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
There is primary time-to-target data of ASRAAM. I tried to diligently recreate a missile based on public sources available on the ASRAAM such as its weight (88kg) and what the time-to-target intercept scenario stated. The conclusion I came to was confusing. I also had someone else, a dataminer, independently create a missile based on the data as well.
The conclusions we both independently came to were the same. What resulted was a missile similar to Magic 2 but lower in drag and higher in thrust with higher fuel mass and a higher ISP (similar to that of current fox 3s). It met the time-to-target data, but the range was not exceptional and not in the realm of MICA, particularly due to its lower inertia and lack of loft. The weight of ASRAAM is in the range of AIM-9M and Magic 2. Magic 2 is 89kg while ASRAAM is 88kg.
It is believable that the ASRAAM is quite fast and exceptional in that regard, but the range expectations just wasn’t there due to the lack of inertia on the missile.
Hmm, interesting.
From this brochure, I found out that they were plans for an Air variant
I don’t find the other source I had for easy integration with ASRAAM platforms.
As far as the program went, it seems that the air launched CAMM went nowhere and the CAMM project is developed along side the ASRAAM with shared innovations (from English Wikipedia)
1 Like
Well, the CAMM and ASRAAM Blk.6 share the body, as you could seen in the diagram i posted earlier. Just the RF seeker failed to gain traction on air launched platforms, as that niche is already filled by for example Meteor.
2 Likes
This feels relevant. No idea what the original documentary is from
Dunno what the 2km part is supposed to mean either…
1 Like
One of the most important design requirements for ASRAAM was known as “f-pole”. Basically if you and a target aircraft are flying head on to each-other and the missile is fired at a given range, then the separation between your aircraft and the target’s aircraft at the moment the missile impacts is the f-pole range.
F-pole range is entirely a function of missile average velocity / time to target. ASRAAM is confirmed to meet the f-pole requirement, while IR MICA does not, ergo ASRAAM has higher velocity:
An official presentation from MBDA or Roxel (can’t remember which) states ASRAAM experiences over 1,000°C of aero-heating during flight. According to a research paper I found on aerodynamic heating of missiles that level of aero-heating is only possible at speeds around Mach 5. Also the average velocity of ASRAAM claimed in documents from the archives makes a peak velocity of Mach 5+ seem plausible.
4 Likes
Interesting that the UK prioritized time to target in a certain given scenario rather than range. Wonder why that would be the case.
Thanks for the source. At least it shows that the ASRAAM has a much faster acceleration. I don’t know what are the distances for that F-Pole, but it does not necessarily mean that the top speed is actually that much higher. If the missiles reaches Mach 4.5 faster than the MICA, it would still perform better in regards to that F-Pole, if the range isn’t that high. Again, it would require getting the distance values and compare to the burn time of the missile
It does however makes me wonder about the motor itself. I don’t clearly remember, but I believe it was mentioned that the ASRAAM was a long burning missile, which would be counterintuitive with the high acceleration. The missile is still rather light, so i don’t see how it would achieve both high acceleration and long burn time for it to reach BVR ranges.
It does look more to me that this missile is closer to a long range Magic 2 probably with interception ranges of up to around 30-40km range, but not the previously claimed 40-50km
Aeroheating figures provided by MBDA
1 Like
Well they had AMRAAM and later Meteor for long range. If I was launching an IR missile I’d want to give minimum time to react and possibly shoot back
It is not, it is a single burn about 3-4 seconds
1 Like