Norway tested that actually, but I don’t know if there’s any documents outlining the results of the tests.
It seems unlikely that 52kg is the filling
Given that the whole missile is 88kg and you have a 10kg warhead as well
And it seems somewhat unusual to write the propellant mass instead of the total mass on the missile or propulsion section …
Have you seen any other example where the mass of the propellant (Instead of the total mass, not in addition to it) was written on the propulsion section of a missile?
A larger motor casing doesn’t necessarily mean more internal room for propellant.
(Especially if you have higher requirement in terms of resistance to propellant cookoff etc due to aerodynamic heating which IIRC ASRAAM has)
And more internal room for propellant doesn’t necessarily mean more propellant …
MK36 is for example ~ 60% propellant
And it likely doesn’t have the high requirements in terms of resistance to aerodynamic heating that ASRAAM has …
Gaijin added aerodynamic heating and ASRAAM will be easily one of the hottest missiles out there with its insane accel, this won’t be a problem in WT.
2 Likes
I want that! I think it wouldn’t be a stretch to add it, since KH-38MT is rampaging hard and when I wanna play that, I have to wait 1,5 mins in queue just to get in the game.
IR missiles have been used against tanks as well. For exemple, during desert storm, some gazelles have successfully disabled the engines of T64s or T54 (I can’t quite remember which ones). The warhead of the mistral is also pretty small.
I would guess most modern IR missiles have the technical ability to lock in ground targets, but there’s probably some software preventing that (to prevent locking unwanted heat signatures) and, just like the Aim 9X, would require software updates. So unless a missile has specifically been tested in that regard, I don’t think it’s currently possible (ASRAAM and MICA)
Yeah
IRIS-T is confirmed to have gotten the ability:
1 Like
Buddy he literaly answered to the guy saying iris-t has that capability with a source
I agree it is unlikely, but as the size comparison between MICA and ASRAAM lined up literally perfectly with a 52 kg propellant weight I felt I could not dismiss the possibility yet.
Yes but on the balance of probability (which is all we can go on without hard data) you would expect a rocket motor that is both longer and wider to contain the same or greater propellant than the smaller motor.
An early prototype of ASRAAM’s motor (which was explicitly not the final design, but is the closest clue we have on how it might be constructed) apparently used a 1.75 mm thick heat shield around the motor case so even if we were to assume the finished motor used a 3 mm thick heat shield (nearly double that of the prototype - which seems unlikely) the ASRAAM motor case would still be the same outer diameter as MICA’s, while being 20 cm longer.
Do you really have any reason to believe MICA has more propellant than ASRAAM?
And the Mk36 is an early 60s design with a traditional metal case. The ASRAAM motor is a late 80s/ early 90s design with a steel strip laminate composite case designed to be stronger and lighter than traditional motor cases. MICA for that matter also uses a metallic rather than composite case.
3 Likes
What I linked is my response to his response to my question
A little response-ception if you will
I asked if IRIS-T has the ability
He posted a source saying it was tested but there was no mention if the results were successful or not
I found another source (An archived version of a now deleted article on manufacturer’s website) indicating a successful result, but posted it in the IRIS-T thread since it felt more appropriate there …
2 Likes
I actually checked myself as well. Diehls website does mention that capability currently, but only explicitly mentions sea targets.
2 Likes
What are the chance that the cszech paper came to this conclusion using the same assumption lol, it’s so perfect it’s makes me think.
I honestly don’t think anything in that Czech paper is to be trusted. It is literally just their estimates using a lot of assumptions and some generic formulas. But Gaijin have decided to use it anyway despite speculation not usually being allowed for bug reports. I fully expect IRIS-T will use Czech estimates as well.
5 Likes
Quick question, on the size of the motors you mentioned for the ASRAAM and MICA, does it take into account the shape of the nozzle, or is it only the geometry before the the combustion chamber ? I believe that the MICA has an unusually long nozzle that is apparently necessary for the thrust vectoring, so it does take more space than the ASRAAM nozzle I would guess, but I don’t know enough about the ASRAAM internal dimensions
Maybe the software enhancement was designed with ground vehicles in mind as well, but was only tested against sea targets.
Though the wording of the current page doesn’t exclude ground vehicles either … Just says it was first tested against sea targets in 2016 …
2 Likes
I was excluding the pipe & nozzle of both motors from my comparison as to my knowledge there is usually no fuel stored there. And the purpose of the comparison was to roughly estimate fuel mass.
1 Like
It does indeed:
1 Like
If I’m not mistaken this is the rocket motor:
Which then sits inside the propulsion section casing:
I’m not sure about that. This diagram of the final ASRAAM motor from Roxel (the people who make it) shows the mounting points being integral to the SSL motor case, with a heat shield forming the skin of the missile and fitting around the mounting points.
I believe you are suggesting the skin of the missile is it’s own metal tube (with the mounting points attached) which the SSL motor case then slides within?
Do we know those two parts in your photos are from the same missile?
1 Like
So the brown part does not go inside the white part as you originally suggested? Or did I misunderstand what you meant?
1 Like