So is 9Ms or SR116 on 9Ps. What we have ingame is reduced smoke. Its gaijins issue that they cant model contrails of missiles up high.
Do we have any data for Asraams???
Engine power, Fov of seeker, G capabilities, which version got LOAL if it wasnt first and mainly how fast it is?
Motor is probably classified but the missile is bigger in circumference and longer than most NATO rivals bar MICA. FoV probably classified but it has Loal and 360-degree engagement capability so it really doesn’t matter, G capabilities is up to 50g, every single block has LOAL, I believe the conclusion flame came to was that the speed is somewhere in the region of mach 4.5.
I agree, its too good for now by a long shot, mostly thats a trade i’d make later on. I think 9M’s can be very strong but they are somewhat flawed in the face of PL-8B or AAM-3 unnerfed or Python 4 which all do everything better than a 9M does.
So are mine but thats the good thing about having very good flight performance and loads of countermeasures I suppose. I also very much enjoy getting gun kills where possible.
P3I never made it past proposal as far as anyone has been able to prove, also AFAIK P3I was very much just an ASRAAM with a TVC module fitted (which i believe was an evolution of SRAAM’s TVC module and what would become CAMM’s TVC module) i.e the same motor hence it retained virtually everything making ASRAAM better than AIM-9X and added the 9X’s only actual trump card which was it being a better dogfight missile.
Standard ASRAAM was tested with an adaptor pylon on a F-16 where it met all the US specification and they still chose the AIM-9X though that was more to keep production domestic and for commonality than ASRAAM being worse.
No, the P3I i mentioned above discussed adding it but ASRAAM was already more than good enough and the point of it is that you will never been in a dogfight and therefore need thrust-vectoring, also the missile is 50g so its completely unnecessary.
I think its either smokeless or reduced smoke yes but someone will correct me.
I havent found anything about TVC exept proposition to USN from late 90s, how the hell is it doing 50Gs with those tiny “wings”
it looks like it could go up to 90° given how extended the seeker gimbal is.
It was offered to the US, based on SRAAM i believe (the missile already in-game which only has TVC and no moving fins), the RAF didn’t think it was necessary, neither did BAE, but the US insisted on TVC/HOBS capability in a dogfight missile so they seem to have drawn up plans but never made a prototype.
This is what prompted me to say this:
Gaijin aren’t always good with representing things they don’t view to be possible, written down or not.
But the answer to your question is advanced computational avionics, fins and then ‘lifting body technology’
3 Likes
from seeing how they do radars like APG-63v1 and 70. Limiting it by russian radar tech limits.
I wont hold my breath for 50G asraam… rather 30-35 given russian devs in WT and DCS tends to go by
- If russia couldnt do it, noone else could.
hence stupid HPRF limitations on western radar sets like 63v1, poor notch resistance, missing ILV modes for TWS…
1 Like
Tail control and a lift body means the whole missile is a lift surface.
2 Likes
If you watch videos of ASRAAM it has less smoke than just about any other missile I’ve seen.
3 Likes
Multiple sources confirm ASRAAM’s seeker gimbal limits are +/-90°.
2 Likes
g overload this n that, whats the rate speed
well… wish we had smokeless amraams or 54C but well… unlucky i guess.
I need to clue myself in haha
Not the entire missile, and body lift is not true “lift”. It wastes a considerable amount of energy compared to traditional missiles in favor of lower turn radius. It is a medium between TVC and aerodynamically controlled ordnance such as the Python 5. More optimal for reducing drag and improving ranged performance without complexity from TVC & related guidance hardware / software.
When low turn radius is required or high overloads at lower speeds… it wastes considerable energy turning itself around.
The missile is body-lift. All force exerted by the tail section pivots the missile rather than being used to counter gravity. It must at all times fly with a slightly nose-up attitude from the ground so as to utilize the thrust and “body lift” to counter gravity.
The center of lift, mass, gravity is all important here. The missile has relaxed static stability on launch and becomes more statically stable as the propellant burns off. Initially it has a high maximum overload and a low turn radius due to the high acceleration of the motor and the tight turn radius provided by the lack thereof stability. Once the motor is almost burned off, or completely burned off, the weight has shifted up towards the seeker and it is far more “stable”. At this point, if it has a high amount of speed remaining, it can still turn at a high overload but the radius is considerably increased and the sustained pull is worsened.
Long story short, it is highly maneuverable off the rail and less so after flying for some time. If it is constantly maneuvering off the rail it will burn excessive energy and not maintain the maneuverability for long after the burn has started because it does not have energy in the form of speed to trade for a high maneuvering overload.
Hopefully this was explained sufficiently. I’m not an expert so if there is anything erroneous please inquire.
@Flame2512 Perhaps you have documentation that provides insights to the British thought process on their goals for the ASRAAM and how it was optimized? I’d like you to reference this excerpt from a 1983 paper on a tail control cruciform missile with and without wings. I’d like to point out that they did not seem to explore the concept of a statically unstable or relaxed stability design for the wingless missile here and only the comparison of a Phoenix-style missile with and without wings.
Source
It essentially states that (not considering the relaxed stability) the tradeoff is a very fast missile that reaches the targets quicker, but may not be able to perform the maneuver to intercept them (not an issue with the ASRAAM, of course), or a slightly slower missile with higher end-game maneuverability.
It was, thanks.
Now i cant wait how butchered its FM will be given what R73 does from time to time and how mica wobbles around killing ita range.
This sounds way harder to properly model than tvc.
I am sure they can model it like some of the more maneuverable SAM’s in-game that should work very similarly. The VT-1 works under a similar principle.
The difference is, instead of accounting for a big shift in the center of gravity pre and post-burn, the VT-1 style missile simply moves the propellant section to the middle of the missile to make for a much smaller shift.
The ASRAAM keeps the motor section ahead of only the control actuator section.
To better explain some of my thoughts on how this missile maneuvers I made this paint image;
Looking at the missile as though it is a lever and the center of gravity is the fulcrum, it is aided not only by the torquing moment of the fins, but the additional body lift on the opposite end of the fulcrum. Two moments working together like this to pivot the missile around its’ own center of mass allow for a very tight turn radius.
Similar to the F-16, the tail section can in some circumstances also aid to the overall lift. with some AoA, the missile can rely on the fins to provide some amount of lift as it is countering the pitching moment of the nose rather than attempting to counter gravity. Just remember, to pitch nose down it needs to add positive lift in an unstable configuration. With a stable configuration it would need to push nose up, countering gravity with what is considered “negative lift”.
Which is why they simply did not model it for aircraft, all aircraft in-game are statically stable. They have not updated their instructor or FM to handle it yet.
2 Likes
I wish we had more info on ASRAAM like motor burn time and thrust. Because reading up what scraps of info I’ve managed find its flight performance sounds kinda insane.
Only thing I’ve managed to find is it’s a Remus motor of some sort. And going by the Australian document it has 70% more propellant per unit length compared the 9X motor. @Flame2512 do you have anything on the motor?