber, as a result of which the United States decided to attack the strike aircraft. A pair of carrier-based fighters engaged in an air battle with a Syrian aircraft and soon hit it. At the same time, according to available data, the air battle was noticeably protracted, and even the most modern rocket weapons did not allow to solve the assigned combat missions in the shortest possible time.

The air combat took place with a clear advantage of American aviation, but it was not possible to realize superiority. As it became known, the main reason for this was the use of the Syrian pilot is not the most new and sophisticated means of protection, which, however, completed the task. Because of this, the US Navy pilots had to misuse the medium-range missile, protected from infrared interference.

This incident is really worth commenting on with a quote from R. Burns or a Russian proverb about paper and ravines. The real indicators of rocket efficiency turned out to be noticeably lower than the calculated ones, and for the most strange and unexpected reasons. The possibility of effectively using the old Soviet false thermal targets against the most modern air-to-air guided missiles is a serious cause for concern. It leads to the fact that American airplanes with the newest weapons will not be able to guaranteedly destroy even outdated aviation technology of technologically backward countries. Worse, such problems did not appear today or yesterday, but have persisted over the past few decades.

If the information of D. Majumdar on the unsuccessful use of the AIM-9X Sidewinder rocket, published in his article "Why America's Mighty Military Doesn't Always Dominate the Battlefield", is true, then you can roughly imagine what the American missile developers . They will have to re-engage in the problem of protecting infrared GOS from false thermal targets. Without solving this problem, the real effectiveness of fighter aviation in close combat would be significantly lower than desired and required. Whether it will be possible to create a new air-to-air missile that really ignores the traps, and whether a mighty American warrior can again dominate the battlefield becomes known in the future.


The article "Why America's Mighty Military Doesn't Always Dominate the Battlefield":
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-americas-mighty-military-dont-always-dominate-the-21315
Author:
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 28 June 2017 05: 51
    +11
    who broadcast that high maneuverability is not needed in modern aerial combat?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 06: 30
      +8
      Of course not needed. Nevertheless, they know that American planes will shoot down the enemy AMRAAM at a distance of 120-180 km - and nothing else laughing Dogfight is a relic of the past, American planes have a long arm! laughing laughing
      1. Titsen
        Titsen 28 June 2017 07: 04
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        American planes have a long arm!


        I really hope that with our strategists a dead hand will not fail if something happens ...

        I really, really hope so!
        1. You Vlad
          You Vlad 28 June 2017 07: 32
          +5
          Quote: Titsen
          I really hope that with our strategists a dead hand will not fail if something happens ...
          I really, really hope so!

          A dead hand was created so that no one would hope wink
        2. Dr. Hub
          Dr. Hub 28 June 2017 08: 24
          +3
          God forbid that she had to work. We will not care anyway
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 28 June 2017 08: 38
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Everyone knows that American planes will shoot down the enemy AMRAAM at a distance of 120-180 km

        Provided that US fighters will use stealth technology. F-18 is not a stealth fighter, however, like any 4th generation fighter. And so the "dog fight" for them is quite an expected thing ...
        But we relied on over-maneuverability ... and whoever turns out to be more right in this dispute can only show a real battle.
        And in this connection, I have the idea that sooner or later, our VKS will stick into the ground some sort of Israeli or Belgian fighter, "peacefully" bombing the positions of the ATS.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 09: 33
          +6
          Quote: NEXUS
          Provided that US fighters will use stealth technology

          In this case, the F-18 just used the stealth technology, since the Su-22 radar ... Did he have it at all? :))))))
          The bottom line is that 2 fighters, which are much more modern than the Su-22 and theoretically capable of shooting down from afar to destroy it, climbed into the BVB
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 28 June 2017 09: 43
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            since the Su-22 radar ... Did he have it at all? :))))))

            It was ... otherwise the 22nd would not have seen an attack at all ..
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            The bottom line is that 2 fighters, which are much more modern than the Su-22 and theoretically capable of shooting down from afar to destroy it, climbed into the BVB

            I suppose they just wanted to shoot at point blank range and as they say, to make it cheaper ... but it didn’t happen.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 09: 51
              +4
              Quote: NEXUS
              It was ... otherwise the 22nd would not have seen an attack at all ..

