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.
2 Likes
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
It is just asking but, which AIM-9Ms we currently have in the game?
It was AIM-9M-7 iirc.
2 Likes
How does the Pl-9’s IRCCM compare to others? Since its multi-element is it like a Python 4 ish equivalent?
1 Like
To my understanding, multi-element would just make it like R-73 and Magic 2 with seeker fov reduction. However, the manufacturer stated two-color multi-element. The two-color part is the problematic part to my limited understanding.
1 Like
It has better IRCCM than the R-73/ Magic 2 we have currently in game.
It should have a reduced FOV (aound 0.5°) compared to the 0.75 of the R-73
Iirc it doesn’t have any kind of seeker shut off like the AIM-9M or the Python 4.
1 Like
Two-color refers to things like: TV-IR, IR-UV or things like LWIR-MWIR, MWIR-SWIR, LWIR-SWIR. Basically more than one detector.
Yes, that part is what would give it an even more enhanced IRCCM over the current R-73 for example. Gaijin could just implement the multi-element part and then say “we’re still investigating the two-color part”.
I’d imagine it is IR-UV, which would make it on par with Strela or Type 91.
2 Likes
All IR missiles with two-color multi-element IRCCM in-game also feature seeker shut off. So there’s no reason to omit that.
Both the Magic-II and R-73 should have smaller FoVs than they currently do. IIRC they should be about half of the current 0.75, but are “game limitations”
1 Like
According to Stepanovich.