as long as the target signal it chases across its sensor's field of view matches what its computer(signal processor) is programmed to match.

 

Rather expensive way to prove this against a speed boat, though. 

Interesting concept, I suppose.  The question I have is whether the AIM-9X missiles can be switched to the air-to-ground role while fighter is in the air or if certain missiles are programmed for the air-to-ground role while in the hangar.  If a missile can become air to ground with the flip of a switch then this is an ingenious idea.  Fighters flying CAP missions can be quickly diverted to provide close air support to ground units or attack soft targets (like a truck, car, or boat).  Currently fighters equipped only with air-to-air missiles may be within range of a ground unit that finds itself in trouble, but can only use its guns to provide support, which is risky to both the troops on the ground as well as the pilot.  Given the conditions in Afghanistan this could be a useful asset. 

 

The next question I would have is how effective the AIM-9X warhead would be against ground targets.  Going straight through a fiberglass cigar boat may sound cool, but would would it do to a sturdier vessel?  I assume the missile would home in on the boat's engine, but would effect would it have?  I assume it would do considerable damage to a car, but would it do to a large truck?  Would it merely disable the truck or destroy it?  Would it have any effect whatsoever on armored vehicles?  Could it home in on in a bunker or a specific building? 

 

Just a cop and former grunt asking a few questions.............

While it sounds good for the AIM-9X to be able to be used against ground targets and at times it might do so it's not the most cost effective solution.  The AIM-9X is a lot heavier and more costly that other air to ground weapons with a ballpark 21 lb warhead.  That warhead is also rather specialized in that it's designed to throw out an expanding circle of I believe around 195 titanium rods from the laser proximity fuse.  One imagines it would shred a truck adequately.

 

The main question in my view is whether you want an aircraft hauling around a 200lb $85,000 missile with an air to air optimized warhead vs something that costs roughly half at half the weight with a warhead oriented on ground targets?  Moreover, do you really want to pay for training rounds? 

 

It probably has some limited utility but unless it's just an inexpensive software fix one would be forgiven for questioning the cost.  In any case it's come a long way since William McLean led development in 1946.

 

I've got a question that perhaps someone here can answer:  Originally the way the fuse on the AIM-9 worked it led the target but required the missile not to roll- hence the control surfaces to prevent that.  One assumes this is not a requirement any longer?  Assuming not doesn't it still operate the same and is there any benefit?  Thanks.

 

I still regret the fatalities aboard HMAS Hobart. Did anyone ever figure out what the USAF thought it was doing? What helos?