Whilst it can’t be used for a straight comparison, if it can reach 60km with a static ground launch, then a Mach 1 launch from 30k ft can be expected to be roughly similar even with the differences in weight and aerodynamics
The estimation is less max range than a Mica but better time to target
Yeah, a lot of unknowns, especially with how or even if IIR is modeled. They could be flares by a single BOL past 10km
And to be fair the python is not even close to being better than the AIM9M. It does like IRCCM, which is a major issue as it’s very easy to flair, and automatic MAWs are now passively defending against them in several high/top tier jets as of now.
Overall, I prefer the dynamic of the Magic/r73 because I got used to them in short range engagements, but we also can’t deny the strength of the AIM9M IRCCM at long ranges. They are still somewhat in the same category, and as you said, the Aim 9X would be in another dimension altogether. Just like the ASRAAM, MICA IR, and IRIS-T are all much better than the aim 9X all around. The US players are going to have to get used to their IR missiles being worse than the competition… because that’s accurate to the real life
Aim-9M would be so much more useful if they had their IRL lock ranges. Currently they are often forced to be used at short range when they would be best at longer ranges
Interesting, I would have said that the MICA IR, being faster (even with a shorter burn time) would hit faster. Maybe only until 20-30km then ?
Who knows. I don’t think their are any real world data available to the public on IIR performances against modern countermeasures (BOL or smart flares). I guess the devs would somewhat balance the game with having flares being more effective, but that would bring yet another advantage to datalink missiles (MICA IR, later AIM9X…). I guess they are already doing some internal testing as of now, and maybe they could come this year (June or december) but that remains to be seen
I have very quickly played with the AIM9M on my French F16A, before stopping because I just don’t like the plane being 13.0 without radar missiles whatsoever, but I don’t remember having issues with the AIM9M. The red diamond is still a massive advantage for the receiving party, and I’m use to sub 2km launches, so I might have been too cautious. However I would see the advantage of longer lock range for sim and GRB.
Although to be fair most if not all modern seekers lack incredibly in range. While not useful, the Magic 2 lock range should be over 15km rear aspect and not much lower than 8-10km in front aspect I believe, for example
ASRAAM was designed with basically pure speed in mind.
There was a “leak” in the R&R that it will be 2x IRCCM instead of IIR
It’s ASB where I find the lock ranges lacking. When the target is not just in range, but in the LSZ and rapidly approaching min range and I still can’t fire is very frustrating
Isn’t it advertise as a Mach 3+ missile tho ? When the MICA is Mach 4+
Mmmh, interesting. To be seen. I could see them coming as soon as this June then if that’s the case. Aside from a few needed aircraft’s (like the F2), I think this would be a way to make this update more interesting (like Fox 3 addition last June)
Edit : also @Morvran would you happen to have any information on the seeker of the ASRAAM. I have been collecting some documents on different IIR sensors, and it turns out you can find some pretty interesting stuff when looking at the manufacturer itself, even if it’s not linked to the armement itself. I have not seen much on the ASRAAM tho since I don’t know much about it.
Even if the IIR is not correctly modeled in game (for now), that’s very good food for thoughts
MBDA seems to undersell it’s attributes for some reason, but I think flame has some docs that work out it to be M4.5, but I’m not sure exactly.
Yeah, them and ECM are the logical next steps
The ground launched IRIS-T makes sense for testing how they plan to model IIR. But Ive always guessed we’d get IRCCM+ rather than IIR just on a metter of gameplay, let alone ease of modeling
None I’m afraid but devil and flame might
4+? I will be honest, i have never seen it claimed to be 4+, can you point me to a source like that?
We got around this source about the MICA mentioning a top speed of Mach 4.5
It’s from a book published by the DGA talking about many French missiles (and a few others, talks about the ASRAAM and IRIS-T program quite quickly, as it’s a pretty old book these were not in service yet).
(Although as usual it’s about the MICA in general, no specification on IR or EM.
Although the IR is less aerodynamic than the EM, I somewhat expect it to at least reach a bit over Mach 4, and eventually lose speed quicker than the EM, hence the 25% decrease in range)
Actually it should be about the MICA IR since the 60km range is explicitent stated. Unless it was published at a time where the MICA performances were understated (because MBDA now claims 80km for the EM)
If its less aerodynamic but has less wieght as well (due to different seeker and IR generally being lighter) then Id expecting to accelerate quicker but not necessarily be any faster than the MICA EM (which is at least modeled as M4 in game) so is there any notable differences other than seeker between the 2?
No. The missiles are rigorously identical beside the seeker. Same warhead, same body, same motor…
So, this being Gaijin, Take a MICA EM and slap an IRCCM IR seeker to it, thats what you’ll get :P
They’ll probably increase the drag as well.
I also would say that the MICA currently has too much drag. I doubt it’s able to reach 80km (even if we don’t count the 50km hard limit it currently has, it’s already barely supersonic at this range) with any energy at all. I would guess either direct drag or wobbling due to TVC, but if this was « fixed », then I guess Mach 4.5 would be fairly achievable without major changes
We’ll have to wait and see.
That is also both the blessing and curse for ASRAAM.
Its the only gen 5 that doesnt use TVC, so should avoid the TVC bugs but… It does use dual-plane, which they refuse to model. So might end up hugely nerfed
They are heavily underselling that shall we say
It is really wierd how much MBDA do that. They short sell both its range and speed by quite a bit
But, would you happen to have any source that corroborates that ?
Not a trick question here. I’m sincerely curious.
I’m used to MBDA underselling stuff. Heck, every time we find something new on French hardware it’s through other primary sources, like the one for the top speed of the MICA
Speed and Time to Intercept have always been the number one thing advertised for ASRAAM, the label of mach 3+ is simply to not give the game away.
Well, if you don’t mind me, that does say a whole lot of not much.
There’s nothing much that can be derived from highest speed and quickest intercept.
Highest speed compared to what ? All AAM ? All MBDA AAM, or all British MBDA AAM ? Max speed ? Average speed ?
Quickest time to intercept, at what ranges ? Compared to what (once again) ?
Even if Mach 3+ is an understatement (which I agree is a given, considering the aerodynamic and size of the missile), I don’t think this source specifically is anywhere close to conclusive enough to derive much about the missile.
