I heard there were launch tests for these missiles and i wanna know what platforms were used and does anyone have USAF statcards for them like the image below?
also i can’t find out if the AIM-97 is DL+IOG+IR or DL+IOG+SARH+IR or SARH+IR, if anyone can clarify please do, thanks!
p.s. anything about the capabilities of the sparrowinder, AIM-7R/Q would be great thanks
IIRC it has an anti radiation homing seeker and a therminal ir, so neither of those
My understanding is that it’s… none of them. Looking at book sources (like Gunston’s “The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rockets and Missiles” and Hewish’s “World Missile Yearbook”), they only mention the IR seeker. Meanwhile, less reliable sources (like Parsch https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html and the posts in General Dynamics AIM-97 / XAIM-97 Seekbat | Secret Projects Forum) suggest that the anti-radiation seeker of the AGM-78 (which was used as the basis for Seekbat) was retained, so it would be passively guided by the MiG-25’s radar emissions midcourse and switch to IR for terminal.
Another USAF/USN missile project at the time was Brazo, which was a Sparrow that purely used a passive anti-radiation seeker, also intended to counter the MiG-25, so it’s likely that Seekbat would use a similar seeker design. Brazo was test fired from a F-4D in 1974. DTIC also has a very detailed document on Brazo’s operation: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA042836.pdf.
I don’t believe SMCs exist for the Seekbat or Agile, since they never entered service. For Agile, I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, but there’s a long thread on the forum dedicated to the Agile, so you might find some info there:
As for Seekbat, flight performance is likely similar to the AGM-78, which honestly would be pretty bad for an AAM (though given the Seekbat’s target was the Foxbat, manoeuvrability isn’t particularly important). It is believed to have a larger motor, but the specifics are unknown. For launch platforms, it was intended to be carried by the F-15, but it’s unknown what platforms actually test fired it. There’s been a picture of a F-106 allegedly carrying a Seekbat, but that’s probably from Project SPIKE, an ASAT weapon also developed from the AGM-78 but unrelated to Seekbat.
are you thinking of the AGM-78 with the anti rad seeker?
edit now im reading they used the mig-25’s powerful radar to home in instead of datalink which is… an interesting choice
yes, it seems that was intended to be used against the mig25 so it is kinda hard to know if they would work in game, as the 25 emmited a ton of radiation compared to other fighters.
shame, would’ve been cool if it was SARH at least
so the Brazo is basically an R-27P?
ps i need a solid source so i can edit wikipedia so nobody else has to go down this rabbit hole with the AIM-97 mid course guidance
no info on the weird sparrow projects tho?
Basically yes, though with a lot less range as Brazo was based on the AIM-7E-2 airframe.
I mean, Parsch is pretty widely cited on Wikipedia, so you could use that source (the Wikipedia article on the AIM-97 already cites Parsch https://designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-97.html actually, so you just need to reuse the citation). The relevant quote is: " The Seekbat used a larger propulsion unit than the AGM-78, and supplemented the latter’s radar seeker with an infrared homing device."
(I’m personally not happy with using Parsch as a source because his site is technically a tertiary source. I try to verify his stuff by checking his citations, but unfortunately in this case he is citing “Jane’s Weapon Systems 1977” which I don’t have access to. It should be fine to use him on Wikipedia per WP:TERTIARY, even if it’s not preferred.)
btw if you’d be so kind can you summerise what they found to be true and blatant lies in the AIM-95 topic, like did they use the F-4J for the HMD tests?
Well more than half of the thread seems to be just discussion about the motor; the conclusion was 32,000 lb-s total impulse, comparable to the R-27R, and a flight time of either 7 or 11 seconds—they got a bit mixed up near the end. Discussion about the seeker concluded that there were several, including 9D-equivalent, all aspect, and FOV shrinking IRCCM variants.
The HMD tests done during AIMVAL used the F-14 and F-15 that were experimentally installed with VTAS (VTAS II, I think, but II and III are pretty much the same), so technically no, but VTAS II is also used on the F-4J, so they should be compatible.
