Yep, the nose on T2 onwards is reinforced to account for the 100kg+ extra weight. T1 can’t carry Captor-E because of that weight increase
1 Like
Yeah i got no clue, we’ll have to revisit in 20 years when more info is available.
1 Like
@Morvran replying to one of your comment on Part 1 (I can’t seem to manage to quote you message from one part to the other):
About the fact that the ASRAAM time to target (and off the rail speed) is apparently faster than the MICA, I wonder where you guys get that from. Because the only time someone (that I will not name but probably will read this) argued that with actual documents with me, they showed me this :
But, actually, they cropped the brochure that came from this which I found after some research :
Which is very dishonest if you ask me because this specifically compares the ASRAAM to the IRIS-T and AIM-9X (part naming the specific missiles were cropped), which are both Mach 2.5 - Mach 3 missiles, while the MICA is stated at Mach 4+ up to Mach 4.5 (primary source). Now, I would expect both missiles to be in the same category (MICA and ASRAAM) when it comes to max speed, but, we don’t have much information on it.
Even it’s stated range comes from the CAMM, featuring different aerodynamics, weight and motor compared to the ASRAAM. They are apparently so significantly different that MBDA offers their ASRAAM users to replace the ASRAAM with an Air to Air variant of the CAMM (which, according to MBDA, would be easily achieved has one of the things shared between both missiles is the Fuselage, along the seeker apparently from what I have read).
Considering this, I think it’s evidently hard to make comparaison between the potential MICA IR and ASRAAM in game, because all available informations on the ASRAAM are very unreliable (unless some people are hiding some docs and don’t plan on sharing them for now)
base CAMM and ASRAAM have the same motor.
And to be frank, the diagram compares it to WVR missiles. MICA is considered BVR.
ASRAAM is Mach 5, hypersonic. Also isn’t there anything that compares MICA-IR to AIM-9X and IRIS-T?
I believe he is taking into account the turnover pack.
That’s the only document I was showed in the argumentation. I was argued that this proved it ASRAAM was faster than all IR missiles, including the Magic 2 and MICA IR.
Which, considering both are much faster than the AIM9X and IRIS-T, is irrelevant. But that also seemed to have remained in the consciousness that ASRAAM is faster than the MICA and thus has better time to hit, when no other documents were provided (or I missed them)
Since when and according to what sources
Not AFAIK, they don’t really compare in the slightest, why would there be a need to compare them
Well, in that case the fuel for the VLT is stored inside it.
Since I made it up
I was not. I am basing my different motor and aerodynamics from talks with @MythicPi from a few days/weeks ago when we were talking about the range of the ASRAAM (comparing to the value of the ground launched CAMM and air launched ASRAAM). I guess there’s some miscommunication in the middle
The diagram is comparing to WVR, MICA is BVR. Its quite simple to me.
Im afraid you did.
Yes, and thus I come to my initial question again, where to the assumption that the ASRAAM was faster and had better time to hit than the MICA IR comes from.
As I said, I only brought this source up because it was the only source that was (misleadingly) shown to me to argue that position.
Idk, i dont think i ever had a assumption like that.
Difference in range comes from things like altitude, launch conditions etc.
We know that 25 is a effective range. We dont know if it can pull out more, as the displayed range changed over the years.
There is a article about a interview that talks about kinematic range (of camm), but i am yet to get to the interview itself, so it is unconfirmed for now.
Not you specifically. I originally was quoting Morvran. MythicPi as also talked about it iirc (I don’t keep a tally on who said what), but there’s a significant portion of people that are « trusted » (because they have some knowledge, did some report, participate a lot in the forums) that mentioned this, including the person that first misrepresented the source above, and many people could just read and believe that (and then complain if it’s not the case in game when they get introduced), despite the apparent lack of evidence
Well, idk how TTT of both missiles compares, so i cant comment.
It is possible that ASRAMM is faster, but it is possible it is not. That would require more data, that is most likely classified.
Yeah, I hear here and there that someone has proof that it does Mach 4.5, but I’ve never actually seen them. I don’t doubt that the ASRAAM is fast, but as for the time to target I really don’t think we can have any certainty on that. The MICA ir stated to be around 112kg compared to the ASRAAM 88kg from what google gives me. The ASRAAM is ultimately a smaller missile, and if we don’t count the losses incurred by the thrust vectoring of the MICA (which would be somewhat low for long range shots), I don’t see how kinematically the ASRAAM would retain so much more speed that it would definitely hit before a MICA would. Granted, I am not considering aerodynamics here (which one is pointer lol), but considering that :
The CAMM has different aerodynamics than the ASRAAM, and that MBDA offers switching ASRAAM for CAMM, it looks like aerodynamically the CAMM could be more optimized than ASRAAM
Neither did i
I have not seen that, mind linkin this up?
I got it from flame