The AGILE has an AIM-7F motor, what do you mean it will be anemic in range?
3 Likes
AIM-7F glides pretty well, AGILE does not glide. It’ll be a lot less of a problem than it is for the SRAAM (especially considering it has R-73 equivalent IRCCM to my knowledge) but it still is dead on motor burnout
They don’t just detonate on motor burnout, believe it or not. Just cause it can’t change it’s heading after the motor stops doesn’t mean it hasn’t predicted where the target is going and isn’t going to get close enough for its proximity fuse to do its job
Doesn’t matter, the AGILE can’t maneuver after it stops burning anyway.
It relies solely on TVC but whereas the SRAAM has 1km range, the AGILE can easily go ~20km in a straight line or even more.
it’s still going in a straight line at that point. missiles moving on inertial are still maneuvering along a predicted intercept course, Agile goes ballistic and I find it unlikely it’s programmed to steer itself in order to hit a target as the unguided proxy fuzed fin stabilized shell it becomes on motor burnout as that’d not really be compatible with other aspects of missile interception. I’m not doubting that it’s theoretically still physically capable of hitting something once it’s ballistic but I don’t find it likely in the same way that the R-27 is still a serious threat on inertial because this isn’t inertial guidance, it’s an unguided ballistic arc
That’s what I mean, range is anemic relative to missiles with similar and even much less impulse because it’s TVC only
when people see ‘AIM-7F motor’ they might start to think they can pull AIM-7F ranges from it, but it’s much different in reality owing to how the missile works
hence the original comment on how it would still have limitations of the SRAAM relative to a ‘normal’ AAM but to a lesser extent owing to the powerful and long-lived motor
Literally just launch a 7F in game and watch how long and how far it burns. Now compare that to launching a 9L. The AIM-95 is not meant to be an ET equivalent, it’s meant to be a dogfight missile.
1 Like
So we’re in agreement, it’s relatively limited in range for its size and motor owing to how it’s controlled
It limited in range compared to a SARh, but it’s more than comparable to other IR missiles
It’s short ranged relative to the motor’s impulse, and relative to the missile’s size and weight. Under certain conditions it will compare to other IR missiles and be superior to short ranged ones such as SRAAM and R-60, but under engagement parameters in which range would be significantly enhanced by gliding after burnout many other dogfight missiles would outrange it despite being smaller. Regardless, all I was saying originally was that it would be limited in range in the same manner as the SRAAM, but not to the same extent owing to the performance of its motor.
Nothing stops you from carrying them alongside other missiles; Sidewinder, Sparrow, Phoenix, etc.
It exists to sure up the lacking dogfight capability of the Sidewinder and basically hard counter MiGs once they got in close where their pilots could make best use of their airframes advantages.
All it really needed to do was be better than a Sidewinder out to the Sparrow’s minimum range which it does handily, it was not procured on cost grounds, not due to lacking performance.
It would definitely be a nice missile to have and serve as a counterpart to the R-73(could be mounted on many airframes), especially if it received the theorized IRCCM capabilities of the alternate seeker, it could probably be extended into R-73M territory and help bridge the performance side of the gap from the AIM-9M / AIM-9R (AIM-9M w/ same seeker as the AIM-9X) to the AIM-9X Block I & -II.
3 Likes
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.
12 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.