imagine if the Germans made their own CCA and called it the V-1
Arguably the US is also behind the curve in SRAAMs as well. With both IRIS-T and ASRAAM outperforming Aim-9X within the respective design envelopes. With ASRAAM entering service 5 years before Aim-9X iirc
this is true, i think the block 2 closes the gap a bit though no? further improvements will likely put us on par/maybe slightly better than ASRAAM or IRIS-T
A bit. but ASRAAM is still faster with longer range and IRIS-T still pulls way more Gs at close range
Spoiler
IRIS-T
Characteristics:
Length: 2.9m
Width: 0.127m
Fin span: 0.45m
Weight: 87.4kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 3+
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 25km (Up to 10-12km max range and 6km altitude when ground launched)
Propulsion: Solid fuel rocket motor (High boost, Low thrust for initial turn, High thrust for max speed, Low thrust sustainer).
Seeker capabilities: Dual band imaging seeker based around a 128 x 2 array which uses a scanning mirror to build a larger picture (effectively a 128*128 pixels 80 times per second) .90° Gimbal limit.
Warhead: 11.4kg blast frag
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAL, INS.
Maneuvering Capability: 60 to 80G with TVC. 1/2 the turning radius of the R-73. Can do a 180° turn in 2s.
Aim-9X
Characteristics:
Length: 3.02m
Width: 0.127m
Fin span: 0.445; 0.353m (canard span)
Weight: 86kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 2.5
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 35-40km (Up to 15km when ground launched)
Propulsion: MTI/ Hercules MK.139
Seeker capabilities: Imaging seeker with 128*128 pixels with 90° gimbal.
Warhead: 9.4 kg WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAF, INS, LOFTING, DATALINK
Maneuvering Capability: 50G with TVC. Can do a 180° turn in 2.5s.
ASRAAM
Length: 2.9m
Width: 0.166m
Fin span: 0.45m
Weight: 88kg
Maximum Speed: Mach 3+
Minimum Range: 200m
Maximum Range: 50km (Up to 16km when ground launched)
Propulsion: Solid rocket motor with low smoke
Seeker capabilities: Updated seeker with higher resolution than the Block1
Warhead: 10 kg blast frag
Guidance Type: LOBL, LOAL, INS, (LOFTING?).
Maneuvering Capability: Around 50g dual plane. The missile likely uses dual plane. Can do a 180° turn in ?s. Managed to shoot down a target behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km at low altitude.
1 Like
ídk, do you have proof for the IRIS-T? either way theyre probably effectively the same at close range.
it would be more favorable to use an AMRAAM instead of an ASRAAM at the ranges where ASRAAM beats 9X
thanks for the descriptions btw!
looks like 9X has intermediate performance, and better guidance options
IRIS-T is reported to pull 60-80G, but has an advantage of being quite slow off the rails, so pulls hard on launch.
It is by far the best close range dogfighting missile.
ASRAAM has longer range and is scarily fast of the rails. The key difference between ASRAAM and AMRAAM though, is that one alerts your RWR the other does not. If fired used PIRATE, you would have no warning until MAWS detected it;
From
We are sort of missing the point here. NATO’s member states are unlikely to be shooting at each other.
The gaps in one air arm’s arsenal would likely be filled by those of an allied air arm. They do talk to eachother about what they are developing and there is probably a certain degree of co-ordination as to who is earmarked to do what if the war went hot.
So long as the overall NATO Air component had a healthy mix of types, abilities and roles - whether fighter X had a slightly worse missile than fighter Y would be a bit irrelevant. The main issue would be if they could turn the Soviet Aviation (VVS and later VKS) into colanders. Which I suspect they could.
After all, Ivan is probably not too bothered which Block of AMRAAM is currently chasing him across the sky. Nor is he likely to be overly concerned by the lack of AESA on the Typhoon that has just sent a Meteor rocketing towards him from silly distances away…
the delta canards is even worse off with large AoA. The breakdown does not begin with the wing. And a canards , as a result of which the plane sharply turns its nose down
1 Like
i mean, with newer amraams, it could be possible to not turn ARH seeker on and run on other methods of guidance purely, like LPI AESA radars, and F-35 IRST/F-18 IRST21/F-15 and 16 LEGION pod
even the RWR’s on US fighters can guide in AMRAAMs
you understand this is context of future war thunder right?
im well aware, and happy, that the 4 best SRAAMs in the world will be fighting on our side
I mean, in War Thunder, you’re bound to have NATO member states go up against each other because that’s how matchmaking works.
Frankly AIM-9X seems like a worst of both worlds kind of missile. IRIS-T is a better missile at short range (and is likely better than or equal to at medium range); while ASRAAM is likely better at medium and long range. The only thing AIM-9X has going for it is that the US could re-use bits from their existing AIM-9M stockpile.
