Depends if the upcoming planned budgets are dictated to counter tents or nation states. It looks like the wind is changing to be arming up for the more traditional red vs blue big one, compared to drones-on-sand like it is now. Gotta spend those budgets or the money gets thrown away. 
1 Like
So given this isn’t that far away, how much more effective is the AIM-9X than what we have now? Will it potentially change up-close fights in DCS?
Depends on how they model it. In reality the -9X uses a fundamentally different seeker system to detect and track targets than the -9M which makes it faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more resistant to traditional forms of countermeasures. To decoy it you need a different kind of flare that is far more situational than what would work against something like a -9M.
Of course that’s reality. In DCS whether or not a missile is decoyed is handled by a dice roll that occurs per flare released, and is influenced by a number of other factors (throttle setting, aspect, and position of the sun being the largest I know of).
Also there is the fact we, as of now don’t have JHMCS, so we can’t take true advantage of it’s HOBS functionality.
So initially? I’d imagine you’re going to be looking at a missile more maneuverable and more flare resistant than the R-73. You cannot use it’s full engagement zone, but it should be far more effective throughout the geometry where it can be used. Depending on how conservative or not they set the CM_rejection vaue, I’d personally predict it’s going to be anywhere from a more maneuverable R-73 to a merciless death spear that slays all.
EDIT: Oh, it also uses a smokeless motor, so you don’t get the nice big smoke plume as a warning that every other heater in the game gives you.
4 Likes
Pretty much what NB says, if you have experience with it in BMS I would expect it to be fairly similar.
In pretty much every way it should be superior to the R-73 variant we have in game right now with higher off bore-sight capability, shorter minimum range, longer maximum range, can handle higher aspect at launch, so on and so forth.
1 Like
1 Like
I can imagine that it fares far better at the short end of the engagement range due to its thrust vectoring.
I’m sure this will be happily accepted in multiplayer with mature, positive feedback in the forums.
10 Likes
LMFAO!
Oh indeed, a missile that went IOC in 2003 with all that the US military industrial complex could put into it as a response to the R-73, would in no way be at all superior to an IOC 1984 Soviet missile 
Let the positive mature discussions begin! I will give them all a HOBS 9X across a two circle fight 
2 Likes
Well, certainly can’t be any worse than the 120 currently is.
The MQ-25 is proof they are not interested solely in simplifying their logistics or they’d just buy tanker-only Hornets and be happy with that. Why are people still talking about fighting the battles of the 2000s? People always complain the DoD is gearing up to fight the last war…until they gear up to fight the next one, then they complain that’s not what is happening NOW.
I just laugh when people talk about the 35 using the exact same phrases people used for pretty much every plane that came before it. The F-22? Check. The F-14? Check. The original Hornet? Check. The B-2? Check. In EVERY case people made impassioned arguments that they should just buy more of predecessor plane X and forget the new shiny because it costs too much for too little. Every. Single. Time. They were wrong every single time as well. No plane that has made it into service has been a failure since the Century series and B-58. All the rest were canceled before production began, if it entered service it has succeeded. The 35 has entered service.
In 30 years people will be talking about how the DoD should just buy more 35s instead of wasting time and money on the F-XYZABC123 which looks nice, but does nothing, isn’t combat proven, blah blah blah. By then it will be a given that the 35 is great and everything that came before it was so 20th century as 4th gen fighters die by SAM regularly.
The 35 has had pretty much the same problems every plane before it has had with the new addition of the management failure of simultaneous production and development. They actually believed they could do that because of tech being where it is and ignored a century of aviation history. What a surprise…it didn’t happen and is instead like every plane that came before it. DUH. They believed they got smarter and naturally they weren’t.
The Super Hornet did as well as it did because they didn’t do that. They went 100% conventional process, and aside from the nasty wing drop issue they had few issues to iron out. Hopefully whatever comes next will also forget the concurrent development.
Actually, the MQ-25 is a “concurrency sucks the big ones, let’s get something simple, straightforward, and works, rather than throw a bunch of money at something that we’re unsure of” solution. The goal of the MQ-25 is to reduce the strain on the super bug fleet and to pave the way for UCAVs without falling into the F-35 concurrency trap. A tanker UAV that can stay up almost indefinitely to refuel strike packages? Why not? It’s safe, there’s nothing to lose if it doesn’t pan out (beyond putting more stress on the super bug fleet), and it puts defense contractors on notice: either deliver a working product or you get bupkis. Sounds great to me! How many years did the F-35 slip on its delivery dates by now? 5 years? 10? How far over budget has it been? Whatever the case of the F-35, I don’t blame the Navy for wanting to avoid that whole fiasco in the future and getting UAV operations set in the fleet with a low-risk solution is a smart move.
If we assume that the F/A-18 spawned from the LWF and give it a wide starting point of 1971 from the first proposals to actual operation of the aircraft in 1983, that’s 12 years of development time. The JSF started in 1993, 25 years ago, with an IOC in 2016. Perhaps if the fleet wasn’t falling apart today, the Navy might feel a little differently, but watching the USAF and USMC’s jets literally fall out of the sky probably didn’t give them the warm fuzzies, no matter what golden unicorn fairy farts the F-35 program office promised them. If it ain’t there, ready to do the job, why buy so many of them? Why rush 'em to the service when there’s tons of bugs to be worked out? Especially if you don’t need them right off the bat, unlike the USAF and USMC – which is those branches faults for not asking “what happens if we don’t get it by X date? What’s plan B?”
In 30 years, nobody is going to really care what the DOD buys because it’s going to be UAVs anyways. There’s not going to be glamorous fighter jocks in sunglasses walking from the flight line; it’s just going to be nerds walking out of the air conditioned control room as they change shifts. Yeah, I know, emotionally it sucks, but that’s where things are going. Automation is the future, and we’re going to have growing pains whether it’s the burger machine or the UCAVs.
The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
– Military school Commandant’s graduation address,
Soooo, anyone wanna talk about F/A-18Cs?
2 Likes
… Automated F/A-18Cs?
…with laser beams attached to their heads?
1 Like
Fairly sure that’d be a violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
1 Like
Yes actually I do. I’m not sure I understand the direction ED is taking this model. I read somewhere (I think in this thread) that they are modeling a Block-whatever FA-18 that saw service in the mid to late 00’s decade.
But then there is much talk (in this thread) about AIM-9X…well, OK but has anybody taken a look at the Navy’s AIM-9X inventory and employment during that time? I don’t think there were many out in the fleet - the “Mike” was the staple Winder
Once the AIM-120 is done, I’d like to see a focus on A2G stuff.
2 Likes
Which came first, the - 9X or JHMCS? Because it’s you’ve watched the PBS series Carrier, which took place during the Nimitz’s deployment in late 2005, the Hornet pilots were wearing the JHMCS.
That’s a good point. On one hand, the Block Lot that far back allows them not to get to near-day stuff, and then into the secret squirrel stuff with all the security issues, but then on the other hand - toys! and a 9X is a great toy. So I guess…
For A2G I just want a something that tracks a laser and goes boom.
1 Like
3 Likes