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.
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.
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.
How does the Pl-9’s IRCCM compare to others? Since its multi-element is it like a Python 4 ish equivalent?
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.
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.
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.
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”
According to Stepanovich.
I’m not arguing that it hasn’t been said or isn’t the case. I just feel it’s a rather strange limitation to run into.
My point is that it isn’t true and the dude has lied on multiple occasions about various game mechanics. I suppose it is to appease us, or they don’t think it is feasible because of some other reason. It could even be their opinion that it is bad for gameplay and that is all there is to it.
0.42 FOV Magic 2 pleeeeeeeaaaaase gaijin
If it got that I wouldn’t even be mad about it not getting its tracking suspension
I have a feeling that would be too small for the game, and it would cause the seeker to “over correct” making it lose the target.
Nah it has a really high track rate, it would kinda suck if gaijin messed it up like that though