Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
mrvark

AIM-9X on F-15E

Recommended Posts

Well, this is interesting:

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002156616/

 

On the left wing is an AIM-9M, on the right wing is an AIM-9X WITHOUT FINS! Both are live missiles (yellow warhead bands, not to mention the live AIM-120s and the GBU-54 on the CFT). So, why would they load a missile that can't be launched?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look again. The fins are there on the AIM-9X. The angle and sun make them blend with the background, but on the larger image, you can see them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mrvark said:

Well, this is interesting:

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002156616/

 

On the left wing is an AIM-9M, on the right wing is an AIM-9X WITHOUT FINS! Both are live missiles (yellow warhead bands, not to mention the live AIM-120s and the GBU-54 on the CFT). So, why would they load a missile that can't be launched?

 

For the last few years,  I think within a few months of that Su-22 shootdown, many (all?) USAF jets (at least the F-15C/E and F-16) flying over Syria have had a mixed load out one M and one X.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that doesn't bode well for the trust the crews have in the 9x, or is it about what is on hand for the Strike Eagle missions?

Edited by Mr Matt Foley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 6:29 AM, Mr Matt Foley said:

I guess that doesn't bode well for the trust the crews have in the 9x, or is it about what is on hand for the Strike Eagle missions?

Same configuration is also seen on F-16's and F-15C's flying over there.   The interesting thing is that prior to the timeframe I mentioned below, all pictures I've found of jets flying combat missions in that region show them to be armed exclusively with 9X's.

 

https://www.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002136020/

Edited by 11bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Availability?

 

It's availability, especially for an airframe assigned primarily to the air to ground mission.  There isn't a single fighter pilot in their right mind that would trade an AIM-9X for a 9-Mike.

 

Regards,

Murph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 4:45 PM, Murph said:

 

It's availability, especially for an airframe assigned primarily to the air to ground mission.  There isn't a single fighter pilot in their right mind that would trade an AIM-9X for a 9-Mike.

 

Regards,

Murph

 

Thanks Murph.

Those of us that don't know don't know what we don't know!

 

-Gregg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 9:05 AM, GreyGhost said:

 

Thanks Murph.

Those of us that don't know don't know what we don't know!

 

-Gregg

 

So the one that knows what the rest of us don't know indicates that the reason we are using 80's vintage AIM-9M's on jets deployed in an active combat zone is availability?  We just don't have enough AIM-9X's to go around? 

 

How many fast movers are deployed over there?  A squadron or two at most and we can't scrape together enough X-ray's to fully equip them?  Instead we have to issue those jets with a missile that "no pilot in his right mind" would want hanging on his jet?   

 

I thought our military was great again?   I want my money back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine they're later block Mikes. Probably from the 90s or later. 9Xs may be going through block upgrade, etc...

Anyway, its all speculation on our part.

 

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GreyGhost said:

I'd imagine they're later block Mikes. Probably from the 90s or later. 9Xs may be going through block upgrade, etc...

Anyway, its all speculation on our part.

 

-Gregg

 

Gregg,

     I wouldn't overthink it.  In Vietnam, when the U.S. was spending a hell of a lot more on weapons than it is now, the dedicated air to air units had aircraft flying with half their possible missile load.  The simple fact is that the U.S. does not have an unlimited amount of missiles, and certainly not at a deployed location. 

     On top of that, it's an F-15E which is tasked with air to ground.  On an interdiction mission they would be at the heart of the package, surrounded by air to air and SEAD players loaded with missiles.  Even in low intensity scenarios there are still going to be air to air players between them and a possible threat.  If the F-15Es have to employ a single missile the escort probably screwed up.  If they're at the point where they have to use four missiles, things have gone severely wrong.  It's akin to the people on a football team's message board worrying about the 5th string running back.

 

Regards,

Murph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Murph said:

 

Gregg,

     I wouldn't overthink it.  In Vietnam, when the U.S. was spending a hell of a lot more on weapons than it is now, the dedicated air to air units had aircraft flying with half their possible missile load.  The simple fact is that the U.S. does not have an unlimited amount of missiles, and certainly not at a deployed location. 

     On top of that, it's an F-15E which is tasked with air to ground.  On an interdiction mission they would be at the heart of the package, surrounded by air to air and SEAD players loaded with missiles.  Even in low intensity scenarios there are still going to be air to air players between them and a possible threat.  If the F-15Es have to employ a single missile the escort probably screwed up.  If they're at the point where they have to use four missiles, things have gone severely wrong.  It's akin to the people on a football team's message board worrying about the 5th string running back.

 

Regards,

Murph

Well said and very accurate 👍🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a fighter pilot, don’t even play one on TV, but I just assumed the AIM-9M/X combo was for flexibility.  The two missiles have different engagement envelopes, and there could be a situation where one is more appropriate/lethal than the other.   But that’s just me overthinking it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue that if you're gonna give your mud movers A2A, that means they might actually have to use them.  Give them half a chance with a couple of your best pieces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

I would argue that if you're gonna give your mud movers A2A, that means they might actually have to use them.  Give them half a chance with a couple of your best pieces.

 

I think the point was they already have two AMRAAMS and an AIM-9X to shoot prior to the AIM-9M at anybody that can get through all of the escort fighters.  I think that qualifies as more than a couple of their best pieces mate.

 

Cheers,

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...