No the point I was making is that flame/gunjob have docs for ASRAAM that can’t be used for CAMM (I’ve asked previously)
That’s news to me, was it regarding specifically the topspeed/motor/manueverability performances?
Yeah that ain’t right, ASRAAM materials have been and are used for CAMM. The issue of maneuverability of CAMM was down to repeatable testing needing to be done, not one of source materials.
1 Like
Also, it seems unlikely that the developers will accept reports based on CAMM being modified to work on a custom aircraft and used as an air-to-air missile. So that prevents ASRAAM information from being used really.
i forgot to remove the limiter but the only difference was the camm without limiter flying in a wider line at the end of the burn, quite far away from the target already
kinda funny how the british ended up making a missile that was less maneuverable than r-73 even though the entire point of the original aim-132 program was to make a missile that exceeds r-73 in all sitations.
You sure it’s not better but just classified lol
in everything other than maneuverability it’s probably better.
I don’t don’t see how it would be better than r-73 in that specific aspect
It doesn’t even have a higher g load, highest g load ive seen for asraam is 50 gs, while r-73 is 60gs
1 Like
It wasnt though.
The RAF/MOD realised that modern IIR missiles would be extremely difficult to defeat so, if 2 opposing aircraft with similar range IIR missiles both fired at each other, both would probably die.
ASRAAM was designed around the idea of being able to fire and kill the opposing target before they can enter range to fire, and thus ensuring victory whilst also surviving the “dogfight” So ASRAAM was built around speed and subsequently range rather than dogfight ability. Its actually quite an agile missiles, but its raw speed means it has a huge off the rails turning radius
Its why Germany withdrew from the ASRAAM project and developed IRIS-T because that is exactly what they wanted, a close range dogfighting missile to beat other short range dogfighting missiles
6 Likes
for war thunder specifically i think it will be a bit disappointing sometimes when you’re close to the enemy, but i like the overall idea of the missile
r-27et
but nato
1 Like
Honestly, I’m not sure to what extent that is true. Documents at the National Archives pretty much universally state that Germany pulled out due to budgetary constraints. They also didn’t start development of IRIS-T until about 6-7 years after pulling out of ASRAAM, which I guess kind of supports the whole budgetary problems thing.
2 Likes
Hmm… interesting
1 Like
As I mentioned in my last comment (replying to GunJob) archive documents on ASRAAM all give performance figures assuming the missile will be air launched (because after all it is an air-to-air missile). That means the only way you can really use those documents to bug report CAMM would be to make a custom CAMM and fire it from a custom plane as if it were an ASRAAM. And it seems somewhat unlikely that Gaijin would get on board with that testing methodology.
Once ASRAAM is added it can be reported using ASRAAM documents. You would hope that whatever improvements are made to it will filter back to CAMM, but that would require a level of joined up thinking which Gaijin seldom seems capable of.
11 Likes
Ah yes, the people who said IRIS-T docs couldnt be used for the IRIS-T SLS because “they were different missiles” :D
7 Likes
Be careful you two this could get flagged for insulting the great gaijin devs.
4 Likes
I’m assuming the archive docs have solid figures on speed, burn time, range etc?
It appears that the Curtiss Wright TDSS (turret drive and stabilisation system) was used for Rheinmetalls Challenger 2 LEP demonstrator (Challenger 3TD ingame), the same as used on the final Challenger 3.
This provides enhanced stabilisation for the gun and a more powerful turret drive, which likely means improved gun elevation and turret traverse speeds. Sadly it dosen’t give any direct data, however I was wondering it it’s worth creating a bug report for this to buff the Challenger 3TD’s turret traverse speed and gun elevation.
Data from CW gives this a max turret traverse speed of 57 degrees a second, but that is a generic number for the TDSS.
Is this worth reporting to get the gun handling buffed, or is it a waste of time without direct data?
6 Likes
When did the RAF start operating B lightnings?