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.
what i dont get is that sometimes even old sidewinders can use dual plane (here is 9l for example), so maybe 9x is also dual plane but only circumstantially?
Having a listed dual plane performance is not being a dual plane missile, it’s just when it happens to be in it. Atleast for the context of warthunder, dual plane usually refers to BTT, where the missile actively uses dual plane maneuvering. Which aim-9s lack. The vast majority of missiles perform better in a two plane scenerio to a one plane, with the exceptions being like the AAM-4 and some earlier misssiles, which either use load command for their guidance, or are else limited by physical tolerances.
Rollerons, despite their name, are not actually exclusively for roll, they provide general pitch and yaw stability as well. Their inclusion on early sidewinders was more of as a general stability feature to help with primitive guidance of the time. Hence why basically no newer missile had them.
The reason why I think it doesn’t, is because if you watch the test footage of the missile, the camera FoV spins, even while maneuvering, until its edge detection locks onto the shape of a target, at which point it appears to be digitally stabilized. Similarly in static testing of the thruster you only ever see pitch/yaw actions from it, not roll.
Also, due to it’s design, having much smaller fins, instead relying more on TVC + body lift, the effects of BTT would actually be much smaller on it then on previous aim-9 models.
It would increase the pitch rotation impulse, but it wouldn’t actually increase the manuevering load.
Basically, TVC only actually steers the direction of the missile. The actual turning force produced is still only either by 1. Conventional aerodynamics, or 2. in line force from the engine, which actually occurs most at low angles of deflection.
Basically, when a TVC nozzle rotates the direction of thrust, it causes it to no longer be aligned with the center of inertia of the missile, thus leading to a rotating moment. However, as this thrust is located behind the center of inertia, it means that the direction of deflection is inverse to the direction of the turn, and as such its force to the new direction of travel is actually negative. The thrust only starts to be in the desired direction of travel after this rotation is accomplished, when the missile’s direction of orientation is near the desired direction of travel. At which point fin deflection should, under ideal guidance laws, be approaching zero.
