Thrust vectoring is more costly on range than only 10%
The extra weigth of the nozzle is one fact.
The main negative factor of a TVC noozle is that the thrust itself is reduced because you litteraly cut it. A 15% decrease in overall thrust can be speculated for TVC nozzle.
So installing TVC nozzle to the ASRAAM would probably make it a 35/40km max range missile which would be similar to AIM-9X Block 2 or Python 5.
Then the ASRAAM would not have it’s distinctive long range advantage compared to other FOX2 missile (except MICA IR).
Well few things here:
The CAMM-ER is 160kg compared to the 88kg on the ASRAAM (Double the weigth, heavier than a AIM-120D)
The CAMM-ER uses another kind of motor than the ASRAAM:
The CAMM-ER is significatly larger (190mm vs 166mm) body and longuer (4.2m vs 2.9m). For reference the AIM-120D is 3.65m long and has a 178mm large body.
The CAMM-ER is radar guided and has a conical nose that is more aerodynamic than the oval nose of IR missile = more range.
Just to point out that it wouldn’t be a “new block” of the ASRAAM but a TOTALLY new missile.
And if you developped an air launch missile based on the CAMM-MR with it’s dimmension you would probably look more to the 120km max range than 70-90km max range.
Addapting the CAMM-ER to an Infrared guided A-A missile would be hard.
As infrared sensor are mostly covered by glass, they don’t like going too fast because then the heat created at the front of the missile will risk damaging the sensor and making it less capable.
That’s why a METEOR IR wasn’t created, no infrared sensor like to go MACH 4 for 2 minutes straigth.
In case of a CAMM-ER IR , the issue is that the missile goes very fast very quickly (not a Dual-pulse motor) to achieve great rang. So the IR sensor would be at risk.
In case of the MICA IR NG, thanks to dual pulse you can achieve great range while having a slower maximum speed so less damage on the IR seeker.
Or you can do as the IRIS-T SLM and add a cover to the seeker but then the missile is not LOBL capable anymore which is a BIG issue especialy for A-A fox 2 missile that are also used for dogfight.
Gaijin not add new fighter aircraft toptier at 1st line for 3 years after F-4M Phantom FGR.2 from update Update 1.93 “Shark Attack” october 2019
Currently great britain tech tree missing multirole fighter like 5 countries
So I expect gaijin consider multirole fighter toptier at 12.7 BR from RAF or IAF or RCAF close to F-16C Block 50 (USAF), MiG-29SMT (9-19R) (Russian Air Force), F-16D Block 40 Barak (IAF/IDF), Mirage 2000-5F (French) and F-16A Block 20 MLU (ROCAF) at rank VIII in next month
Yep, that’s where it would go and the FA2 is where my money is at at the moment. But It could be about a dozen aircraft, until we get leaks and datamines we just have no idea what it might be. Not even a guarantee its going to be a fighter. Only that it’s “top tier” which has no clearly defined definition
4 years gajin not add new fighter aircraft toptier for great britain tech tree after major update “Shark Attack” since october 2019
I expect dev could add supersonic Multirole fighter 12.7 BR close to F-16C Block 50, MiG-29SMT (9-19R), Mirage 2000-5F, F-16I Sufa & F-16A Block 20 MLU and good maneuvrability
Originally the Tejas had the R-60 to be homologated, thing that was partially done, but abandoned as soon as the requirement changed to the R-73 (wing had to be reinforced due to the weight difference of both missiles). Years later the Python V was homologated and there are plans to also add the ASRAAM (and an indigenous version of it or something like that) to its armament choices, although this last ones are still plans for the future …
As for the long range missiles…the navy (who wanted a naval version of the LCA) issued a requirement that the LCA had to use the Elta 2032 + the Derby BVRAAM that the Indian harriers had, on the other hand the air force wanted to integrate the R-77 and the indigenous astra missile (thing that only very recently was accomplished) . The R-77 was never integrated and the air force had to content with the Israeli Derby…only recently (this year) the Astra was homologated.
As for capabilities, i think the missiles choices are quite potent, specially knowing that the Astra Mk.1 is on par with the R-77 (it was developed from it… it even uses the same seeker)
Some pics
R-60
R-77 displayed with the first technology demonstrator
The F-5C never carried flares, the German MiG-29 never carried the R-27E, the MiG-23ML couldn’t use the R-24, and the Yak-41M never existed. I think there’s a chance.
Seeker:
Derby: Active radar seeker with 12km range against fighter jet (poor ECCM)
R-77: 9B-1348 seeker with 16 km range for a medium size target (5M^2 RCS)
ASTRA MK1: Active radar seeker with 13-15km range for a 5^m Rcs target.
So those missile are pretty close in capabilities, you either get shorter range but greater maneuvrability (Derby) or longuer range and poorer maneuvrability (ASTRA MK1) or a mix or both (R-77)
For reference regarding the FOX 2 missile available on the TEJAS:
Max range:
R-73 : 30km
PYTHON 5: 40km
ASRAAM: 50km
Maneuvrability:
ASRAAM: 50/70G without TVC
R-73 : 55/60G with TVC
PYTHON 5: 70G without TVC (Lag pursuit)
Seeker:
R-73: MK-80 seeker with 2-element. 45° Gimbal limit before launch, 75° Gimbal limit after launch.
ASRAAM: Imaging seeker with 128128 pixels with 90° gimbal.
PYTHON 5: Imaging seeker dual waveband with 320240 pixel, 100° Gimbal limit.
*All of the classment were done from worst to best.
*Max range values are only an indication since we don’t know in what parameters those range are for.
