Well MICA is a larger missile and is generally considered an MRAAM apparently. Meanwhile ASRAAM is, ostensibly at least, an SRAAM. That is presumably why MBDA are so confident about ASRAAM’s ability Vs other SRAAMs.
As you say though, they both likely have similar range.
I expect the ultimate range of mica especially at altitude to be better for MICA, however within that extended sraam envelope of around 15km at low alt and 30-40km at high altitude, the asraam to have better time to target and energy.
yeah, up high MICA will probably be better, being a bit heavier and quite aerodynamic helps when diving down on a target from high altitude. Down low and in an up hill shot, the difference will most likely be almost negligible
The MICA EM already out accelerates all fox 3s and R-27ER if you watch Jaek’s video and this is while the missile is bugged and bleeding speed due to the wobbles/thrust vectoring which if remedied, would increase its topspeed and range. So it’ll already be an uphill battle for the ASRAAM.
I don’t doubt that ASRAAM might be fast, but it’s already a tall order for it to beat the MICA IR in time-to-target, energy, or speed.
Maybe wrong thread but worth noting that for dogfights the ASRAAM will also need to make wider turns than a TVC missile and will have worse performance across the board in comparison to something like MICA-IR.
ASRAAM can pull enough and when the motor stops burning it would be able to turn better then MICA with its motor off
That’s not necessarily true. They both use similar aerodynamic control surfaces, but the MICA’s tailfins appear proportionally larger, though its not entirely clear if this is enough to make up for the weight difference. The MICA, like the IRIS-T, also include strakes, which beyond the stability enhancing effect they have can also act as vortex generators, further improving maneuverability.
Id argue there’s not much reason to believe the ASRAAM is in any way more maneuverable than the MICA or IRIS-T, even omitting TVC.
The body of the ASAAM acts as a wing which greatly helps with turning
Not necessarily, there’s nothing particularly unique about the ASRAAM’s body. Its literally just a cylinder with a tapered tip as far as I can see. The specific term used by MBDA is “body lift technology” but what they specifically mean by that isn’t exactly clear either. Its possible that new computational capabilities at the time simply became able to account for aerodynamic factors caused by the body. I highly doubt this “body lift technology” is more effective than strakes.
There’s also the fact that the germans were part of the ASRAAM program initially and quit it due to it not being more maneuverable than the R-73A they already had access to iirc. Maybe the brits fixed that by the time it entered production, maybe not, but there’s nothing about the ASRAAM that particularly indicates any unique aerodynamic maneuverability compared to other comparable 5th gen fox 2’s.
So you don’t understand it so it can’t be better got it
They left to make IRIS-T in 1989 ASRAAM is much better the R73
Literally not what I said, I said its unclear at the moment. As I mentioned, there’s nothing apparently unique about the ASRAAM’s body, so saying it “acts like a wing” isn’t accurate, since there’s no clear explanation as to exactly what “body lift technology” implies.
As a missile? Absolutely. In aerodynamic maneuverability? Maybe, maybe not.
That seems to be the case for Mythics pov…
The ASRAAM (like the AMRAAM) has body lift incorporated into it’s guidance. With body lift and a relaxed stability the missile can have fairly tight turn radius and a high maneuverability while also having less drag than other designs. To make a missile as maneuverable as ASRAAM with traditional layouts would essentially result in a Python 4/5.
It stems from research in the early 80s of wingless missile designs - the AMRAAM competitors from almost all other companies (Ford, Northrop, etc) had no mid-body wings which reduced drag.
Now in the context that I was discussing, the MICA has the ASRAAM beat in turn radius, rate, but also in range simply because it has a much higher impulse motor… it is a longer ranged missile benefiting from some more complex design features such as TVC and strakes.
Apologies if this isn’t on topic for the Eurofighter. In regards to the aircraft, I believe both missiles will perform quite well in the current war thunder meta and what I would consider the foreseeable future.
I’m curious how you come to that conclusion when ASRAAM’s motor is about 25% larger in volume than MICA’s motor.
Obviously these a rough maths:
Using this diagram from an official RAF manual you can determine the motor section of ASRAAM to be 1.39 m x 0.166 m, giving a volume of 0.030083 m3.
Meanwhile using these two diagrams of the MICA from different MBDA documents you can determine the motor to be about 1.2 m x 0.16 m, giving a volume of 0.024127 m3.
That means the ASRAAM motor has approximately 25% more volume than the MICA motor.
I expect ASRAAM and MICA will both be very capable missiles in game; I agree that MICA will probably be the better option for dogfights (if Gaijin ever get thrust vectoring to work right). But ASRAAM will almost certainly have better time to target.
It likely results in lower drag if nothing else.
I don’t think anyone is particularly arguing that ASRAAM’s dogfight ability will be better than MICA or IRIS-T, just that the range will be better than IRIS-T, and the speed better than both. The main design concept for ASRAAM is that the missile should be exceptionally quick so it can hit the enemy before the enemy has a chance to fire their shorter range missile against you. The official reason Germany gave for withdrawing from the programme was budget constraints; although they evidently also valued better dogfight capability over raw speed and range, resulting in IRIS-T.
As I’ve mentioned before the ASRAAM will beat MICA in average velocity. I’ve been researching ASRAAM and in one described intercept the average velocity required to achieve it is higher than the MICA’s peak velocity when tested under the same conditions in game.
If you don’t mind me asking, how did you test this?
Custom MICA IR or using the in-game MICA EM?
It is possible for MICA IR to achieve a higher peak velocity than MICA EM while still having a lower range due to not having loft. The loft on MICA EM trades velocity for altitude (reducing peak velocity). It is also worth mentioning that the MICA EM’s peak velocity could increase with reduction in wobbliness, so in-game testing is also faulty for that same reasoning.
Are there known metrics for ASRAAM?
This is from standstill. In game if you launch R-27ER from slow speed (or R-60), both missiles feel very agile and quick to turn, but at higher speeds they suffer. With TVC, missile can more efficiently turn and not gain speed much due to thrust pointing in oposite direction of turn, hence the missile is slow at longer times and being in “slow” but agile state.
However: MICA TVC ON vs OFF currently (will change in next major update I hope)
How I see it going will be like this:
IRIS-T
Gunna be the most deadly at very close range 5-10km. You wont want to be in a dogfight with something like a Typhoon within those ranges with them equipped. A Typhoon with them will want to close the range after exiting the BVR phase as rapidly as possible and be practically trying to gunfight targets. It will be built for the Furball.
ASRAAM
Gunna be the best in a joust and for medium range. It is by far the fastest off the rails. But wont be unusable up close and personal. But a Typhoon with them will want to circle the furball and fire off ASRAAMs, especially as the RAF Typhoons will have the PIRATE as well.
MICA IR
Gunna be good for a dogfight at both short and medium range. Will be a good all rounder providing that TVC isnt buggy as hell (which lets face it… it will). MICA I think will have the longest theoretical range, but after its out of fuel, the lack of TVC will affect its performance, and its no escape zone would shrink quite a bit
In the medium range ASRAAM vs MICA, The ASRAAM will have a larger no escape zone at its max range compared to the MICA at its limit of its range respectively. But honestly, at around 20km. I think they’d both have a similar no escape zone. regardless of the TVC.
