It makes sense when you consider the design philosophy of the missile. The basic idea is that modern IR missiles are almost unavoidable, therefore if one is fired at you then you’re probably dead, at which point you don’t really care whether you kill him or not.
Therefore it is reasoned that the only way to reliably win such an engagement is to kill the enemy before they have a chance to fire their missile. So you need a missile that so fast enough that you can fire it and have it impact the enemy aircraft before the enemy has the chance to fire their own missile in return.
Sure, and that does give it an advantage over Magic II in scenarios that the enemy doesn’t see the missile and doesn’t have MAW
But because of its worse seeker and lack of close range agility, it’s worse than Magic II up close (I.e. it can’t hit shots that Magic II would be able to hit)
But MICA has thrust vectoring and IIR seeker like ASRAAM, so it doesn’t suffer from that problem
In fact, if we are talking up close (point black) there are probably shots that MICA can hit that ASRAAM can’t …
It’s literally a different requirement for a missile though. I love how on one hand MICA is this quirky, different missile, that’s not like the others, and yet you insist on comparing it to the others in the WVR class.
ASRAAM is a traditional WVR IR missile. You would not be using ASRAAM like a MICA. At the ranges where MICA’s range is more of a factor than ASRAAM’s speed, you would be using the various versions of AMRAAM, and lets not forget, what ASRAAM was designed it was designed when only the UK was involved in Meteor, France offered a MICA variant for the same programme that the UK offered what essentially became Meteor.
This is not BVR, this isnt a case of who fires first, if you care about that you’d fire an amraam, this is for when you are within 40km of an unaware target or a target who is currently flying away from you, and you need a guaranteed kill quickly.
Do you really want to dispute the fact that MICA / MICA NG has a significant range advantage over ASRAAM?
As for seeker range, both missiles probably need to use datalink updates to utilize their maximum range.
Though, if enemy is not maneuvering, they could perhaps get to seeker range using INS and without datalink update … (I.e. if enemy is aware you use sensors + datalink update and if enemy is not aware yet, you can launch without datalink update using INS only)
Irregardless of that which I wouldn’t dispute by the way, MICA NG literally isn’t even in service, its not some trump card and its essentially irrelevant for the current time period.
And MICA’s range would allow a greater range against “unaware target or a target who is currently flying away from you”
Sure, speed can have its advantages
But I’m just saying this whole “ASRAAM was designed to be fast because with modern IIR missiles you need to hit the enemy before he hits you” doesn’t even make sense …
If IIR missiles are unavoidable, then merely hitting the enemy before he hits you is not gonna solve your problem … You want to launch before he even has a chance to launch and you need range for that, not just speed …
NG exist tho. It was test fired, trialed and is due to enter service later this year, but that’s beside the point (aside from the fact that it would be able to use its TVC at longer range thanks to the independent dual pulse motor)
Likely wont matter in WT since missile interception is pretty reliable and easy to do, and I doubt gaijin will bother modelling the ability to slave to systems to be used as a hardkill APS.
Theres also technically no proof other missiles cant do it irl beyond the fact that IRIS-T is the only one to mention this capability.
As for the ASRAAM speed vs MICA range discussion, having longer max range does not necessarily mean longer max NEZ. The ASRAAM may be designed to have the largest max NEZ, which would effectively negate the MICAs range advantage. Its possible this is why the UK emphasized the F-pole over total range.
Id like to point out that the F-pole test done likely wasnt a launch at a preset range, but instead a launch at the max range of both missiles respectively. Itd make no sense to compare f-poles at a preset range.
Had a quick look at this. If I am mathing right from my previous classes on supersonic regimes, I got the following Mach speed for different altitude for skin heating on a flat surface (not considering hotspot on the nose)
3km : Mach 4.3
9km : Mach 4.8
15km : Mach 4.96
It seems overall from that that the ASRAAM was developed as a Mach 5 capable missile (at high altitude)