really? because ive had 9ms launched from a fast moving jet regularly fall short on 4-5km side aspect shots
They would at least have an interesting sort of gimmick to make it worth grind for someone into helis
Against other moving targets, I assume?
The actual flight range of the missile still is 12-18km depending on altitude, but against a moving target the missile has a harder time following the target since the booster/rocket motor on the missile doesn’t burn indefinitely it loses velocity over time, meaning the target can outrun the missile.
The MiGs in test flight are subsonic, so the AIM-9M can keep up with them even after burning for a while. The TY-90 possibly could also reach the MiGs beyond 6km, but it is hardwired to self-destruct.
The maximum guidance time is the deciding factor here, the TY-90 stops tracking after 12 seconds, while the Sidewinder tracks for a whole minute.
The TY-90 has a ~50% higher delta V than AIM-9L/M (and apparently the AIM-9X doesnt get an engine upgrade, at least in the early versions). It’s lighter, so it loses speed to drag quicker, but the useful aerodynamic range is still far bigger. It can be dodged especially at closer ranges due to the compararively poor overload.
AIM-9X has lower drag, which should already lead to better acceleration and maybe top speed over an AIM-9M (top speed is still classified). There is also a possibility a higher grain propellant was used so a different motor isn’t necessary.
All-in-all, the range should be at least the same as the M or better.
1 Like
That’d just amount to a pretty small, incremental upgrade over the 9L/M in terms of range though. It wouldn’t close the gap to the TY-90.
Actually I’m pretty sure even Stinger and Igla are more dangerous than the AIM-9L/M beyond 5 km or so.
Not sure about the Igla, but the Stinger definitely is a lot worse than a heli launched Sidewinder beyond that range
It really depends on the opponents trajectory. If it’s trying to follow a manoeuvering target flying away the 9M will start falling out of the air after about 5-5.5km whereas the Stingers sustainer motor will keep it going up to around 6 or 7 (providing the seeker kept tracking anyway). Doesn’t matter too much since the 9M is so much deadlier in closing engagements which is basically most Heli vs Jet.
Not sure about Igla either, I’ll have to test that later.
It would surpass TY-90 handily. I’d argue the 9M already does with higher G pull, HMS compatibility and smokeless motor.
1 Like
The AIM-9X also uses jet vanes for its thrust vector control, which reduce the effective thrust by some amount compared to the AIM-9M
This study I found puts the general thrust losses from jet vanes at 3% to 6.5% depending on the AOA of the vane and angle of the divergent nozzle
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307108364_COMPUTATIONAL_STUDY_ON_REDUCTION_OF_THRUST_LOSS_IN_JET_VANE_THRUST_VECTORING_NOZZLE
Edit: The early variants of the AIM-9X atleast also used modified AIM-9M motors (stuff like the wing ribs were simply machined off), so they most likely have the same grain.
With new grain it would probably be cheaper to just make a new motor, if that stuff can even be replaced at all
1 Like
I meant it wouldn’t close the gap in terms of range. Overall the 9X would be much more deadly in many situations, and especially in self defense. Like you said, the 9M is already at an advantage in those situations most of the time.
The TY-90s range advantage would probably mean that it’s still better when you’re trying to play the helicopter as AA, but that’s much less workable at top tier anyways and with only two AIM-9s you’re pretty much stuck with just using them for self defense anyways.
(Proper) AIM-9Xs would turn the AH-1Z into a AA monster, even with only two of them. We don’t know how the 9Xs will perform as SAMs yet, but based on the real life power of IIR I don’t think they should be added to a heli just yet.
I can’t imagine the TY-90s being that good for AA at 12.0+, having 8 or more of them means that you can intercept enemy missiles though. They are limited to 6km range, the Sidewinders can easily exceed that range.
The AH-1Z is 12.0, you have to keep that in mind. The CAS and fighters at that BR easily outrange the TY-90s tiny 6km range. Maybe this is just my own preference, but I’d much rather have 2 missiles that I can just send out at target at range than 8-16 missiles that cannot even reach their target most of the time.
Don’t get me wrong, on the Z-9Ws (10.3 and 11.0) the TY-90s are monsters, but not at 12.0.
The AIM-9M doesn’t outrange the TY-90 though. The TY-90s are kneecapped by their guidance time, but within that timeframe they can reach targets that will have the AIM-9M fall out of the sky. I agree that their higher range isn’t really worth much at top tier and that the TY-90s stop being useful as AA and change to mediocre self defense measures on the Z-10.
I don’t think adding the AIM-9X to the AH-1Z would be problematic in terms of balancing. It would be extremely dangerous against planes trying to attack it, but they don’t need to do that. If they don’t have guided ordnance to take it out they can just keep their distance. HVMs, Spikes, PARS 3 LR and Vikhrs would still outrange it by a sigificant margin in helicopter to helicopter combat too.
It’ gives the AH-1Z at least one advantage over the competiton. With how problematic the AGM-114Ls are to implement that’d be a nice change for top tier US helis.
4 Likes
in game 9x has 7.5 burn time instead of 5.5 on 9m idk where you get your info from
yes!
ah-z1 should have 9x it would be better for self-defence "ugh im looking at you 16 ty-90 on z10
In what world is a 9M/X hitting anything moving faster than 30kmh at 12km?
You are aware that the 12km figure is in perfect conditions?
It can Glide that far, but it WONT hit anything moving from that range.
They 12km figure is total range, as I’ve tried to explain. A missile with a 6km range limitation literally cannot outrange a missile that has more range.
Having the additional range can be useful against enemy helicopters and approaching planes. Neither the TY-90 or the Sidewinder is going to hit maneuvering targets at their max range, the point is that the Sidewinder has a bigger engagement distance and a 9X would be much more powerful than a dozen TY-90.
Have you played during the Z19E craze ? I still remember those nightmarish plumes sniping every single plane, regardless of energy and countermeasure usage.
While 2 9X in 4-5 km range (assuming the target is coming towards the launchers) are basically two guaranteed kills , you have more chances to get above 2 kills with 8 TY-90s.
Currently the 9X is 100% copy paste IRIS-T (well, minus the seeker parts that make it actually work), so you just kinda know it’s incorrect. When fixed it should be a tad worse probably.
Also from Raytheon brochure, as well as other various sources:
1 Like
I have played against TY-90 Helis. They aren’t all that as AA (at least at the higher BRs, at 10.3 they are busted), except for close range heli combat and the occasional plane ambush.
6km range is 6km range and a Sidewinder launched towards an incoming target can hit said target beyond those 6km.
If the 9X gets life-like flare rejection you literally would only be able to dodge it kinematically. Even if it doesn’t end up hitting the target, it will make the target much more vulnerable to another attack, even at longer ranges.
Which only works once because you have 2 missiles, that’s it. Not 8.
Really I don’t know why you are going to such lengths to downplay the TY-90, it’s pathetic.
The AH-1Z should get it’s 9X’s it’s supposed to be carrying.