              There is a STR for detecting an attack, for this a radar is not required. Does the Su-22 have a full-time radar?
              Quote: NEXUS
              I suppose they just wanted to shoot point blank and as they say, so that it comes out cheaper ...

              So at Sidewinder, the EMNIP range is under 20 km. And still climbed to shoot point blank :)))
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 28 June 2017 09: 54
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Does the Su-22 have a full-time radar?

                And how do you think he is bombing, sees targets, etc.? By eye? wassat
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And still climbed to shoot point blank :))

                Here, either the qualification of the flyers is “transcendental", wassat or they wanted to do everything for sure.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 28 June 2017 10: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  And how do you think he is bombing, sees targets, etc.? By eye?

                  So there are sights for this. Su-25, in your opinion, how does it work?
                2. zhidounictozhitel
                  zhidounictozhitel 28 June 2017 14: 48
                  +2
                  Ukrainians think like Jews - they have everything the best. Some have a "stronghold", others have a "merkava". The first is a recycled T-72, the second is shit for public roads))))))))
              2. Konstantin Yu
                Konstantin Yu 28 June 2017 17: 11
                +2
                I think they climbed into focus, for visual classification of the goal - to make sure which stars are on the tail. I am sure that if the Su-22 were covering ours, then they would wave to each other and merge ..
                1. Shahno
                  Shahno 28 June 2017 20: 49
                  +1
                  Yes, I also wanted to scare such a feeling, but ran into opposition. And I had to attack.
        2. smart ass
          smart ass 1 July 2017 10: 44
          0
          This will not be, we all shaw
        3. Suhow
          Suhow 1 July 2017 18: 36
          +2
          it’s high time to stick a “partner” plane into the ground, to reduce their enthusiasm ...
      3. marder7
        marder7 28 June 2017 12: 41
        +1
        they have AMRAAAM, we have the P-77, and maneuverability is “pumped” by everyone.
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. igorserg
        igorserg 29 June 2017 15: 43
        +1
        ... if there is no other scrap. It seems that now VPC of different countries is developing radio traps. So all one will return to close combat within sight.
    2. Ararat
      Ararat 28 June 2017 08: 26
      +2
      And what does the article say that the Su-22 left the F-18 because of maneuverability? It seemed to me because of the traps.
  2. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 28 June 2017 06: 39
    +1
    There is always a certain degree of probability. Just "exceptional" like to forget about it.
  3. Altona
    Altona 28 June 2017 07: 26
    +1
    Two old US aircraft fought with one old bomber. And at the helm sat a Syrian pilot, not a Russian one.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 28 June 2017 07: 34
      +1
      And what else will we learn over time and not in favor of the US aviation? That is why it is not necessary to immediately and unconditionally believe the official reports of the military.
    2. wku
      wku 28 June 2017 13: 12
      +3
      Quote: Altona
      Syrian pilot, not Russian.

      I think during the war years the Syrian pilot combat raid on more than the Russian training!
      and after Vietnam, where did our pilots distinguish themselves?
      1. zhidounictozhitel
        zhidounictozhitel 28 June 2017 14: 51
        +1
        , our pilots did not fight in Vietnam!
        1. wku
          wku 29 June 2017 23: 34
          +1
          Quote: zhidounictozhitel
          our pilots did not fight in Vietnam!

