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
Norway tested that actually, but I don’t know if there’s any documents outlining the results of the tests.
3 Likes
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