I mean that is only considering worse case scenario in which it doesn’t get hmd, which I sincerely doubt. If they give rafale a hmd it only tested, then I don’t see why f-22 wouldn’t get its hmd.
Unless its hmd is gimbal limited or something
Is this one of those magazines that is “official” so it’s kinda a primary source, or is it just secondary?
So where are the HMS / HMD for the F-5E, F-14A, F-15A, A-7E, F-16A (US) etc. There are ton of airframes that could prospectively receive them (due to being tested) but won’t for one reason or another, least of all being configurational.
The addition of prototype and prospective gear for the US Air Tree is heavily constrained.
it would be classed by gaijin as secondary at best.
It’s literally the only source there is that details anything to do with the radar gimbal so it’s the best we have, also we know that the APG-77 and 81 lack a swashplate or otherwise based on the renders we have of them so the FoR is small.
Just don’t expect it to able maintain a datalink from the Notch like the AESA Typhoon or -SM2.
1 Like
There’s another two secondary* that states 60± as well.
1 Like
Well yes, it’s more in between 9x and R27 ET in terms of range/size, although it remains quite light at 112kg / 160mm diameter
As for the price, it mainly depends from contract to contract, and depends on support for an export customer, training, etc
MICA is more expensive than 9x no doubt (since it’s also more capable) but not by that much
Will be replaced by MICA NG IR this year anyway (new sensor + Dual boost)
How expensive was it? As listed on PDF page #131 the average cost of a AIM-9X Block 1 AUR (1289 AUR produced) in 2017 dollars was ~$282,000 across all produced lots + excised options for the USN between ~2003~2017.
The Block II (“-9-2”) are ~400k per AUR, and “Block II+”(“-9-3”) had not entered full scale production so were not yet spun up at the time.
Don’t read French; but (source) claims that 840 (370 EM + 470 IR) AUR were ?produced / planned? for 1,815,000,000 Euro; so 1,815,000,000/840 = 2,160,714 2005 Euro’s, the exchange rate was 1.19 USD to 1 Euro ( 0.84 Euro cents to a USD), so 2005 USD it’s 1,814,999 per AUR, account for inflation from 2005~2017 it’s 2,277,995 2017 USD.
So a unit cost of between ~2.3 and 1.8 Million 2017 USD (2,277,995 ~ $1,795,337, depending on the exchange rate); so it was somewhere between 6 & 7 times more expensive per AUR (sort of).
"Le coût total de ce programme est évalué à 1,815 milliard d’euros, en
diminution en raison des ajustements intervenus ; le projet de loi de finances pour
2005 ouvre pour ce programme 58,87 millions d’euros en crédits de paiement et
138,3 millions d’euros en autorisations de programme. "
Machine Translated;
“The total cost of this program is estimated at 1.815 billion euros, in decrease due to adjustments made; the finance bill for 2005 opens 58.87 million euros in payment appropriations for this program and 138.3 million euros in program authorizations.”
I wouldn’t exactly say that that’s close
It’s totally is by little compared to the capabilities, 9x is quite high despite reusing old sidewinder body if i’m not wrong, and mica come in 2 variants and is more comparable to aim120a than 9x.
600k for all variants from the french senate (40k diff ~ between em and ir)
https://www.senat.fr/rap/a03-076-7/a03-076-712.html
So where is the above source getting it’s numbers from?
Isn’t blk1 9x basically the same as blk2 asides from data link and loft that blk 2 has? Also aim9x on the claws and nasams is really not bad it’ actually smacks pretty hard. Around 10km range on aground launch platform you can probably get close to 17km range when launched from a plane.
Outside of the addition of LOAL (HOBS cued) There are other hardware changes to various subsystems as well, but yeah, Nothing else relevant as the HLG motor(yet to be refit), and Block III(canceled), II “Plus”(-9X-3) and “-9-4”(refit to increase reliability with Laser INS introduced in Block II) are otherwise minor changes
you are using the whole program, including R&D, to calculate a unit cost
Did the French government somehow get their R&D budget refunded in whole?
No, but i’m not really sure the figure given for 9x takes the R&D into account.
Besides, R&D is just not money but an investment in your Defense industrial base. Some is refund to state with the taxes generated by export contracts, but usually not all of it (not a particular case for France though)
You need to realize that the AIM-9X is just a further development of the AIM-9M, not a clean-sheet design, and leverages risk reduction and design work done for the AIM-95, BOX-OFFICE and AIM-132, among a multitude other Programs of Record And is the “budget” option, vs the AIM-132.
Basically all other 5th gen missiles are going to be clean sheet designs that can’t even approach leveraging the Sidewinder’s industrial base, or reuse much of the existing infrastructure so also have to pay for the move to an 8~10" diameter in other ways.
It’s also a “Joint” program, so the budget is apportioned to the relevant service’s budget depending on “need”, and bespoke features included and funded by the respective services for the Project Office.
It just subtracts the cost of Government Furnished Equipment that has already been built (and is accounted for in other line items, so it doesn’t get double counted), and in DoN (“Department of the Navy”) inventory as components from select prior AIM-9 variants can be recapitalized on to produce Sidewinders in the baseline AIM-9X configuration. As specified this is only for the DoN doesn’t include nor reflect production quantities for the Army, USAF, FMS clients, or “other customers” in the provided totals.
Nothing says that the entire missile needs to be new built and is why the baseline -9X’s cost about 100K less than later blocks since they are remanufactured wholesale or in part from AIM-9Ms. And that isn’t solely extended to the US Government, FMS clients that also have stocks of earlier Sidewinders may also benefit
1 Like
Never heard before about HLG, searching for it saw some sources saying it provides at least 20% more thrust just from changing for HLG, now i can see how theres missiles not much more bigger than AMRAAMs with claimed ranges of 300km+
Do you know if 120D-3 uses HLG?
Look in AMRAAM discussion
See people talking about MICA and AIM-9X
16 Likes
what else can we say man, amraams have been cooked for since august 2024, and only got worse, at this point we’ll get aim120d and it’ll likely be just as shit
2 Likes
In game “IIR” seekers simply use combined tracking suspension and gatewidth. Same as Stingers.
I am aware. But like i said, if you get the proper IIR implementation you could not expect a huge difference.