Don't get me wrong, I love the flying involved in guns-only ACM. It's a whole lot more fascinating than missile evasive and missile launch maneuvering. Say we have leading generation aircraft flown by competent pilots. Say, F-22 against Rafale with AWACS on both sides, 8 to a side. I can't envision a realistic scenario in which anyone would be even vaguely close to somebody else's gun envelope, much less be slow enough while doing so to allow a reasonable shot. Both sides would be going max throttle for their fuel load. Both sides will launch BVR, probably two volleys minimum. Both sides will reverse several times trying to grind the other guys out of BVR missiles. Anybody left alive now has to deal with one or two volleys of ten mile range, all-aspect, insanely maneuverable, and extremely challenging to jam or spoof, heat seekers. Even if a plane of both sides somehow survived that merge, I'll put my money on both of them being in max AB and trying to separate, not yanking back the stick and ing the Spandaus. What am I missing?

Boris, I know there's not going to be any way to resolve this, but I feel like saying it anyway. You are crediting the Russian missiles with significantly too much capability. Going back one step, the AA-11 is better overall than the AIM-9M, but are roughly equivalent in many ways including things like warhead, maximum engagement range against a target in the tail aspect, and manuverability. The AIM-9X will essentially be equivalent in the remaining performance areas, such as off-boresight seeker ability and seeker range. Yes, there will be certain parameters where one missile or the other will have slightly better numbers, but at that point it seems likely to me the engagement outcome will more likely be scenario-dependent than missile-dependent. Displacedjim

Agree to disagree it is, then. I just think two missiles with the same manoevre specs., but one has a greater range (R-73M2 max. flight range is 40km) and a more powerful warhead, the answer should be relatively obvious. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the AIM-9X, I still think even the AIM-9M is deadly in skilled hands, I just prefer the Archer. This is an argument you hear so often on the Armour and Fighter boards; being combat proven counts for a lot. Admittedly, it wasn't much of a test, but the R-73 is combat proven, the AIM-9X is not.

About the only way the Rmax for the R-73 could be 40 km is a M2.0 lauch at 50,000ft. On top of that, the actual effective range of the missile is much, much less than that. With IR missiles the two missile parameters that determine the maximum engagement range are aerodynamics and seeker performance. Launch speed and altitude and target aspect, speed, altitude, and thermal signiture all factor into this equation. Basically it will boil down to maximum aerodynamic and seeker performance exhibited at maximum altitude and decreasing at lower altitudes until it cuts in half or even worse at minimum altitude. Also as a general rule, when looking at the target the missile maximum engagement range will be limited by seeker performance when engaging the target from in about the target's front 60 degree arc (as in +/- 30 degrees from straight ahead, and limited by aerodynamic performance when firing at the target at its beam or tail aspect. Given that, the range numbers you use for the R-73 and R-27T and ET need to be divided by 2, 3, and yes, even more depending on these factors. Displacedjim

LOL, I never claimed the R-73 could actually hit anything at 40km, just that its maximum flight range was 40km. It DOES have a more powerful rocket motor than the AIM-9X, however, and this would be an advantage in an off-boresight launch in that it wold be less hamstrung by the very limited KE the missile initially has.

Yes, that makes sense, I wouldn't argue that the AA-11 motor is more powerful. One way in which many Russian missile designs are superior to ours is actually not at long range, but at short range. Generally, their missiles are bigger with higher impulse motors. After burnout their higher drag causes them to decelerate faster than ours which can lead to an advantage for us at long range, but initially they accelerate up to higher speeds quicker. It makes sense that the TVC of the AA-11 will help it in a short range, off-boresight crossing engagement to snap over instead of flying a conventional pursuit trajectory. I haven't been following the AIM-9X discussion closely (intel pukes rarely bother to read about Blue systems :-) ), but I thought it was getting some kind of thrust vectoring too, either motor or vanes. I know, I know, I'm sure that's been beat to death in this and other topic headings, please forgive my ignorance and laziness for failing to read back through the earlier posts. Displacedjim

displacedjim, you can get 9X info fairly easily on Raytheon's site. But here's the quick and dirty: 60G turning capability At LEAST 90 degree off boresight capability(demonstrated by test). Thrust vectoring. Reworked warhead for improved blast effect-no change in size.

"At LEAST 90 degree off boresight capability" If you're going to attack a target that is that far away off your flight path your range is going to be very, very low. The R-73's motor, like I mentioned before, places it at less of a disadvantage and the more powerful warhead leaves a greater chance for critical damage. That is why I think the R-73M2 & derievatives are the best dogfight missiles around. Again, I'm not dismissing the AIM-9X, but I cannot see how it's better than the Archer.

Excuse my ignorance here, but what exactly is your objection to ASRAAM? This isn't a let's dismiss the Europeans and pretend the Cold War's still on issue is it?

Well..actually it kinda is. Although not Cold War...it's more West vs. East. If you bring ASRAAM to the table, you get something that's really not very different from 9X. They share the same seeker head, although diff warhead, and no wings on the ASRAAM. But their performance is nearly identical. Basically, it's just another high-tech, high ease of use, low-power missile frame compared to the Archer.