I experienced issues with the R73 in vertical launches lately and its does that weird crazy turn @Malekitth showed in an earlier video and just falls out of the sky. Has anyone else experienced it?
Another case of the R-73 going BRAINDEAD and 360 NO SCOPING in Warthunder - YouTube
Happened about 3 times over the weekend all in a similar vertical launch when a target was dispensing CM.
It wasn’t like the R-73, that’s a misconception. It was like the SRAAM, TVC but TVC only. The R-73’s innovation was not the introduction of TVC but the combined TVC and aerodynamic control system that removed the hard range limitation that had previously made TVC AAMs non-viable. It was also cancelled, so I don’t know what you’re insinuating with that “miraculously”, unless you also think the R-14 belongs on most R-60M platforms
One of main problem of R-73, it’s an insane speed lost in maneuvers
It’s wasn’t canceled, it was type classified otherwise it would be known as the XAIM-95A, not AIM-95. Basically a decision was made to not scale up production and so the program wrapped up upon the completion of the Low-Rate Initial Production Milestone, and as such did not enter service, though a number of AURs were produced.
Basically I think they would be a better option than handing out the AIM-9M’s (especially once their seeker range gets doubled, as per documentation ) to the requisite Strike airframes(e.g. A-6 / A-7) to make them serviceable in the 11.x bracket, the same way the later Su-25’s got the R-73.
As it will be hard to find a suitable airframe for said bracket without stretching or throwing the A-10C somewhere where it really doesn’t sit well or lowballing an AV-8B.
It would be a more balance friendly option than the AIM-9M is, and is very similar in terms of performance to the R-73, considering what we know.
It was cancelled. They cancelled the program and went with the AIM-9L. I don’t care how it was cancelled or if they were ready to produce them. They didn’t get the contract and the missile was cancelled.
The late model Su-25s get R-73s because they used them historically, and because they’re slower and less capable than comparable strike aircraft at its BR. A-6 and A-7 did not use them historically. If they implemented aircraft like this, we’d have a MiG-23ML with R-27s and R-14s, a MiG-23M with 4xR-23s, AMRAAMs on the Tomcat, and other nonsense like that. When we give Gaijin an inch on ahistorical loadouts, they tend to take a mile and refuse to give it back. Shit, the MiG-29A STILL has R-27Es for some godforsaken reason.
Like I said before, it is not similar in terms of performance to the R-73. They are conceptually VERY different missiles.
The R-73 was not revolutionary for its use of TVC. It was revolutionary for its use of R-73 on a missile that combined this with a conventional high-agility aerodynamic control system, allowing the missile to thrust vector and pull high-off-boresight while retaining the ability to coast on motor burnout, thus removing the hard range cap that had killed previous paper and prototyped TVC missile projects.
The AIM-95, on the other hand, is an older missile, and very much a product of its time, which is to say it was TVC only. On motor burnout, the AIM-95 was no longer controlled, it had fixed fins. It had a much greater range than the SRAAM, although how much exactly is unknown, but this is because it was much larger and much heavier than the SRAAM, AIM-9, or R-73; all of this extra space was rocket motor in an attempt to hit the requirement to have an effective range similar to the AIM-9. But even then, I would be very surprised if the engineers didn’t use the term “effective” a bit generously here, as the Sidewinder coasts quite well. Maybe it could hit the effective range of an AIM-9J under certain conditions against certain targets, but against an AIM-9L launched under ideal conditions against a cooperative target, I would be astonished if even the much larger AIM-95 could burn the whole way while producing useful thrust
You do know that the AIM-95 was used alongside the AN/AVG-8B VTAS III HMS right? so is just a capable of Off-Boresight acquisition, if not more so due to the larger gimbal ( +/- 70 degrees).
It was not procured on cost effectiveness grounds, so I doubt that it was a performance issue, rather than the fact that they already had much of what the AIM-9L would have needed already.
The motor was quoted as having similar performance to the AIM-7F (in terms of impulse), so its certainly more than possible that it was at least on par with the AIM-9L kinematically.
I think we showed that this is pretty much an impossibility if I recall correctly.
So you would call into question the documentation we do have?
It falls into line with what we know about the Mk58 motor from the AIM-7F’s SMC. and actually looking closely at it I wouldn’t be surprised if the motor in this case is a heavily modified Mk 58(potentially reduced length ), as were the propulsion sections of a number of other projects at the time (HAP, HARM etc.)
