9M is in a difficult spot.
It has decent range
Good IRCCM
Poor close range performance.
9M at top tier is lacking the jets can defeat it kinematically. Making longer range shots a risk.
It should be harder to flare rear aspect shots on a jet in full burner should be a sure thing. In game they arent even massive Su-27SM engines manage to flare a rear aspect 9M.
It only gets worse as you close range. R-73 and Magic 2/MICA EM massively outclass you. R-73 is now looping round like it should and that makes it very scary.
I would like an upgraded M with superior IRCCM to make carrying the 9M feel better.
the Agile? the thing that was cancelled as its potential capability was basically what soon to enter service sidewinders could do? Also this is a missile that was cancelled in like 1975, just as the 9L was about ready to go, and that proved to be phenomenal for the time. It would NOT be a potential replacement for the 9M from the late 80s
Agile wasn’t up to what the USA or Britain wanted to replace sidewinder, hence why taildog and skyflash were made, and why nothing of the Agile is seen in modern IR missiles at all, it has no legacy other than being a footnote in why the sidewinder was king until AIM 132 was born
You don’t know what you’re talking about. The AIM-9L was the stopgap until AGILE could come online. It was only cancelled over budget, same as the HMD systems for it, and the 9L remained far past when it was supposed to be replaced. It was a far more capable IR missile than the AIM-9 until the 9X.
TBH in my experience with the r73 its also not the most flare resistant under 2km.
IMO its slightly harder to accidentally flare 9m from a longer distance while the r73 is VERY hard to intentionally flare at closer ranges
This is a flatout lie
The pilot actually confirmed that the missile left the rails
name is Lt. Cdr. Michael Tremel
" According to Military.com, as the Su-22 climbed after dropping ordnance, Tremel would respond, firing an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile which missed the Fitter for reasons MOB didn’t explain."
And considering it was later on confirmed by an official that it was flares, it is a clear cut case.
No clear secondary motive. Official was also correct on everything else.
didn’t track (because decoyed by flares)
Clearly it tracked the target before the launch as it was launched
The official already confirmed the reason as to what happened and pilot+gov official is something ill trust more than keyboard generals
especially because none of you were there, none of you were briefed on it none of you launched the missile. however the pilot launched the missile and the official was briefed on what happened
so be quiet.
people really have hard time accepting that their favorite missile is not impossible to flare
Clearly if it was 100% flare rejection rate, it couldn’t be improved later on with upgrades
So, the flare rejection rate wasn’t 100%. It can be decoyed by flares.
(this is so hard to accept for some people)
Im not gonna ague with someone who doesnt understand basic terminology yet claims to have read confidential briefings on it
On your second point you clearly dont understand that there are different circumstances with different probability’s of a missile getting flared. Because you seem to be implying that these upgrades must have been to help against minimally evasive targets with very limited numbers of flares launched.
They don’t need to be best at terminology, they just need to know what happened and be able to explain it sufficiently which they did
these upgrades exist because the aim9x isn’t immune to flares. simple as that.
if it could filter a flare out perfectly every single time, then these wouldn’t be needed. clearly it can’t.
Like i said, the officials statement together with pilots support the fact that the missile was flared, there is no secondary motive and their information supports each other and is logically plausible
You weren’t there, one of them was there and the other one was told what happened.
