First focal plane array seekerhead itw?
I can’t say so authoritatively, and the AIM-9R never saw service. So it doesn’t count.
Have you got a source for that being the case? The AIM-9R used an optical imaging seeker (in or close to the visible light spectrum), rather than the MWIR IIR one used on ASRAAM and as far as I know AIM-9X. A major limitation of the AIM-9R’s seeker was that it didn’t work at night, so I would be very surprised if the AIM-9X used it. Also secondary sources seem to agree that AIM-9X uses ASRAAM’s seeker.
Apparently the designation for the -9R’s seeker is the WGU-19/B (Pave Prism), and was registered in 1990.
https://nationalstocknumber.info/national-stock-number/1427-01-317-3161
Could be conflation of alternate configurations for tender of the AIM-9X program?
As an entry for the WGU-51/B also exists separately listed for the -9X. but may have seen revision post-facto.
Why is it smoky, did it use new motor?
You do get that they are called “Smoke-Less” Motors, not “No-Smoke” Motors, right?
Basically under some atmospheric conditions the inability to absorb sufficient excess water into the air due to higher altitudes (lower pressure and temperature) causes the chemical reaction to shift the equilibrium and favor the production of Aluminum oxide, which is what actually takes the from of the fine white particles that can be seen as “smoke”.
2 Likes
The AIM-9X datasheet would suggest that it uses, or is at least based on, an in-production seeker. That would be the ASRAAM seeker unless you are aware of another 128 x 128 IIR seeker being produced by the US at the time? And as I noted, various secondary sources/articles say the seekers are the same between AIM-9X and ASRAAM
Spoiler
Is there any evidence that AIM-9X used AIM-9R’s seeker? As I noted the AIM-9R seeker did not work at night, so I doubt they would have used it for AIM-9X
Spoiler
Sidewinder: Creative Missile Development at China Lake by Ron Westrum
Declassified MOD report:
Predicasts Technology Update Volume 48:
Strategic Digest Volume 20 Part 2
4 Likes
That’s still better than soviet/russian/ukranian focal plane ir sensors which were only offered for export customers and still didn’t enter service yet.
Also, where did you get that the aim-95 used a electro optical sensor? Would like to read up on that
At least 65 Brassboard AIM-9R seekers were produced between '90 and '94, So depends on how broad one would take “in-production” to mean, though by the year 2000 I’d at least consider it to be depreciated, then again it is a marketing Brochure so broad interpretations of what is written should be “fair”.
I think the RIM-116 might provide the IRIS-T link, that was referenced as Dhel did undertake licensed production, and it is of the Sidewinder’s form-factor (5").
Outside of that, the AIM-7Q / ESSM (RIM-162) dual band seeker is probably a contemporary system, but I’d need to go digging to see if there is a spec sheet anywhere.
Further, as an aside I’m pretty certain that the Detectors of the -9R would be PtSi, as it’s really the only material that works on the near visual side of things (need to see if that has any relevance to the FIM-92’s POST seeker).
It didn’t, but one was developed as an alterative, this is mentioned in the AIM-95 topic.
From memory I think the now busted link was an excerpt from one of the volumes of a series books on the history of projects at China Lake (Area 51), not specifically the Sidewinder but I don’t recall the name off the top of my head.
2 Likes
Could always ask for the source again; Most of these dead links are still available, but the old links are broken.
link
See PDF page 305
So, this and the other sources confirmed that the motor must have been identical to the one found in the AIM-7F, which provides us the basis for how the motor should have performed. The actual flight performance is detailed right under that quite well. 55G and up to 118 degrees angle of attack.
3 Likes
118 aoa… that is ridiculous.
AIM-95 right? US could really use a dogfighting missile at top tier
1 Like
cant wait for the F8U to get it and stay at its current BR
1 Like
Can’t wait for the F9F-8 and F-86 to get it.
1 Like
more seriously though, f-4J would be so cracked with that
HMD with a missile that outpulls R73
1 Like
R-73 is artificially nerfed in-game, AIM-95 isn’t any crazier than it except in burn time and range, and I think depending on the seeker the AIM-95 could be better or worse. There were a litany of seeker options for the AGILE during its’ development.
3 Likes
Is aim 9x even as maneuverable as r73? R73 is 60gs irl
Honestly AIM-95 with an IIR seeker seems like it would have been a better missile than AIM-9X.
From a pure Performance point of view that is. I’m sure once you factor in economics, mass, etc. you can make a case that AIM-9X is the better decision overall (not that there was ever a direct decision between the two).
2 Likes
The AIM-9X meets a minimum requirement standard put out for a potential AIM-9 upgrade using as many common components as possible - maximizing the potential of these parts. The AIM-95 AGILE was an experimental program that sought to do the most with the best available parts and technology at the time.
Of course, the AIM-95 was potentially a viable missile that would have been made in conjunction with the cheaper AIM-9, much like the JATM is a replacement for AMRAAM - capable of much more, but at a higher cost - that will also serve alongside it.
2 Likes
I don’t think it was ever intended to be better, they had a minimum requirement to be met utilizing existing parts (modified) and they did just that.
2 Likes