          both the pilots fought and the air defense calculations until the Vietnamese learned independently, and the instructors remained until the end of the hostilities!
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Pecheneg
    Pecheneg 28 June 2017 08: 01
    +3
    Did the Syrian pilot return fire or did not even have time, as he was busy evading missile attacks? Although even in the USSR Air Force, the SU-17 (20,22) were not used as fighters.
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 28 June 2017 08: 33
      +1
      The fact of the matter is that the “heroes” are bold only against unarmed democracy.
      SU-24 was shot down by Turkey (whether Turkey, big questions) almost the same way.
    2. Grits
      Grits 1 July 2017 08: 20
      +2
      Although even in the USSR Air Force, the SU-17 (20,22) were not used as fighters.
      If my memory serves me right, then the Su-17 is just a clean fighter. But his modification of the Su-22 is already a fighter-bomber.
      But the Su-15 interceptor was perfectly used. Especially on Sakhalin.
  5. Ararat
    Ararat 28 June 2017 08: 33
    +1
    I don’t know where Majumar, who has repeatedly disgraced himself with insanity and pseudoscientific nonsense, found this information, but I have never seen this information about two missiles. I read on different resources that there was one shot and the landing was 6 miles. And secondly, why should the F-18 fly up to a distance of 800 meters and launch a rocket if the 20mm gun is enough to flood the enemy? It looks like a good face in a bad game.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  6. Zebus
    Zebus 28 June 2017 08: 49
    +2
    Mujamarca again ??? wassat
  7. Kenxnumx
    Kenxnumx 28 June 2017 08: 51
    0
    Interesting statistics on the use of our analogues. In Ethiopia, too, it did not seem to work out very well.
  8. basmach
    basmach 28 June 2017 09: 13
    +11
    Well, if everything was as it was written, I’m shocked. I don’t know what the Su-22 was there (M3 or M4), but from the traps there is a cassette with KDS23 if it does not change the memory of all 8 pieces (PIXs and dipole reflectors, 2 types). And of the B-V rockets on 22's, only P-60M, maximum 4 pcs, (if they are APU60-2). In 93-94, we began to put new tapes for pickups on both sides of the gargrote for revision, but when I was in 95 in Syria, I did not see such things on M4, so I hardly put them. And in itself, the battle of one Su 22 with a pair of F-18 is, in principle, unequal very seriously. "" Practically not intended for air combat .. No radar station (well, there is still a warning station about exposure to Birch) R-60 pair is not serious (and it is unlikely that they were suspended, if at all, there are living ones available). All that remains is the cannon (2 HP-30 from bk to 70 pcs per barrel) and an attempt to maneuver with a very small reserve of KDS. And it is not suitable for shooting at air targets (even on M4 with PRNK there was no shooting mode at targets) By and large, this is beating a baby. And even in this situation, the Syrian fought. Well, there for the Americans pilots and their "best" technique in the world ..
    1. Irokez
      Irokez 28 June 2017 18: 31
      +1
      Quote: basmach
      even on M4 with PRNK there was no shooting mode on targets

      Well, why is there no regime to conduct a battle with an air target. When the pilots served, they worked out not only bombing, but also air combat, and everything in those days was still recorded on a film camera and there were quite normal hits there.
      The Su-17 does not seem to be a clean bomber, but a fighter-bomber with a variable sweep of the wing, and this sweep changed the flight characteristics and its modes that could be used for combat.
      There is also a factor of surprise and an advantage in two against one and so on.
      1. basmach
        basmach 29 June 2017 06: 52
        +1
        Dear, I served on the Su-17М4 as an engineer of the PrnK regulation and repair group (TEC)
        1. Irokez
          Irokez 29 June 2017 12: 51
          +1
          I was under objective control.
          1. basmach
            basmach 30 June 2017 07: 07
            +1
            Well, how can the objective maker know what modes on the PSR are there if the girls took the data (there was a connector in the engine area) and the head of the objective control group (Klimchuk) sat in the group and looked at the data .. I repeat again (my specialty is weapons ) - Su-17 are not adapted for air combat. They have neither a radar, nor a heat finder (that is, there are no corrections for firing a cannon at air targets, I hope the idea is clear) .. P-60M when they capture the target give an indication of readiness for launch. and equipped with missiles "for self-defense." Maneuverability is also not so hot, but the sweep of the wing, to increase the area on takeoff and landing modes. In fact, this is a light bomber that can shoot at a large low-maneuverable air target (transporter or something like that).
            1. Irokez
              Irokez 30 June 2017 16: 50
              +1
              I judge from photos taken in assignments. In the photo everything worked out for airplanes or ground targets, but I don’t know how much. At the time of the shot, the film was filmed, which confirmed the destruction of the air target, which also appeared in the photo.
              In addition, according to the most objective control (according to various parameters), all deviations of the mechanisms are tracked on the tape, their inclusion is already more frequent, and even here you can understand a lot of what the pilot did in flight. All aerobatics available at that time for the aircraft were also practiced. So he asks why then the bomber should work out them so meticulously if it is a clean though light bomber. It is right for self-defense which he could show before the enemy who overtook him.
              Yes, and the Mig-23 is also with variable sweep, and he is a fighter. Not everything is as simple as being written or spoken.
    2. Shahno
      Shahno 28 June 2017 20: 56
      +2
      You yourself gave the answer. This is crap. An attempt to adjust the facts to a specific order.
  9. Butchcassidy
    Butchcassidy 28 June 2017 10: 37
    +1
    Does Dave write in the case? it happens.
  10. Altona
    Altona 28 June 2017 13: 15
    +1
    Quote: wku
    I think during the war years the Syrian pilot combat raid on more than the Russian training!

