4 Likes
Well, currently TVC is really an issue at very low speed. I’ve haven’t gotten MICA spin out in ages, and I usually fire them above 500km/h. I believe the devs have hard limited the maximum angle the TVC can take for the R73 and MICA still, but that does not prevent them to reach their top G load as well as the little boost from TVC (even if nerfed), so it’s still a very tight pull. It does however destroy the range of those missiles and the ASRAAM might be able to capitalize on that in gamme
it didint mention anything about the performance of the IRIS-T
it only said it will get added
Yep, which given the lecture we got on Brimstone, was… interesting…
Anyway, might be time to start ass-kicking for BOL to be properly modeled as a defence if IIR is actually modeled
That’s not a sure thing anyways (It will very much depend on the exact seeker and exact chaff particles used and their amount and density etc) …
But let’s assume it doesn’t … Who cares … Still a better compromise than no mmW at all …
True. Though at this point and their hard requirement for it to be 100% accurate or not at all. Id be a little miffed if they then turned around and went “actually, we’ve just decided to make them be blocked by smoke”
I would expect IIR to just act as a better gate width IRCCM. Probably they’ll give us something like 0.4º FOV and call it a day (which would be the FOV of the actual magic 2 IRCCM if it was correct, as it should go down to around 0.47º).
As for IRL performances, I remember seeing the specs on an IIR seeker with a pixel resolution of about 10x less (0.05º), and considering that only a few pixels should be required to get a lock, that’d would make IRCCM actually insane (currently IR AGMs in game have 0.1º FIV and are basically unflaranle, and IIR seeker are actually in the realm of 2x better)
They obviously won’t make them “unflarable”
But yeah, probably like 0.4 gatewidth or something thereabout
Also if they implement their datalink it could be quite potent … I.e. lock the enemy with radar or other sensors and guide the missile in until impact (or until “unflarable distance”) to avoid countermeasures …
This is the offical description of the ASRAAM shot:
The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target. The engagement simulated a “chase down” situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM.
As it was a chase down scenario the target was likely fairly close to directly behind the launch aircraft, rather than just being behind the wing line.
I don’t know about IRIS-T. There was a derivative of ASRAAM called Typhoon, which was offered as a competitor to Brimstone. It supposedly retained ASRAAM’s original IIR seeker for guidance, so that would suggest ASRAAM is cable of tracking and attacking ground targets.
That said I doubt ASRAAM would be effective against anything more than soft skinned targets though as its warhead is relatively small (Typhoon would have used a tandem HEAT warhead). Same goes for Sidewinder in that respect though, try them out in protection analysis, they do sod all damage against anythign remotely armoured.
5 Likes
Yeah, probably a last ditch use case against howitzers or pickups
Or during the Falklands, enemy surface ships :D
1 Like
Well that’s where the alternate discussion about the Typhoon missile comes from. Utilising an ASRAAM
seeker and body, smaller motor apparently 15km range, with IIRC a PARS-3 warhead and a triple rack.
Here is an alternate picture to what flame sent
1 Like
Not necessarily
The launch platform could have made a partial turn to decrease the angle then make the shot …
The text you posted doesn’t clearly indicate a target on direct 6, and even if it was, “at a range in excess of 5km” is quite a lot …
This brochure advertises it as being able to hit targets “behind the wing-line” … The fact that they explicitly mention “behind the wing-line” makes me think it’s not that great for hitting targets on direct 6 or close to it …
https://mbdainc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/MBDA-ASRAAM1.pdf
The press release also states this, which you seem to be ignoring:
successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM.
All round self protection would include targets directly behind the launch aircraft.
3 Likes
It’s possible but it’s not that clear TBH
Again, even if it can target stuff on direct 6, it probably can only do so at very specific distances (The text says “In excess of 5km”).
So “all-round protection” doesn’t necessarily mean it can just fly straight and shift delete anything that is around it at any angle and distance …
For example it might require initiating a turn before launching the missile at the threat directly behind the aircraft …
That would technically still be “all round protection” as in it can target stuff that are technically behind the aircraft …
That would make sense… Unlike Germany with the IRIS-T.
ASRAAM was designed with “shoot first kill first” doctrine in mind. Its meant to kill the target before they can start to dogfight where then a missile like IRIS-T would naturally be superior.
Point is an ASRAAM armed Typhoon should be holding back and leveraging the strengths of the ASRAAM of being a death ray to anything. Especially when combined with the massive off-boresight capability of the CAPTOR-E.
In contrast, a Typhoon armed with IRIS-T Will mince anything and everything within short range, even the MICA IR and those Typhoons will want to be aggresive and get up close and personal with anything and everything.
Two different missiles, two different doctrines, two different playstyles.
Point still stands though, even without TVC, ASRAAM has a 360 degree engagement envelope, which will make it potent in off-boresight shots, something we lack currently with the Aim-9M
Fair enough, but can’t the Rafale also hold back and leverage IR MICA (NG)'s range advantage over IRIS-T and ASRAAM?
That’s kinda what I’ve been trying to say in that discussion …
1 Like
Maybe, but then if you are firing them at such ranges, they’ll probably be defeated kinematically all the time and probably easily flared as well from such range. Otherwise R-27ETs would be the best top tier IR Missile in game right now.
Besides. MICA EM doesnt really even have that great of range, are you really firing them at 40-50km?
As for kinematically defeating them the same applies to ASRAAM as well
I.e. you can defeat the ASRAAM kinematically at shorter ranges than you can do so against a MICA
As for flaring, I do agree that ASRAAMs higher closure rate will likely afford it a bit better IRCCM at certain ranges …
Well, stuff are sometimes poorly modeled in the game
But regardless of the absolute values, it’s clear that it will have relatively better range in the game …
@Flame2512 Is there any source on how much propellant ASRAAM has?
MICA EM currently has 41.9kg with a weight of 70.1kg at the end of the burn
MICA NG will obviously have even better kinematics (Being in service or not is obviously not that relevant for WT, plus by the time it might be in service)
And while ASRAAM has “cleaner aerodynamic design” it should be noted that its body has 7.6% larger cross sectional area (166mm vs 160mm) which increases drag …
1 Like
The ASRAAM rocket motor has this written on the side:
STM FILL DATE XX/XX BATCH XXX/XX 52 KG MAX
It is not entirely clear whether 52 kg is the mass of the filling or the mass of the motor (filling + case). I should note that ASRAAM’s motor is a physically larger than MICA’s. Excluding the blast pipe / nozzle (which doesn’t hold fuel) MICA’s motor is approximately 1.2 m x 0.16 m, while ASRAAM’s is approximately 1.4 m x 0.166 m. That means the volume of MICA’s motor is 0.0241 m3, compared to 0.0303 m3 for ASRAAM.
That very crudely puts the volume of ASRAAM’s motor as ~25% larger than MICA’s. Assuming the amount of fuel per unit of volume is about the same for the two missiles, that means you would expect ASRAAM to have roughly 25% more fuel than MICA. If you multiply 41.9 by 1.25 you get ~52 kg, which at first glance would seem to add some credibility to a fuel mass of 52 kg.
However the fuel mass of MICA in game is based upon the Czech missile paper; which is explicitly just a very crude estimate by the authors, and not based on any reliable information. From what I remember, when I looked into it previously the estimate of 41.9 kg for MICA began to look very questionable, at best. TBH I’m amazed Gaijin chose to use that document at all.
5 Likes