Nah he’s rigth for this take.
Obviously we don’t know at which parameter the max range was taken (altitude, speed of the carrier, speed and altitude of the target) for every missile and they could be different for each one of them so the “max range” comparaison is flawed. It’s more for a quick comparaison between missile.
Obviously those max range won’t be abtainable in any true situation, since the max range is for an optimal engament configuration with the target comming rigth at you at very high altitude.
That’s why i like to compare those max range with the AIM_9L / AIM-9M we have in game since pretty mutch every body knows its capabilities. When you know the 9L is rated as 18km max range it make you relativises on the 25km max range of the IRIS-T or the supposed 50km of the ASRAAM.
Have you ever shot a target at more than 10km with an AIM-9L? Probably not.
It will be the same for the other short range missile sutch as the IRIS-T/PL-10/9X/AAM-5…
They’ll have a bit more range that current missile but don’t expect to do 10/15/20km kills with them.
If you wanna do that then you’ll have to use the MICA IR or the ASRAAM but even then, it depends on the engagment conditions
1 Like
You know why they have longer range is due to data link LOAL right
Meaning that they don’t work the same
also there seekers are much better then the ones on the 9L as well
all of this adds up to missiles that can go further then what was available before
Sensor wise, going from 3th gen IR seeker (9L/9M) to 5gen IIR seeker (9X/ASRAAM…) the sensor aquisition range was upgraded by 4/5 times iirc.
But even if you can lock your target at 20km with your 9X, the missile is not able to intercept the target kinematically.
The max range is limited by the kinematics of the missile, not the sensor range for those missile.
Modern FOX 2 missile focused more on being smokeless or very low smoke than having the more punchy propelant that could make the missile having more range.
So despite years between an 9M and the 9X, the kinematics of the missile didn’t change mutch (even if the 9X has less drag and probably a bit more thrust, the 9X only has a bit more range than the 9M).
So i won’t really agree with you on this point. Nowadays, your missile can lock a target a long time before its able to be shot because of its kinematics limits.
ASRAAM and MICA can though because they are designed to
9X still uses a 9M motor not all of them are the same
This allows missile that can go further then their lock range to hit like ASRAAM and MICA IR
R-27ET exists already in-game
This isn’t true
Also LOAL doesn’t do anything, if you launch an AIM-9L at sea level from 10km at a head-on target he has a LOT of time to just turn around and the missile is dead in the water.
Likewise, in the future you’ll be able to do the same against even the ASRAAM… Especially with MAWS.
While its not limited kinematically, its still pretty limited by its seeker aquisition range and the fact that’s its pretty easelly flarable from a long distance.
With modern IIR seeker you probably won’t have this problem.
R-27T / ET should be locking afterburning targets from much greater distance away than currently. There are also versions with greatly improved seekers.
1 Like
That’s true of all missiles in game. Gaijin did fix it briefly at one point, but they seem to have reverted that change.
1 Like
Not necessarily, R-24T has ‘correct’ lock-in ranges on targets outlined in the manual for example. There are others that are correct. Rather IR intensity of the targets seems to be too low.
So if i understand correctly, the AIM-9X has the exact same thrust as the 9M?
At least for early 9X.
So the range upgrade would only be thanks to its drag reduction.
The block 1 has the modified Mk36, the block 2 motor is re-designated. It is unlikely it retained the Mk36 motor. Additionally, as with newer blocks of the Mk36 the composition may have changed. Since later AIM-9M blocks are still classified, we won’t know for certain.
In any case, it can’t be said it simply uses the AIM-9M motor because there were a series of modifications and re-designation.
probably a couple percent less thrust than the 9M due to the thrust vector vanes disturbing the flow.
Yeah minor changes to the motor (changing a few parts for better reliability) the performance of the motor has not changed
only if the propellant stayed the same, while it likely got upgraded
Modified 9M Mk 36 Mod 11 rocket motor with the 9M wing ribs machined off seems to imply the opposite to me.
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
