Actually, the Archer doesn't have 90 degree boresight. It's most advanced model has 60 degrees, and the one that's most common has only 30 degrees. Yes, it DOES have the larger warhead, but IMO, in a dogfight, it's more important to have a missile that's easier to shoot, and has a larger no-escape envelope than a missile with a bigger warhead and longer range. You don't engage with the Archer BVR, and the range difference is so small as to be nearly pointless at the speeds aircraft travel. In a dogfight, which almost always degenerates into a turning fight, the guy who can shoot a missile on target first wins. Even if if doesn't kill and only cripples, you can easily close in to finish off with the 20mm. So my question to you would be what makes the Archer better, as you have repeatedly claimed?

"Actually, the Archer doesn't have 90 degree boresight. It's most advanced model has 60 degrees, and the one that's most common has only 30 degrees. " Actually, the R-73A/E has 45 degrees, and the latest R-73M2 spin-offs have 85-90. A launch like that will dramatically reduce the missile's range, which would already be hamstrung by the fact that the launch platforms would already be travelling pretty slowly in the furball. Moreover, you're unlikely to score a direct hit given the velocities involved. You'd probably score a very-near miss. The R-73's more powerful warhead leaves greater potential for damage. The R-73s greater range and more powerful motor would mean it could execute a hard turn off the rail and then attack targets at a greater range than the 'winder. "Even if if doesn't kill and only cripples, you can easily close in to finish off with the 20mm." Unless the crippled plane's wingman comes swooping down on you with a vengance. You're already flying slow and have most probably bled off most of your energy.It is best to try to inflict as much damage on the aircraft in as little time as possible as that would then leave you in a position to recover. As the missile has relatively limited KE to begin with, the capability of its motor is very important. The R-73 has a more powerful and longer ranging motor, so it wouldn't be as hamstrung as would the 'winder. Moreover, since the missiles are already travelling quite slowly, it is unlikely they would score a direct hit, but a very-near miss. Under those conditions, the more powerful warhead of the Archer would also be an advantage as it has greater potential for damage (and critical damage at that).

LOL, damn, I thought my last paragraph got deleted and I thus inserted the fourth paragraph. Sorry to repeat myself.

Surprised nobody has mentioned ASRAAM. It can beat either of them - and should make Eurofighter almost invincible.

I'm not even gonna dignify that with a real response.

hear, hear

Here's a question: is guns-based ACM finally dead? We all remember the '60's, pronouncement missiles are everything, end result = gunless F-4's wrapped up in furballs with MiG-17s. Guns said "I'm not quite dead, yet!" Topgun was born, the next generation of fighter pilots are trained in tactics and stick and rudder skills that Boelcke would have recognized. But now the latest generation BVR missiles are very unfriendly. And the nth generation heat-seekers, 9X/R73/Pyt5, all talk about "no escape" zones, where no matter what you do you aren't flying out the other side. And considering how insanely deadly those dogfight missiles are, it makes the idea of putting on the brakes with the high-G maneuvering that guns solutions require even crazier. Have we finally hit the point where the gun is obsolete? Something like the sidearm everyone carries just in case?

Eh...not completely, though I'd say their utility has gone down quite a lot. Even in Vietnam, the USN proved guns weren't the REAL problem, it was training. Initially after Top Gun, USN F-4s still did not carry guns, yet scored an overall 9:1 kill:loss using missiles alone, also going 13:1 for a while. But the real question is...are guns worth the weight? A gun and all its ammo is quite heavy and takes up valuable space. It's an interesting point of discussion, considering the gun is basically now a last ditch weapon. So you have to wonder, when you're out of missiles, and your opponent still has a missile left, should you stay and fight? Or should you turn tail and run? In an aircraft like the Super Hornet, you should probably stay and fight. You're not going anywhere too fast, and its A2A characteristics are optimized for dogfighting, not BVR. But in the new JSF, or the F-22, you're probably better off getting the hell out of dodge. You've got what's probably the fastest and most fuel-efficient supersonic fighter out there, but it's also the most expensive. Why stick around and fight handicapped?

Just out of curiosity, what is the MINIMUM range of the AIM-9X. I know the '9 Lima had a 500m minimum range, the R-73 has a minumum range of about 150-200 and the R-60MK was about 250m. Its unlikely, but if you're closing in on a bandit fast and can't get a firing solution by the time you've closed that much, you'll be really grateful for that GSh-301.... No, I think guns have a bit of life left.

I don't think it's been released yet. Info on the 9X is pretty sketchy at best, and is pretty much all observational data.