There is not any reliable evidence to suggest it does. IIRC there is some evidence to suggest the Block 6 might have it, but MBDA have been very tight lipped about what Block 6 actually involved, other than it being a bunch of improvements and a new seeker.
Not really, it could just be going off inertial guidance.
He mean it is possible that if fired at long range on inertial guidance the target could have moved by the time the missile is within range to lock on.
There’s some things that can be ascertained but for now we don’t still yet have dimensions for the Peregrine missile currently.
3rd part guidance would suggest a form of DL?
No, it means a third party can send information to the launch aircraft, which can then be used to cue the missile.
I assumed before that ASRAAM had datalink, but then I was corrected. I couldn’t even find the datalink receiver on the missile itself. Missiles typically have datalink receivers which are visible on the rear. Here are some examples:
Interesting the LOAL mode must have a pretty wide seeker then.
You’re still wrong. The AIM-120 is reliable out to almost 20km, whereas the MICA barely gets to 10. The AIM-120 is significantly better at medium ranges than the MICA.
Interestingly the CAMM and Sea Ceptor have 2 way data link.
And they are both based off the ASRAAM the functionality is there if they wanted to add it.
It should be noted that CAMM is confirmed to have a two-way datalink, but does not appear to have a visible datalink antenna. Some images of CAMM do show four bumps located around the tail of the missile (it’s surprisingly hard to find clear photos of CAMM), but they appear to be the exhaust ports for the turnover pack.
Meteor is also another notable example without a visible datalink antenna (IIRC it is mounted inside one of the intake fairings).
thats like the one thing that is kind of known though lol. it is 6ft long and 150lb according to raytheon
says 9X manuevrability and AMRAAM range, i think referring to C-5 or C-7 bc i doubt its matching the 120D
So 68kg. Raytheon is being quite generous saying it is matching any of the AMRAAM’s range. Maybe with excessive loft and battery time it is, but otherwise it is not gonna have enough energy itself. 68kg is lighter than even the AIM-9s. They also stated that the Peregrine is likely to have multi-mode seeker, both radar and IR. That will add unnecessary weight to the missile.
Part of the reason why MICAs will still lack range in general compared to other fox 3s, even if its range got fixed, is because it does not have the inertia that comes with weight. AIM-120s and other missiles have inertia that carry them forward and sustains that energy. This will be even worse with the Peregrine as it will lack that inertia. I don’t believe it will have the energy to match that of the AIM-120A itself.
i mean they were talking about the much better motor on AARGM-ER as an example of what could be happening with the Peregrine. and tri-mode seeker is found on 3 small weapons systems already, and those 2 arent brand new anymore, so they almost certainly have downsized the seeker compared to previous tri-mode weapons which are already very small.
inertia would be an issue, but with how much better the motor seems to be i think itll at least beat or match the AIM-120A
look at ASRAAM, it gets max 50km range while also being very light compared to an AIM-120, and it is a much older missile too
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
it could be used for better ranging data, similar to how Legion pods have datalink to get more precise range, having multiple IR sensors through the missiles could allow for much more efficient and accurate data on target, all without emitting radiation (or laser)
2nd part isnt even stirring, its just true
Their usefulness would largely depend on the field of view of and the range performance of the seeker. I have no idea what either are, but I can’t see it being anywhere near effective as a Legion pod. But still valid points.
It’s War Thunder forums… people find everything stirring lol
they are both multirole but the Typhoon was mainly intended as an air superiority fighter, the others roles are secondary… While the Rafale is fully omnirole at the cost of lower air performance
Typhoon was designed to replace Tornado F.3/ADV
In UK and Italian service.
The UKs prinicpal need will always be air defence the Typhoon had to climb fast, find its target and engage it.
It was also equiped with a Radar thay can detect ground targets and an IRST system.
Typhoon was also planned to be navalised this concept was never realised.
Typhoon was designed eith multirole in mind.
Yeah but at first the idea of brits and germans was an interceptor, they just made it multirole because an interceptor wasn’t enough… The french left the program for that precise reason, they wanted a fully omnirole carrier-capable aircraft while the others nations didn’t
If the RN had pursued the navlised Typhoon France may have stayed (although they are notoriously fickle)
Britain decided against new Catobar carriers and for the current QE class (which is ultimately a mistake)
Carriers need aircraft to perform multiple roles.
yep, though France would have probably left anyway… but yeah about the brits I don’t think catapult-less carriers are a very good idea, stovl reduces combat range by a lot