A reminder that even without changing the name (Mk36) the motor changed entire propellant types, assuming there is no increase to ISP of a missile from AIM-9D → AIM-9X is absurd.
Mate even the air force says it uses the same motor
There is alot of info showing that the motor is the same with minimal changes
It ones of the few reasons it is considered the worst Western IIR missiles (not that it is bad)
1 Like
It also doesn’t help that the Navy also states the same.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/AIM-9X-Sidewinder
“The AIM-9X incorporates many AIM-9M legacy components (rocket motor, warhead and active optical target detector), but its performance far exceeds the legacy Sidewinder.”
Thats probably why its being specified as the Mk 36 Mod 11 in the document I posted above, to avoid confusion with the other Mk 36 variants
1 Like
Again, the same can be said of anything that is gonna cost a lot but they want budgeting approved. It’s seen as a risk reduction method. The super Hornet is just an improved legacy hornet right?
1 Like
9X uses MK-139 this is literally written in all documents. in those documents above, it is written what changes the MK 36 mod 11 underwent to ultimately become the MK-139
No 9X is much faster than 9M, in the game its acceleration is overestimated, and the engine operating time should be longer
more precisely, 9x is slightly faster than 9m in the game. and 9m should be much less fast, accordingly
Yeah it going to be slightly faster due to aerodynamic body
“Improved”
Super Hornet isn’t the same case here as legacy Hornets can’t be upgraded to super hornet while 9Ms can be upgraded to 9Xs
1 Like
LOL sure, just strip everything but the warhead out, and then build a new missile around it
1 Like
My analogy was perfect lol
Hornet → Super Hornet is akin to
AIM-9M → AIM-9X
Even so, my point still stands. They re-designated the engine a second time according to the public training plan document. The block 2 has a newly designated motor.
I do not think the new ignition battery for the motor caused the re-designation.
1 Like
so the block 2 you talking about now
Ned designation doesn’t mean that performance has changed either
In the case of late AIM-9L blocks even a change from mod x to mod y resulted in entirely new propellants from CTPB to HTPB. An entirely new motor designation rather than ‘mod’ implies an even larger change.
I personally think that either the latest AIM-9M blocks incorporate better propellant or the AIM-9X blocks certainly do. If the name change was caused by the modification for TVC, why a second name change for block 2?
The AIM-9Ms that entered service with the FAA in 1988 were equipped with Mk 36 Mod 11 motors, which is the same version apparently modified for AIM-9X block 1.
It is obviously possible that the AIM-9X block 2 has a better propellant.
but the main changes for block 2 was the RAM coating and LOAL
Datalink,LOAL and lofting were the main points of Block-II upgrade.
Didnt saw anything about RAM coating tho.
Changes to block 2 are harder to find and read, the block 1 is very well detailed
https://premium.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/AIM9X-p.htm
The propellant is claimed to be “type X-61”, or “AS 6065” composite grain. Without additional data this doesn’t mean much, but in the future if these propellants are discussed we would be able to associate them with the AIM-9X block 1.
There is allegedly an “AIM-9X-3” which is sort of a block 2+ model. This makes sense.
They’re implementing upgrades into the block 2 by essentially rolling out smaller changes in batches at production level. It is similar to how the M1A2 SEPV2 has been fielded upgrades that belong to the SEPV3 over time as well. Even the SEPV3 will be fielded upgrades originally only planned for the now cancelled SEPV4. So to me, it’s no surprise that the Air Force is doing similar with their ordnances.
1 Like
The US often upgrades things without a major name change, this happens both with vehicles themselves and also with equipment. Look at American tank barrels for example, they have been progressively strengthened to deal with the frankly ridiculous pressure of the new American tank shells. But it’s still just called an m256, not an m256A5E3 or whatever. Whereas you look at say Germany with the change from L55 to L55A1 which is literally just that same pressure increase but just swapping from the intial variant to a new one, with a new classification. Or DM53->63 where it was just a propellant swap, the actual round is the same. US often just doesn’t have a new name for these things, it’s pretty common.
1 Like
The name of the gun “M256” is stamped on the breech, not the barrel. The name of the gun itself wouldn’t change just because of the barrel. On the flip side, there have been numerous barrel changes for the 120mm alone. Different styles of holes in the gun tube for the bore evacuator and other such changes.
Yes, glad others understand