    ---------------------
    It seems that the American (Turkish, Belgian and other) aces, despite all the assurances of the local Israeli experts about the virtual victories "1 to 20", will not risk attacking a more modern aircraft of the Russian aerospace forces.
    1. Rusfaner
      Rusfaner 28 June 2017 14: 41
      +3
      Do you think that the pilot will dare not fulfill the combat order if he receives it?
      1. zhidounictozhitel
        zhidounictozhitel 28 June 2017 15: 06
        +1
        Of course it can! If, for example, four F-29s fly to our MiG-18 (as the animals fly like cattle), and one of them fails, our others will forget about fulfilling the order)))))))
        1. karabas-barabas
          karabas-barabas 1 July 2017 09: 51
          +1
          The MiGs 29e did not help the Serbs against the Dutch F-16s, in conjunction with Avax, all the MiGs were beaten dry. And even if Mig29 fills one, and at least more enemy aircraft, seriously believe that others will refuse to obey the order? And often it happened?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. Altona
    Altona 28 June 2017 14: 43
    0
    Quote: Rusfaner
    Do you think that the pilot will dare not fulfill the combat order if he receives it?

    -------------------------------
    Dare, why not? But there will be no answer.
  12. NordUral
    NordUral 28 June 2017 18: 02
    +1
    On this occasion, and our need to think.
  13. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 29 June 2017 15: 57
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    And so the "dog fight" for them is quite an expected thing ...

    Just do not forget the "fight" July 30, 1970
  14. askme
    askme 1 July 2017 05: 52
    +1
    "Why America’s mighty warrior doesn’t always dominate ..." Well, if you remove the propaganda propaganda, the answer is actually obvious: because not a warrior is the one who fights only with infants, sick and weak, but pisses in front of the strong, those who can really kill. Then this is not a warrior, but a maniac, human scum. That's what the U.S. Army with Abu Ghraibs degenerated into, etc. It’s not long to live in such a country, which has such an army of maniacs, scum, a bunch of human scum ... And these are not emotions - these are just facts, it’s time to openly call a spade a spade, because every day there are more and more “mistakes” by the US Air Force day after day purposefully striking civilians in Syria (this is part of a psychological war, openly demonstrating their own impunity in order to intimidate opponents in a hybrid war of a global scale), Iraq, etc. more and more clearly shows all the vileness of the current outrage ...
  15. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 1 July 2017 06: 09
    +2
    And infa about air combat from? From couch experts who are very far from war and aviation? There was no battle, the SU-22 was just shot down from a distance of 6 miles (about 10 km). If we are talking about the AIM-9x rocket, then no traps would help. Yes, and generally for the more or less modern missiles, the traps are useless, if the target was captured before the thermal noise started, the rocket will find the real target. If the target is captured during thermal interference, that is, there is a chance that the rocket will capture the trap instead of the plane, or the temperature parameters of the target during the capture will be blurred, and the rocket will not be able to recognize the real target when approaching and can attack the trap. So I would not like to believe that the old SU 17 (22) successfully avoided attacks, alas, this is not so.
  16. LeftPers
    LeftPers 1 July 2017 10: 00
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    irno "bombing position of the ATS.
    not bombing, but introducing democracy))
  17. Krsk
    Krsk 2 July 2017 09: 56
    0
    "Dave Majumdar's famous weapons specialist" is this trolling or what?
  18. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 23 February 2018 09: 23
    0
    What do you mean does not always dominate ?! Always, if it concerns shepherds in Africa or Tuareg.