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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
