Why does AIM-9X-3 have such a low calculated burn time?

[caelunshun]

From what I can tell, AIM-9X-2 and AIM-9X-3 have exactly the same parameters in the database, except for the range (14 vs. 22 nm). But the calculated burn times are drastically different—AIM-9X-2 has a 10 second burn, while AIM-9X-3 has only a 2 second burn. I understand that burn times are calculated via "inverse DLZ," but I don't see how a longer range can result in a lower burn time with all other parameters equal? In practice, this makes AIM-9X-3 far worse than the less advanced AIM-9X-2.

[blu3s]

Burn times are calculated in the Sim. I don't know why are still showing in the DB

[Dimitris]

IIRC AIM-9X-3 lofts (thanks to its datalink and LOAL capability), whereas the X-2 does not. So the X-2 needs to "power through" at a direct-flight to reach its nominal range (hence the much longer burn time), while the X-3 can use a far more efficient flight profile.
I'd think the 14nm figure for the X-2 is probably optimistic.

[Dimitris]

I stand corrected, both the X-2 and X-3 are modelled as loft-capable in the DB. So there is something else going on.