The AIM-9M uses three criteria for detecting a flare:
9 Likes
So my 1997 Harrier GR7 Manual has it at 192.2lbs
This my 1999 Harrier GR7 Manual then has it at 189lbs;
The my 2002 Sea Harrier FA.2 has it down to 186lbs
So continuous improvements throughout the years reduced the weight.
5 Likes
Harrier GR7 Stores limit gives 90lb for a LAU-7A with 9L/M + LAU-7A at 276lbs so 186lbs for both by 2010.
3 Likes
The only difference between AIM-9L and AIM-9M initially was the guidance section according to budgeting documentation. Whatever was modified to incorporate IRCCM likely added weight initially and was removed over time.
Solid state components don’t weigh multiple pounds, there would need to be a large increase in volume for that to be the cause of the discrepancy.
I thought it was all already solid state since AIM-9H
Yes, so that has already been accounted for with the changes to the AIM-9G in order to produce AIM-9H, and subsequently the -9L; one theoretical way to have the guidance / IRCCM changes be responsible for the large apparent weight change is to significantly increase the space available to them which obviously did not occur since excess space is already at a premium and would be an externally obvious change.
The other would be to add internal mass simulators for whatever reason to adjust the balance points which would necessitate a significant aerodynamic revision which is obviously not the case.
3 Likes
Imo, if there’s multiple different weights stated for a missile, they should use the one closest in year to the range charts used by Gaijin to model the missile’s aerodynamics for consistency. Usually, there’s weight listed anyway in the same manual as the aerodynamic charts.
I don’t see it. Weight change would mean change in electronics package or other stuff. Most of the changes would be software since the 80s.
I have one from 2006 putting the 9M-1,-3,-4,-6,-8 at 196lbs. Higher than the ‘lower weight throughout years trend’
Perhaps rocket motor?
Either way, 196 is the figure on the majority of the cases.
1 Like
Is there much of a difference between the navy and air force Mikewinders?
Didn’t the USN and USAF standardize on a joint sidewinder with the AIM-9L? I know the launch rails were standardized to carry the same attachments points and coolants.
Only relating to the USAF’s warhead’s / TDD simplifications of minor Navy specific subassemblies to removed weight added to make the USN sidewinder variants certifiable for their specific requirements for shipboard EM / Fire resistance standards.
They would be ever so slightly lighter, not heavier as the new source implies, since we can infer that it was a USAF document considering that the last few pages refer to the A-10, A-7, F-4 F-15 & F-111 which are all USAF airframes. Also the fact that it only otherwise lists USAF Sidewinder variants
1 Like
Would appear that document is export restricted and also not older than 30 years.
7 Likes
That is clearly a 2004 version of the document which is no indication of the pre-1983 variant seen.
There is no mention of AIM-9P-4, only references to AIM-9M and AIM-7M, so the material was written at least after 1983 and before 1990.
Also, cover of the manual shows a digitized T.O. 1-1M-34. T.O. 1-1M-34 used in the report is a non-digitized version, so the two are different.
Even if we can say that distribution statements apply to 2004 and later, we can’t assume that they apply to older versions.
4 Likes
Might I make the point that you can’t likewise assume the older versions are cleared for release? More to the point i’ve seen no official confirmation that those documents, regardless of year, have had their export restrictions lifted/removed.
If that is the case might I suggest you post such confirmation as soon as practicable.
4 Likes
There’s no problem, so there’s nothing to explain. There is no Distribution Statement B/C/D/E (CUI) in the manual and it is over 30 years old, so it is considered safe. If the manual was from 2004, it would not be available, but since it is 1983-1990, it is safe.
4 Likes
It may be missing the cover page, which is odd though?
If it had been digitized (Like as shown in the 2004 version of the same manual) and there was something that could only have been added after 1990, we would have said that the material was unavailable or need additional proof of declassification, but since there is no such thing, it should be considered safe under the presumption of innocence.
2 Likes
Everybody who has sources get ready to report all the planes that should have 9Li
of top of my head:
- removing aim9m from sweden
- as suggestions for italian planes
4 Likes