[NOT REALISTIC] Tech Question: AGM-122

Since the AGM-122 is a modified AIM-9, and we already know the A-10 can carry AIM-9, is there any good technical reason why it hasn't been included as an option for us to use?

I accept that maybe it's not used on the real A-10 (though it would be a sensible choice, along with the AGM-88 ). We probably do get these weapons with F/A-18 and F-16 (confirm?). But if you have a team of just A-10s, it would be so good for at least one of them to have this weapon to take down enemy radar in the opening of an attack.

Anyone know if it's technically not possible for this weapon to be carried and used other than just a limitation / oversight in the sim?

The aircraft would need the software modified in order to recognize the weapon and provide targeting cues to the pilot. Even though the Sidearm is a modified AIM-9, it's an entirely different sensor. Think of it similar to the difference between the AGM-84D Harpoon versus the AGM-84E SLAM. Basically the same weapon with a different sensor, but have different methods of targeting by the pilot.

Anti-radar missiles are not very efficient, and the AGM-122 wasn't a reliable way to get rid of SAM. Sidearm is a self defense weapon meant to keep the enemy on their guard more then actually destroy them. Even Harms are mostly use to force enemy radar off rather then destroy them.

With an A-10, you can destroy them more reliably using AGM-64 that won't lose their target the second the radar turns off, and do so at a comparable range.

They'd be nice to have but considering the entire supply was exhausted it doesn't seem reasonable to put them on.

Thank you very much for your informative answers, gentlemen. In particular thanks to Jester986 for living up to his name and providing a good laugh at the end.

Is that an insult? I'm not sure exactly when they were used up or when this version of the A-10C came online but considering it Has JHMCS and APKWS Im guessing post Gulf War 1 and I believe that's wheen the 122s were used up. They likely didn't coexist and if they did it wasn't for long.

I suspect anything capable of an AIM-9 launch could shoot a 122. As far as I know it doesn't take target info from the aircraft. It just homes on the closest emitter in its cone.

I believe the program was just a way to get some use out of a stockpile of old AIM-9s though. They never purchased any new ones, just the conversions. They already had better weapons for the job.

Is that an insult?

Negative. Also, why would anyone bother wasting the time to write an insult? How would that yield a benefit?

With an A-10, you can destroy them more reliably using AGM-64 that won't lose their target the second the radar turns off, and do so at a comparable range.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3036525&postcount=34

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182015

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=52915&sid=f8728f51fd8803713875ee25d66a2890&start=15

At 5 miles a tank is less than one mil size to the naked eye. The AGM-65A/B centroid tracker could not see a target that size, much less keep a lock during launch transients. You didn't want to waste your precious Maverick on a Red Army food truck serving borscht to Ivan, and you could not distinguish the many trucks from the few tanks at 5 miles. Realistically, the max range that you could acquire and lock up a tank was probably about 18,000' slant range, and min range was probably around 5,000' slant range.

 

When I shot my AGM-65B at Nellis in 1986, we were very familiar with the area, we had INS coordinates for the target tank column, the tanks were dark green against a bright yellow desert background, and the weather was CAVU, there was no smoke, and nobody was shooting at us. As I recall, I started trying to lock up my target (last tank in the column) at about 12,000' slant range, and drove in to almost minimum range before getting a solid lock at around 5,000' range. (The missile hit the tank.)[/Quote]

 

Since the AGM-122 is a modified AIM-9, and we already know the A-10 can carry AIM-9, is there any good technical reason why it hasn't been included as an option for us to use?

 

 

I accept that maybe it's not used on the real A-10 (though it would be a sensible choice, along with the AGM-88 ). We probably do get these weapons with F/A-18 and F-16 (confirm?). But if you have a team of just A-10s, it would be so good for at least one of them to have this weapon to take down enemy radar in the opening of an attack.

 

 

Anyone know if it's technically not possible for this weapon to be carried and used other than just a limitation / oversight in the sim?

Never used and will never be used..... They’re also not the same weapon so it’s not sensible at all..... You are better off using AI Hornets or Vipers for radar engagements..

Never used and will never be used..... They’re also not the same weapon so it’s not sensible at all..... You are better off using AI Hornets or Vipers for radar engagements..

If something has never been used, it is not a evidence it is not technically possible to be equipped and launched....

If something has never been used, it is not a evidence it is not technically possible to be equipped and launched....

Actually it is, no mention in any Tech Orders = not possible. Thread honestly should be closed as it has nothing to do with the A-10C realistically.

Actually it is, no mention in any Tech Orders = not possible. Thread honestly should be closed as it has nothing to do with the A-10C realistically.

That is evidence that no one here can provide, but even if TO documents doesn't mention something, the required evidence is all weapons test documents that specifically lists all tests that has been done by the manufacturer. If there is no tests done for a given weapon, that is the evidence, and TO's doesn't include those.

That is so by the USAF Technical Order System.

One can't use the Holy Bible as evidence that Qur'an doesn't mention something.

We probably do get these weapons with F/A-18 and F-16 (confirm?).

Nope, we won't get the AGM-122 for those aircraft as they don't use them IRL and never have.

