"Scott Ferrin" wrote
"Paul Austin" wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:46:49 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

I remember reading that the kinematics of the -9X are much
better
than
previous Sidewinders and that it's range is significantly
higher
as a
result.

That sounds very plausible.

Unfortunately, the USAF specified that the AIM-9X use the same
motor,
warhead and fuze at the current AIM-9M with TVC added to roughly
the
same planform. I don't expect much different kinematics in the
AIM-9X.

It's been WIDELY reported that the -9X is significantly better.
For
one thing you don't have those huge tail fins and canards (drag and
weight) nor those rollerons (mroe drag and weight). I don't know
how
tail control compares to canard control as far as efficiency goes
but
judging by the fact that one of the advantages touted of AMRAAM over
Sparrow and 9X over 9M,L, etc. was that they WERE tail controlled,
would seem to indicate an advantage. Come to think of it I've seen
the same advantage mentioned in regards to ESSM over -7.

Widely reported where? If you look at the Raytheon site
http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ you'll see that the canard
configuration is similar to the AIM-9M. The tail fins are smaller but
the TVC vanes are a loss element in terms of total impulse. Some
improvement in range is possible. Much higher is questionable. ASRAAM
and Python have much larger motors for the same generation seeker
technology (same seeker in ASRAAMs case) indicating that designers not
tied to a large stock of existing ordnance feel that more impulse can
be usefully employed exploiting the seeker's performance.