Jump to content

The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Information & Discussion topic


Flame2512
 Share

So there’s been a lot claims that the Aim-9F (FWG.2) is working correctly. I’m just wondering has anyone made any reports to get them fixed. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/03/2021 at 02:42, Conte_Baracca said:

Anyone got a good source for how the launch rails work and the compatibility of sidewinders.

What launcher? In terms of the ones actually in WT (not including things like the LAU-114 or LAU-127), you can be referring to either the AERO 3 or the LAU-7.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joshwagstaff13 said:

What launcher? In terms of the ones actually in WT (not including things like the LAU-114 or LAU-127), you can be referring to either the AERO 3 or the LAU-7.

AERO-3

And LAU-7 if anyone knows

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Conte_Baracca said:

AERO-3

And LAU-7 if anyone knows

 

Right.

 

 

 

As far as compatibility goes:

 

AERO 3/B is compatible with the AIM-9B/E/J/N/P. It can also be used with the AIM-9C (and theoretically AGM-122A SIDEARM). F-4E aircraft by 1990 could use the LAU-105 Aircraft Guided Missile Launcher in place of the AERO 3/B. This is because the LAU-105 supported the AIM-9L/M, and the AERO 3/B did not.

 

LAU-7/A variants through to LAU-7/A-7, as well as LAU-7B/A, LAU-7B/A-1, and LAU-7D/A can use all early and USAF Sidewinder variants (AIM-9B/E/J/N/P) as well as all cryogenically-cooled variants (rear-aspect AIM-9D/G/H, all-aspect AIM-9L/M, theoretically AIM-9X), in addition to the AIM-9C Sidewinder and derived AGM-122A SIDEARM.

 

LAU-7C/A theoretically offers the same compatibility as the other LAU-7 variants, except it contains a HiPPAG 320 (High Pressure Pure Air Generator) system and shortened mechanism assembly in place of the nitrogen receiver assembly and mechanism assembly of all other LAU-7 variants. HiPPAG 320 is designed to replace the traditional bottle-based cryogenic cooling apparatus, and has been successfully used with the AIM-9L/M and AIM-9X.

 

 

 

How they work is an entirely different matter, with things like missile coolant control (for aircraft with LAU-7 launchers or AIM-9L/M capability) varying on an aircraft-to-aircraft basis. And as for the exact firing sequence, it’d be easier to just straight-up post pages from the manuals as to what circuits are completed through what relays at a given point in the launch sequence.

 

 

 

Sources:

 

T.O. 1F-4C-1

Flight Manual, USAF Series F-4C and F-4D Aircraft

15 February 1979

Spoiler

piyBZy2.png

 

T.O. 1F-4E-1

Flight Manual, USAF Series F-4E Aircraft

15 October 1984, Change 4 - 15 October 1986

Spoiler

XgEGdnX.png

 

T.O. 1F-4E-1

Flight Manual, USAF Series F-4E Aircraft

15 October 1984, Change 10 - 1 April 1990

Spoiler

bEMnIJp.png

 

NAVWEPS OP 2319 (Volume 1) (Third Revision)

AIM-9B Guided Missile (Formerly Sidewinder 1A) - Description and Operation

15 August 1966

Spoiler

0neXVWL.png

 

NAVWEPS OP 3352

AIM-9D Guided Missile (Sidewinder 1C) - Description, Operation, and Handling

1 December 1964

Spoiler

OhmvmTp.png

 

NAVORD OP 3351

Guided Missile AIM-9C, Sidewinder 1C-SAR (Formerly Guided Missile Mk 30 Mod 0) - Description, Operation, and Handling

15 September 1966

Spoiler

XZsrDMH.png

 

NAVWEPS OP 3353

Pilot’s Handbook for Sidewinder 1C (AIM-9C and AIM-9D) Air-To-Air Guided Missiles

1 December 1964

Spoiler

2vxQO68.png

 

NAVAIR 11-75A-54

Technical Manual - Organizational, Intermediate, and Depot Level Maintenance with Illustrated Parts Breakdown - Aircraft Guided Missile Launcher, Model Number LAU-7/A-6; LAU-7B/A; LAU-7/A-7; LAU-7B/A-1; LAU-7C/A; LAU-7D/A

1 July 2002

Spoiler

fjUYgk0.png

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Iron_physik @Zetaris I was looking through the F-5E weapons delivery manual and it has some rather odd information about the AIM-9B. It talks about the pilot having a switch which uncages the seeker of the AIM-9B before launch, letting it track targets up to 26° off-boresight. Have either of you seen anything about this before? I thought the AIM-9B was always locked to boresight before launch.

 

Spoiler

jLedLQM.png

iY0ISqR.png

 

If you don't have one then you can find a copy of the manual on Avialogs, The AIM-9B section is page 100-106 in the PDF (or page 1-80 to 1-86 in the manual).

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Flame2512 said:

@Iron_physik @Zetaris I was looking through the F-5E weapons delivery manual and it has some rather odd information about the AIM-9B. It talks about the pilot having a switch which uncages the seeker of the AIM-9B before launch, letting it track targets up to 26° off-boresight. Have either of you seen anything about this before? I thought the AIM-9B was always locked to boresight before launch.

