What makes it so bad is the absolute lack of range , you can do orbital shots with 9L and 9G and Pythons, with R-60 you have to be very close if the target is fast.
2 Likes
I think speed bleed of AIM-9L may not be accurate. Rollerons are high drag.
Is the time the 9L takes to start turning and the speed at which it reaches full maneuverability accurate? I swear they pull shots at close range sometimes that I wouldn’t trust an R-60 to do, and I was under the impression that they shouldn’t really be effective in a knife fight, and that point blank was between 600m to 1km even on relatively easy shots. Can they actually turn like they currently do in sub-1km shots?
The diagrams suggest it’s accurate but I think post-burn speed loss during maneuvers is not high enough.
1 Like
@Ziggy1989 discussion about the R-73 in relation to the AIM-9L/M… the R-73 was a step ahead of them and they admitted as much. That is why the newer short range IR missile programs were started for the most part. BB also forgot the Python 3 (also developed from Sidewinder) highly influenced Chinese missile design.
The R-73 per most sources has a range in excess of 30km depending on conditions, whereas the AIM-9L’s post-burn drag is rather high owing to the rolleron design. Other countries got rid of this and designed their own missiles but it was very few. One such design is the Magic, which has a rotatable tail piece around the body to avoid roll interference and instead relies on the canards solely for roll control. (R-73 relies on trim from the rudders at the rear, maintaining full pitch / yaw control from the canards).
Magic - roll control from canards.
AIM-9 - roll control from constantly spinning “rollerons” on tail.
R-73 - roll control from trim flaps on tail.
This is the primary difference between the three canard controlled missiles. To get ahead of the Russian missile every Western country chose to go with tail control designs utilizing body lift and otherwise more aerodynamic structure to improve range. In the case of AIM-9X they reused an older motor design, likely with improved propellant to extend range as much as 20%.
Derivatives of the AIM-9 evolved on their own as well to become their own unique design. Python 4 for example, which uses dedicated flaps only for roll control just behind the canards. There are 18 control surfaces to enhance maneuverability and a much more powerful motor to extend range.
3 Likes
Because you choose from two, either a smoky and powerful engine or a lower power, but smokeless.
therefore, a slightly longer version was developed
As we know, the earlier discussion was on the original R-73 which had a range of approximately 30+ km. This is in head-on aspect of course and at higher altitudes / speeds.
yep
This is how it is indicated for all rockets
So why not give us both versions.
4 Likes
PID moment
Looks like it overcompensated since technically the target was extremely far off-boresight and instead of recovering as it rapidly re-centered it just completely lost it
It tripped over
Therefore, we have a shortage of maneuverability
2 Likes
Must consider the speed it would be able to do so without flying out of control, also the integer in the code is not necessarily 1:1 with degrees of the vector.
We need turn radius based on speed or some method of calculating this for the missile to be made more maneuverable I think.
1 Like
I don’t see where you lost control. It looks like a simple aileron roll.
There is no excuse why the missile did not strike you or the target.
In missiles datamine table it converted to 4.05°, but not sure how they did that. We can try ask techmod or Stepanovich about this.
1 Like
GAIJIN simply hates the R-73 , If it was American everyone would be rioting and it would have been fixed in 1 month at most