I’m gonna be honest you all seem to be talking past me to a hypothetical person who reflexively hates every aspect of the Agile and I cannot see what that person is saying so I’m gonna give up explaining myself and go play Highfleet for a while
1 Like
The range is still superior to pretty much any other IR missiles with the exception of the R-27ET.
It certainly exceeds the range and performance of anything with the exception of the ET. I’d put it in the same category for that same reason… but I am not going to say they are equivalents either. Similar to how the AIM-7F, Super 530D, and R-27ER are in the same category in spite of the performance gap with the R-27 currently…
Correct, it is limited in range when compared against the AIM-7F/M but it is superior to any other IR missile offered to America.
I suppose I’ll step in to put it in a touch better terms.
The AIM-95A’s capabilities make the requirement to glide irrelevant. It would be an R73 with around 11(What did we end up deciding on?)+ seconds of burn time; a hilarious number that far exceeds the amount of time that most IR AAMs will be in the air. If the missile does not hit within those 11 seconds, it was either flat-out defeated, or was never going to hit under the target under such launch parameters to begin with.
For a dogfight missile, this is quite capable. Being able to glide is irrelevant to it’s purpose.
I’m…also pretty sure it’s not very large, as far as missiles go, @The_Generic_Guy.
Comparison to a normal sidewinder:
It’s shorter and fatter; that’s one of the things that was stumping @MiG_23M about it’s capabilities before.
I would appreciate it if you (@The_Generic_Guy) didn’t like…gaslight potential readers of this thread into not understanding the missile and it’s capabilities. That’s why I put so much research into the initial thread to begin with. It’s quite an obscene piece of tech for it’s time, and we (the US) didn’t get something to it’s equivalent until the aim9x.
15 Likes
We need this missile. I don’t think it would be op especially if it does not have irccm
The Agile is in a very… interesting and possibly precarious situation, when it comes to being added.
Like the SRAAM: it existed, was test-fired, and the capabilities (at least for the variants test-fired) are mostly known. However, it is still a prototype.
Unlike the SRAAM: it was tested on a very wide variety of aircraft, and was likely designed to be compatible with a lot of newer planes still coming into the fray at that time (F-15, F-14, etc).
Biggest issue I can see in regards to not adding it: Foreign AAMs (R-73/R-73E, Magic II/MICA IR, Python IV) will likely far surpass the capabilities of the AIM-9M (although I’m not too concerned about this, other folks seem to be), and the US won’t fully catch up until the AIM-9X (which brings with it a host of other super modern missiles which I’m frankly even scared to think about).
The AGILE could serve as a decent bridge between the 9L and 9X, especially if it has IRCCM. However, it has the potential to be really unbalanced as well (certified 11 second burn time combined with 50G maneuverability moment).
I honestly am still very much on the fence about it
3 Likes
video of it firing has it burning for 15 seconds minimum iirc. That being said, it cannot maneuver without the motor burning
You yourself know that burn time can vary as you’ve gone in tangents about it before. Whatever they decide on will be for whatever materials are available and to match any performance data should it even be added.
1 Like
I very much doubt Gaijin will model the AIM-95 Agile properly after it took quite literally years for the Magic IIs to now finally be fixed and how bad the R-73s were initially on release. If they ever do decide to add this experimental U.S. missile, it will most likely come out in a pre-nerfed state either without IRCCM with the insane 50Gs or not as strong IRCCM (similar to the R-73 compared to the AIM-9M) with lowered G limits to like 30-40Gs. As for the burning time, I suppose it too will be adjusted accordingly.
2 Likes
Was going to make a suggestion about this…
Seems it’s already here.
I dont play america, but they could do with a TVC HOBS IR AAM.
It’s a shame Gaijin hasn’t added this in yet.
Although i do wonder if the platforms that carried this ever had an HMD.
technically it could be mounted on the F-4J since it was tested on the model, that was, however, before their HMCS was applied as a modification ( I could be wrong, someone correct me if i am).
That’d make it pretty strong-ish and could bring it to relevance as a semi-upgrade over the F-4S actually))
I think the top f-4 and the f-14 should get it to bring them up to speed but if not then the f-16 (apparently tested) could get it as a counter to the migs r-73
4 Likes
I suppose we could get that one F-14A that carried 120s as an event vehicle and give it Agiles too
1 Like
At minimum, the F-14 and F-15 used VTAS during the testing for these missiles. I believe the A-7 did as well, but i can’t remember where ive seen it
1 Like
Yup, both of those tested with VTAS during AIMVAL, the same event that the Agile was tested at.
I can’t find anything about the A-7, though, other than that the theoretical A-7F Corsair III would’ve used it.
Then its settled.
Gaijin gib!!!
1 Like
One of the HMS’s mentioned in the F-16 HMS study document references that one of them is certified on the A-7E, which obviously also took part in AIMVAL.
Also considering how much of the F-16C/D Electronics the A-7D & -K ended up late in ANG service with, it wouldn’t have been that hard to do something similar for them.
6 Likes
To this day, it blows my mind the americans had the AIM-95 agile and the VTAS HMS’s in thr 70’s, and just dropped their developement, then panicked hard in the 1990’s when they realized the russians had HMS’s and R-73s…
The US has a nasty habit of underestimating everyone else and then ending up on the backfoot technologically.
12 Likes
LOVE ITTTT.
5 Likes
Soo… can we get this?
3 Likes
Possibly the best explanation.