Given the time period, that the XAIM-97 was based on the Standard ARM missile, and that they expected to operate up to an altitude of 80 000 feet, there are essentially two bases they could have used to make the prototype, namely the RIM-66B missile or the AGM-78D. The websites talking about the XAIM-97 more or less quote the specifications of the AGM-78B, but by 1971 they weren´t in production and were being replaced by the 78D. (Page 114)
The first option would have better range and speed, but seems unlikely to me since the 66B is both longer (+0,6 meters) and heavier (+60 kg) than the 66A that was used as basis for the AGM-78A, so they would probably have to recertify everything. So it’s probably the second option, which is still no slouch given that the AGM-78B already had the capability to turn 180º after launch to hit a target located behind the attacker while the AGM-78D had an improved rocket motor, passive seeker and an optical proximity fuse.
I’d also guess they reduced the size of the warhead (100kg warhead is overkill for an air to air missile…) to compensate for the weight of the additional infrared seeking system and keep overall stability and flight characteristics the same, so if you can find an SMC for the AGM-78D or something similar you’d basically know the kinematic performance of an XAIM-97.
The near impossible bit is figuring out the performance of the seeker. Assuming it just uses the passive radiation homing (PRH) and inertial guidance (IG) of the AGM-78D + infrared guidance (IR), that means that the alleged testing was guided only by the IR sensor, as the CIM-10/bomarc has no way of emitting radar waves to guide the PRH seeker…
Locking on a target with an IR sensor alone from 50 to 90 km away makes it probably the longest range IR seeking missile. The F-106A (also made by general dynamics) IRSTS could do it from 180 miles away,, so it seems possible, but since supposedly the testing failed when the ramjet engines in the bomarc cut out at high altitude, i guess that the people developing the XAIM-97 realized that for it to hit the target with reasonable odds and not get distracted by the sun or something else it would need initial datalink guidance from the launching plane like the aim-54 phoenix (which would also allow it to loft in a more efficient trajectory), so you’d have to add the cost of a dedicated fire control system to the cost of an already very expensive missile; no wonder the program was cancelled when they figured out the threat wasn’t worth it.
i see so they’ve got a decent amount of info but no sources to actually go and ask gaijin for the F-15A or something to get “magic missiles” also what kinda effective kinematic range are they talking? 7km?
I’d also guess they reduced the size of the warhead
iirc it said the 97 had an improved motor and i’m guessing any space savings went towards taht or simply making it lighter
The near impossible bit is figuring out the performance of the seeker
i would guess it’s like the R-60 or R-60M, it is technically all aspect but at the detriment of any kind of filtering consdering the 9D and 9E were the sidewinders at the time
Doubt, r27et can lock past 100km rear aspect high altitude irl
R-27ET is half the mass, it’s not a situation where the R-27T is half as much an the R-27ET is a little over half, both are half as much so you’ve got boatloads of mass to work with and add avionics. consiquently the F-106 IRST from 1959 could lock targets from 90km away as lglscs said, considering the sheer size of the AIM-97 it’s not impossible that they could’ve put an IRST in (very different to a missile seeker) and gained the extra range that way. the best way i can put it is a missile seeker is like a camcorder and an IRST is like a movie camera
Do we know what parameters it would lock at? Like target aspect and stuff? Like 90 km lock range is useless without parameters
No mention at all in the thread. While they’ve got most of the hardware specs, there’s absolutely nothing about aerodynamics.
90km has been tested with a front aspect Tu-95, so considering the increase in speed, and heat of the airframe due to friction the MiG-25 should be easily visible despite it’s smaller size, and then there’s the afterburner plume behind the aircraft
i see and as you said, no SMCs. also what does SMC stand for? i believe there might be some as i have SMCs for the AIM-47 and XAIM-4H laying about somewhere
SMC is standard missile characteristics
SMC is the initials for Standard Missile Characteristics, which is a document made for the airforce so the pilots know the flight envelope in which the missiles can be used, i believe the stat card in the opening post comes from the AIM-4F SMC.
