We could beg for ASRAAM P3I but with the original (worse) ASRAAM seeker as the warhead was built and tested the TVC was to be recycled from a previous missile etc, but that’s the limit.
Yeah do you have a source for this? Just citing the rumoured g limits isn’t remotely conclusive. The ASRAAM programme seems to have much more active investment and development.
go to the iris t thread and read trough the while argument, if you are so keen on it
Cleary a British one /J
The PGM-500/2000 are joint UK/US developments…?
Is it though?..
Old debate maybe, but i’ve never seen any convincing proof the IRIS-T is better in short range. As I said previously, stating that the rumoured g-limit is higher on the IRIS-T is a cope.
isn’t it TVC and ASRAAM isn’t right
Right Taurus is better they both have about the same range but Taurus is more stealth and has more targeting options
IRIS-T is TVC, ASRAAM is lifting body, ASRAAM P3I was started with TVC for the American’s as they thought they needed it, it had a modernised SRAAM TVC, however the US selected AIM-9X for commonality reasons, Britain and Australia found it satisfactory without TVC.
My speculation is that it uses the singular set of rear fins to destabilise and reposition the booster around a pivot but thats my completely unqualified assumption based on watching it launch a few times.
IRIS-T is pretty much guaranteed to be better at short range as is proven by its sales to countries even without partnership. But there’s no source, because these missiles are still in operation, no self-respecting nation would provide hard data to make a comparison, so we instead must compare the ‘airframe’ features and make guesses.
2 Likes
I mean - the ASRAAM has demonstrated in live-fire testing that it can carry out over-the-shoulder firing with ease. Something which still hasn’t been done with the IRIS-T as far as I can see, despite its claimed higher g-limit and TVC. I’m also struggling to find evidence of upgrades the IRIS-T has had since development, whereas the ASRAAM has had money poured into it for years, even more so in the last few years with India buying it.
and not used by tornados, nicely said
as far as i am aware IRIS-T has more shoot down them amraams sooooo yeah
that has been done plenty of times and is one of the standard features lol
even the video proof for you, easy find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2nrzHTR_o&t=205s
You clearly have shown you do not understand the capabilits of the missle and underestimate it, when u arent even aware of the most basic things
Except we know the UK used it and the Tornado was capable because we have seen pictures of it testing it.
The difference here is Germany has tested the brimstone (we know it’s capable), but the nation has decided to not implement it (it doesn’t get it). These are not new rules.
It’s ASRAAM, not AMRAAM. Having more shootdowns would probably be a virtue of it being used more…The IRIS-T was a lot more widely used because the UK couldn’t export the ASRAAM until 2022 due to having a commonality in the seeker head with the 9X. The latest update removed that commonality, hence why India and other nations are now able to get involved.
thats not true, planes always have gotten the armament even if they just tested it, hell look at the british apache with star streak was only a test same with future brimstone
on the topic of the LWS… both the british and german ones have MWS so if you shoot something “stealthily” then its not getting past the mws.
im assuming that this is the reason for why only the brits and saudis chose to buy the LWS
so far EF EK does not use jammer pods(like the ones the growler has) but that might change. Hensoldt is developing one for example but its also possible to buy Saab’s Arexis system in a pod variant.
now from what i’ve heard the Arexis system is rather decent but who knows.
1 Like
The Starstreak is a british made missile though…The brimstone isn’t made by Germany, it’s made by the UK.
sure take way challenger 3d TD DM53 and DM63 ammo, is just being tested not in use
The MWS is pulse-doppler though so my presumption is that the LWS provides more advanced (earlier not ‘better’) warning than the MWS PD does as it would provide notice of targeting rather than of a launch and/or proximity.
Equally I believe the UK and Saudi chose to implement it due to the suspected theatres and roles as the UK and Saudi EF’s were far more likely to be operating in SEAD roles. Germany is more likely to see something like S-300/400, whereas the UK is more likely to be fighting a Pantsir.
Regardless, it is a solid advantage for the UK EF, although how much of an advantage is, as we have proven, debatable.
how?