 

Reveal hidden contents

 

If you don't have one then you can find a copy of the manual on Avialogs, The AIM-9B section is page 100-106 in the PDF (or page 1-80 to 1-86 in the manual).

Dude.  Your research skills are pretty baller.  NGL

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well A Gaijin Rep has confirmed that the F-4F is going to keep the AIM-9J armament.

 

Hey @joshwagstaff13 is BL104 just another nomenclature for the AERO-3B?  If not what is it.  I know it is used on later versions of the F-104S. (ASA-M)  I'm honestly just curious.

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Conte_Baracca said:

is BL104 just another nomenclature for the AERO-3B?

No, BL104 is the wing pylon. The F-104S aircraft refit to carry AIM-9Ls used LAU-7s with the Sidewinders.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joshwagstaff13 said:

No, BL104 is the wing pylon. The F-104S aircraft refit to carry AIM-9Ls used LAU-7s with the Sidewinders.

So the BL104 is an adapter for.  Because the F-104S ASA-M manual lists BL104 for Sidewinder L use on the wingtips and as adapters on the LAU-7 for sidewinders.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, WreckingAres283 said:

is there any difference between "Flares Reinforced" and "Standart" (-modeled in game) ?

 

Flares reinforced fires two pairs of cartridges

Standard fires single pair of cartridges

  • Thanks 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

L_M_Performance.JPG

I saw that someone posted this in your topic over on the DCS forums, supposedly showing the AIM-9L capable up to 40g. Did you ever figure out where it came from? I looked around for a bit and didn't find much. I did find this funding document with some info on several missile types, with this cool prototype making an appearance as well.

image.thumb.png.7266aeb628b1f49688796346

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=149HAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4582&lpg=PA4582&dq=AIM-9L&source=bl&ots=yo0VQdyluq&sig=ACfU3U39yFA2eyJkIul6SVpnZcae5pu_7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6jLWW-5bwAhVNVisKHYPmDnYQ6AEwEXoECAgQAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Edited by The_Monolith
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WreckingAres283 said:

isnt that just the max structual overload ?

The structural is 40, and the chart shows the missile pulling 40g but no more as auto g-limiter would stop it there. The problem with the chart is that as far as I've seen, no one has presented context for the chart. 

Edited by The_Monolith
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_Monolith said:

The structural is 40, and the chart shows the missile pulling 40g but no more as auto g-limiter would stop it there. The problem with the chart is that as far as I've seen, no one has presented context for the chart. 

interessting..mmh, any way, in game its modeled to 30G (max., 32G low alt)

Edited by WreckingAres283
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, WreckingAres283 said:

interessting..mmh, any way, in game its modeled to 30G (max., 32G low alt)

Most "maximum overload" ratings we have in game are probably more akin to average g capability rather than maximum. It used to be in game that missiles could pull more than their listed overload although gaijin now models them to have an electronic G-limiter. I'm sure other missiles like the AIM-9J and R-60 could pull more than 22g and 30g respectively given the proper circumstances. 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, The_Monolith said:

L_M_Performance.JPG

I saw that someone posted this in your topic over on the DCS forums, supposedly showing the AIM-9L capable up to 40g. Did you ever figure out where it came from? I looked around for a bit and didn't find much.

 

It comes from here. Unfortunately it is an academic report on missile design, not a proper first hand source on the AIM-9L (it also never mentions the AIM-9L by name, but you can assume that is talking about the AIM-9L / M fairly safely). Also it appears that a 40G structural limit is only assumed:

Quote

However, not all of this additional manoeuvre capability can be utilized since an assumed structural acceleration limit of 40 g's has been imposed on both configurations.

 

Edited by Flame2512
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Flame2512 said:

 

It comes from here. Unfortunately it is an academic report on missile design, not a proper first hand source on the AIM-9L (it also never mentions the AIM-9L by name, but you can assume that is talking about the AIM-9L / M fairly safely). Also it appears that a 40G structural limit is only assumed:

 

From just that first page I can't tell for sure, but it looks like they are using a mix of test and simulation data? More specifically do you know whether that graph that I posted is simulated or test data?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The_Monolith said:

From just that first page I can't tell for sure, but it looks like they are using a mix of test and simulation data? More specifically do you know whether that graph that I posted is simulated or test data?

 

This is what the text about the graphs says:

Quote

Now that all of the airframe mods have been evaluated with respect to their unmodified counterparts, a preliminary evaluation of their effects on total missile performance needed to be accomplished. For this task, unguided, constant altitude flyout performance was selected. These flyouts were performed for a launch Mach number of 0.9 at altitudes of sea level, 10 KFT and 20 KFT for both configurations. To enable assessment of the relative performance capability between the two configurations, missile velocity (Vm), downrange distance (X) and maximum available load factor (n AVAIL) are presented as functions of time. Figures 16,17 and 18 show these performance comparisons for altitudes of sea level, 10 KFT and 20 KFT; respectively.

From that I would assume they loaded the AIM-9L wind tunnel test data along with the calculated data for their proposed missile into a computer programme, then ran the same simulation for both.

Edited by Flame2512
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Smin1080p changed the title to The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile - Information & Discussion topic
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...