I suspect it to be a mk58 mod too, especially considering how long the missile burns in footage
It is insinuated that it is similar, but I don’t think this is a possibility.
However, we know it cannot be the Mk58. The dimensions of the motor are simply too small, and the AIM-7F does not have an extended nozzle tube.
It’s at least 3 1/2" shorter, similar diameter… but we know nothing about it aside they say it’s [redacted] as the one on AIM-7F. To have the exact same total impulse as the Mk58 I don’t think is possible. Especially with a TVC nozzle.
The AIM-7F’s motor had a relatively high ISP already (268s?), so I don’t think it could have come from performance improvements.
So assuming the data wasn’t wrong, and it was similar to the Sparrow what would the Agile’s projected mass be?
Also since we know which stations were envisioned to carry them we have an effective upper limit of 250~300lb (including carriage equipment; a LAU-7A/A is 90lb) from the A-7’s fuselage station loadout.
yeah 15 sec burn time minimum according to the footage. Vid cuts off before the motor cuts out.
The burn time can vary a lot, and a lot of developmental models were made. The more realistic answer is seen here; average 3,500 pounds thrust for 7 seconds with no less than 24,000 lb-s total impulse.
I will continue discussing the AIM-95 in the proper thread, though;
That was the picture they settled on huh
Interesting discussion boys.
Procurement was not carried out due to a lack of performance. Definitely not cost. This was the Cold War after all, a time of blank checks and 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year nuclear armed B-52 patrols around the continental United States. Money was no object.
However, it was due to politics within the industrial military complex as well as the Navy and Airforce that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara started.
Research and development into the Navys Aim-95 and Airforce’s AIM-82 went on during the time of Robert McNamara where mass uniformity between the Airforce and Navy took place at his direction. Not only did this affect fighter design (TFX Program) it covered air intercept missiles. It’s not because the Aim-95 was inferior etc. or costly. It was just all about creating uniformity between the branches.
Obviously, we broke free from Secretary of Defense McNamara’s TFX Program, but uniformity remained in air intercept missiles, and we went with the Aim-9L.
I chalk this a win for the Soviets.
well, as was mentioned with the AIM-9K, we could’ve had uniformity and performance. 9L was specifically uniformity and cost-efficiency relative to need.
There is a separate AIM-95 thread.
Yeah, I do not know anything about any aim-9k sorry, just some history and doctrine.
Aim-9L fit our doctrinal need regardless of cost.
phonebooth knife fighting and high off boresight capability was not our prioritization and primary doctrine in aerial combat nor was it the principal threat of the United States. There was not a doctrinal need for such a missile as the Aim-95.
BVR is still our principal doctrine and out principal threat. Fighters such as the Flanker not because its close-range capability, but It’s powerful radar, strategic combat radius and sheer number of long burn Alamo’s as well as the R-77 was the principal threat. The Flanker’s BVR capability continues to be the threat today. It just that the Chinese Flanker has taken the Soviet/Federations place.
Thanks Gats, I do not care for such a missile that never was though. If anyone feels the Aim9L/M is lacking all they need to do is give it historical effective range and all aspect lock range, it had. The missile is more than sufficient and it’s all up to GJ on just how deadly it can really be.
Anyway, hope you are enjoying the patch, and we get some R-73 updates soon. Whenever you guys figure out what exactly is the issue. I am experiencing issues with it too.
You’re taking some…very extreme liberties with where you’re cutting your quotes off.
I will reiterate: the R-73 was not unique or revolutionary in the field of AAMs for its TVC HOBS capability. It was revolutionary for combining this with a conventional aerodynamic control scheme that removed the primary disadvantage of previous TVC HOBS dogfight missile concepts, that being that they had a hard range limit and could not coast, by implementing an aerodynamic control scheme.
The AIM-95 is TVC only, it is a conceptually a chunkier and more advanced SRAAM.
The R-73 would not have made waves, nor would it have likely been a worthwhile project, if the only notable features upon entering service were that it had a HOBS capable seeker combined with a TVC system. This had been evaluated by the Soviets, the British, and the US, and found to not be ideal in all three cases. I will reiterate, it was the R-73’s integration of TVC and traditional aerodynamic control that made it conceptually revolutionary. Comparing it and the AIM-95 is like comparing the F-14 and the F-111B and saying they’re basically the same because they had similar specs and swing wings.