That is evidence that no one here can provide, but even if TO documents doesn't mention something, the required evidence is all weapons test documents that specifically lists all tests that has been done by the manufacturer. If there is no tests done for a given weapon, that is the evidence, and TO's doesn't include those.

 

That is so by the USAF Technical Order System.

One can't use the Holy Bible as evidence that Qur'an doesn't mention something.

Okay I’ll leave you to your unrealistic request then.

That is evidence that no one here can provide, but even if TO documents doesn't mention something, the required evidence is all weapons test documents that specifically lists all tests that has been done by the manufacturer. If there is no tests done for a given weapon, that is the evidence, and TO's doesn't include those.

 

That is so by the USAF Technical Order System.

One can't use the Holy Bible as evidence that Qur'an doesn't mention something.

Ah yes another forumquaker that thinks he knows better than an SME.... You’re just making up things to try and justify having something added of which there is no mention, picture or document around to prove it was actually used. And again, it wasn’t so no it shouldn’t be added

Originally Posted by Fri13

There are reasons an ignore list exists on this forum...

Is that an insult? I'm not sure exactly when they were used up or when this version of the A-10C came online but considering it Has JHMCS and APKWS Im guessing post Gulf War 1 and I believe that's wheen the 122s were used up. They likely didn't coexist and if they did it wasn't for long.

I haven't read a credible source that AGM-122's were even used much in GW1, much less "used up". And yeah the A10C was like 15 years after that (05). I mean even including the sidearm for a 2012+ era harrier (or whatever we actually have in the franken harrier) is likely wildly inaccurate since it probably wasn't even in the inventory at that point.

AGM-122 existed, and if it is a logistics or political reason why not use, then it is not a argument not to include in simulator.

Ah yes another forumquaker that thinks he knows better than an SME.... You’re just making up things to try and justify having something added of which there is no mention, picture or document around to prove it was actually used. And again, it wasn’t so no it shouldn’t be added

Again, if you do not know something, then it doesn't mean that it ain't so.

If you can not provide evidence that project designers didn't test something or did but it was found not possible, then it ain't so automatically.

When one starts to use politics as argument that someone shouldn't be included regardless what could be possible technically, it goes already wrong in purpose of simulator.

As you can not avoid personal attacks, you have already lost all arguments.

AGM-122 existed, and if it is a logistics or political reason why not use, then it is not a argument not to include in simulator.

It was never used on the A10 of any version. This debate is dead OP got his answer.

Again, if you do not know something, then it doesn't mean that it ain't so.

If you can not provide evidence that project designers didn't test something or did but it was found not possible, then it ain't so automatically.

 

When one starts to use politics as argument that someone shouldn't be included regardless what could be possible technically, it goes already wrong in purpose of simulator.

 

As you can not avoid personal attacks, you have already lost all arguments.

How about you start proving that the A-10C could actually use Sidearms instead of just comming up with this wild request and then demand from other users to proof the opposite. That's not how it works...

How about you start proving that the A-10C could actually use Sidearms instead of just comming up with this wild request and then demand from other users to proof the opposite. That's not how it works...

I don't need to do that as I did not make a such claim....

How about you will learn that there are not just claims "not possible" and "possible" and then there are other arguments that doesn't need to provide any evidence as it is not making claims that something is or is not possible?

Can you provide evidence that AGM-122 was never even considered to be a compatible with a AIM-9 iR seeker missiles?

Can you provide evidence that AGM-122 was never even considered to be carried in A-10?

If you do not understand that not having evidence for X, doesn't mean that X is not possible, just like it doesn't mean that X is possible.

Let's make a simple example for you to understand.

Argument is that as no one has seen a photos of a fighter pilot carrying a book inside a cockpit on long flights, then it is not possible as there is no evidence for it.

Argument is made that as there is no mentions in any manuals about book being in pilot arsenal or to be used in a cockpit, that pilot can't have a book inside a cockpit.

Now someone says that because no one has not seen a such photo, or because it is not mentioned in a manuals, it doesn't mean someone can not bring the book with them inside a cockpit.

It would require evidence that specifically states that a book can't be brought inside a cockpit because it has been tested and found not usable.

Years ago I read about the AGM-122 specs and development by Motorola, but can't find the book anymore. It was explained how a AGM-122 was made "drop-in" replacement with compatibility to all aircrafts that can launch a AIM-9L/AIM-9M. Difference was that you didn't add the coolant bottles to launchers as it didn't need it. The missile itself work like those other missiles, you energize it and it's seeker does its own thing by searching emissions from while band it is capable use and locks on strongest found. Pilot gets growling sound signal for launching.

Only a USMC wanted it, they got it for their attack aircrafts and helicopters. Did the Air Force, Army or Navy want it? Why not? Not compatible with their aircrafts or just a political reason?

Sure there is a evidence that it is not technically compatible by any means with any other than those few airframes?

And no... Political reasons doesn't matter in technical questions.

A evidence for technical compatibility needs to be that it can be found that it is not compatible with it.

Have you seen the book?

Is a book mentioned in the manuals?

There is no book?