Edit: I guess the other thing AIM-9X has going for it is that it’s American so keeps the defence industry lobbyists happy…
5 Likes
We’re using IRL performance to get a rough idea of what to expect in WT in future. However, we’re going to run into the issue of some nations having different weapons abilities purely due to the IRL realities.
The additional curve ball is that with modern weapons - true figures as to IRL abilities are going to be thinner and thinner on the ground. So we are into certain realms of guesswork…
idk, i think the AIM-9X would be the best at medium ranges off the stats, but not too far off the IRIS-T in short range, and not insanely worse than the ASRAAM in long ranges
I think the part about the 9M is quite important though. That and this;
Seem to have been the primary reasons behind its selection. AFAIK after the Off-bore restrictions of ASRAAM compared to AIM-9X were realised the TVC P3I ASRAAM could have completely negated any significant advantage whilst yielding iirc virtually no reduction in range.
And I suppose that’s backed up on CAMM featuring a further derivative of that TVC module.
1 Like
I don’t recall that part, according to what?
Eurofighter was meant to enter service in 1998.
You think I’m being selective - I’m not. I’m assisting with bug reports on the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27. Not just for the flight models, but for the ordnance, radars, engines, etc. My research is heavily divided among a large number of topics and I do not always recall little information put out here and there. The way I assert myself angers some people and that isn’t my problem. They should behave themselves. I do not care if their national pride is too closely associated with their ego or if they’re just angry that I’m discussing the cons of their favorite fighter jet.
I’m not heckling people who are nerfing the MiG-23, I encourage it, provided the data is there to support the claim. Ironically, I did nothing to support those who were submitting buffs to the aircraft and only supported the people trying to nerf it historically.
It goes right over everyone’s head when I suggest the Eurofighter is underperforming in an area, the same occurred when I was working on reports for the F-14, F-15, F-16, Gripen, Mirage 2000, and their associated engines or ordnance. The Russian players cried when I nerfed the engine temps of the MiG-21/23 and Su-17/22 series.
Now I make completely valid, unbiased, and objective points against the Eurofighters in-game performance and I am met by another wall of furious fist shaking. Go figure. More of the same. You think I am the one being inflammatory, I’m not. People simply cannot handle the judgement of their favorite new toy. The responses I’ve received violate forum rules and guidelines and yet you’re not responding to them about it - their behavior is what got the German Typhoon thread closed last time. Not my assertions on the pros and cons of the decades late fighter.
TACIT BLUE flew with a LPI radar in 1982, that information was shared with Britain for sure. Absolutely no reason they couldn’t have agreed to move towards an AESA especially when they knew the Sukhoi’s would be using ESA of some kind already.
There is the option to use existing PESA technology which is already superior to the Mech-scan option.
Only because of the timeline - the Eurofighter was already late to the party any further delays or budget increases would have collapsed it so your point still stands.
The F-22 was built off data and research learned from the early to mid 60s as the SR-71 used RAM coatings since the 60s and the defense research agency put out requests for research into low observable designs in the 70s - which yielded HAVE BLUE and TACIT BLUE programs, LPI radars, canopy coatings, RAM materials, RAM coatings, stealth for curved surfaces, etc prior to 1985.
The Rafale fitted a PESA just fine.
The US already had tested PESA and AESA with LPI and other features at that time. France was already working on the RBE2.
I would classify it more as an oversight in the design and an example of why programs must cost more - increased spending allows for quicker development and stuff enters service before it becomes obsolete in certain areas requiring costly upgrade programs and leaving the fleet without crucial technological developments made in the meantime.
This is why the consortium (although necessary) is inferior to having a single set of requirements and why the Rafale turned out to be more future-proof.
We didn’t think Iran would be an enemy soon after we sold them F-14’s either.
Yes but the point of 50 degrees is beyond absurdity. They should tone it down.
There is much you do not know about the AIM-9X. I’m not saying it is better - but there are reasons you are omitting for it’s implementation and continued use.
The ASRAAM is considerably better than the AIM-9X at medium and long ranges.
4 Likes
There’s a difference between blocks, such as changes to its seeker.
Still going to be an insane missile at close range.
1 Like
fair enough, i guess the ASRAAM would have more energy at medium range, though it can’t pull as hard as a 9X.
they are still making the upgraded motor for the 9X though, even after block 3 cancelled, so that will probably make it beat or match current ASRAAM in range
1 Like
Its a doctrinally different missile it is never going to be beating the ASRAAM at medium-long range or in outright range imo AIM-9X= high agility, ASRAAM= speed and range in very basic terms. A closer comparison can be drawn between LM Peregrine and ASRAAM though Peregrine has the advantage there in both range and agility, though iirc not speed the tradeoff is Peregrine is also 30 years newer.
idk if it would have been shared with UK, i mean that was top secret, literally Area 51 activity.