Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
906

Thats pretty much the general assumption I had as well tbf. There just seema to be some oddities to it imo.

Structurally id assume the ASRAAM would outperform the IRIS-T in range/speed, but id also assume the CAMM-ER to outperform the SLM in that regard, which is allegedly not the case.

The CAMM-ER also adopts the strakes seen on the IRIS-T and its variants, and in general adopts more of an IRIS-T shape, also shared to some degree with the MICA.

CAMM-ER vs CAMM:

CAMM-SAM-004
CAMM-SAM-0041354×826 57.3 KB

Then you have the fact that the IRIS-T is (allegedly) more expensive, AND more widely used than the ASRAAM, with effectively the only ASRAAM operator being the Brits (from what I can tell, india is one of those weird outlier nations that uses a bunch of different missiles in smaller numbers), while the IRIS-T is operated by multiple european and some asian countries.

Across the Eurofighter program, the IRIS-T is the selected missile by all nations but britain, and most recently the IRIS-T was selected for integration by the south koreans for the KFX (though idk if the ASRAAM competed?)

All in all, its a bit odd. There seems to be many claims about the ASRAAM’s superiority in both design and capabilties, particularly over the IRIS-T, but it doesnt seem to translate to real world use, with the CAMM-ER adopting the shape of the IRIS-T, and the IRIS-T being significantly more comercially successful.

This could be purely coincidence though, as missiles are chosen for more than just performance, so maybe the ASRAAM is the wonder weapon the brits claim it to be. I think it could also be argued that the ASRAAM is a bad MICA as well though, with the alleged goal of the missile being pre-merge interception, it kinda steps on the toes of BVRAAM’s, but also falls short in the range respect, while seemingly not having any clear notable advantages over the MICA IR in maneuvrability (both are over the shoulder capable).

The MICA is a larger missile though, which could limit how many are carried, but its also noteworthy in being a larger commercial success…

A little odd for such a fantastic missile to be the worst comercially performing 5th gen IR missile of Europe, which is why I think theres more to this than whats being claimed.

1 Like
907

The main difference between IRIS-T and ASRAAM is do you want longer range but no TVC or shorter range but with TVC

Also Australia use it on their legacy hornets

It was only recently that ASRAAM wasn’t export restricted

908

Its been retired and replaced with the 9X, tho that might be more political?

909

Retired the moment they got super hornets is odd

Like not even integration to use old stocks

910

I doubt it’s because Hughes grabbed the Australian government by the balls and squeezed so they bought the AIM-9X in lieu of the superior ASSRAAMERS

911

IIRC it was a cost saving measure because the AIM-9X was already integrated into the Super Hornet.

I’ll reply to you main comment in the morning, but as Mytho said ASRAAM was export restricted until very recently (last couple of years). Because ASRAAM used American components it meant America could veto any export sales (which they would obviously have had an incentive to do in order to weaken the competition and potentially sell more AIM-9Xs).

During the ASRAAM Block 6 upgrade MBDA made a conscious decision to replace every single American component, specifically because America was being such a pain with vetoing exports.

4 Likes
912

Tbf, the US is downright dirty with weapon sales and integrations. Theyre screwing the europeans atm regarding the Meteor cuz it makes the AMRAAM look like shit

7 Likes
914

Perhaps BAE needs to return the favour :P

5 Likes
915

Ah, the ol’ “US screws its allies by using the power of politics because they cant compete with the power of quality” move, despite constantly espousing the wonders of the free market…

5 Likes
916

Yeah still waiting for meator on F35B

917

weird that block 4 F-45 keeps getting delayed smh

1 Like
918

Thing is that apparently been ready for a while just gov/companies on the US side keep putting roadblocks on the way of it.

919

That report seems to have been evaluating a prototype CAMM-ER:

CAMM-ER would only have been ready for procurement three years later, if at all. And during this time, this guided missile would have been further developed, which would have led to a new assessment.

There’s also this paragraph in the paper:

“In particular, it is wrong (and damaging to business) to speak of a fair-weather rocket in the case of the IRIS-T SL and of a rocket with a range of only 20 km in the case of the CAMM-ER. Due to the evaluations carried out elsewhere (DE, UK, IT, SE, …), such statements from Switzerland cannot be reproduced and are damaging to the reputation of the procurement authorities involved (Switzerland or the countries mentioned) and also the manufacturers."

As noted in my previous comments you can’t really judge export sales because the US placed various export restrictions on ASRAAM which were only mitigated by removing all American components from ASRAAM block 6. There are also more nations operating CAMM than there are operating IRIS-T SL.

No body is claiming the ASRAAM to be a wonder weapon, just that it is a lot faster and longer ranged than IRIS-T, while IRIS-T turns better. Pre-merge interception is indeed the goal of ASRAAM. Britain’s view was basically that IR missile have advanced to a point where if one gets fired against you there isn’t much you can do, so your only option is to make sure the enemy is dead before they can fire one.

The compassion with MICA is more interesting. MICA seems to achieve at least some of it’s range through lofting, where ASRAAM achieves it through having an even bigger motor than MICA and higher straight line speed.

From what I have been reading on ASRAAM it seems like the speed is very quick indeed. For example according to one document ASRAAM experiences over 1,000°C of aerodynamic-heating for a sustained period. As far as I can work out (so far) you need to be going in the region of Mach 5 to achieve that level of aerodynamic-heating.

Spoiler

image
image1080×953 114 KB

7 Likes
920

Comparing it using ground launched data could be interesting.

Mica has a 3s boost burn + 3s (or more) sustainer burn, roughly. Some evaluation done in Czech republic gives a maximum speed of roughly 1050 m/s when ground launched (mach 3).

IDK what would the max speed of ASRAAM be in that configuration, tbh

As for the engine being “bigger”, this one i’m not sure. both missiles came online at the same time roughly, 1998 and 2000 if i’m not mistaken. So in terms of powders and electronics they are probably similar. Problem being, ASRAAM weighs 88kg and Mica 112 kg, while having a similar warhead, so there must be at least a bit more powder in the Mica.

what could be possible however is that ASRAAM fires for a shorter period of time but with more thrust, giving it a speed advantage.

Just a final question, is it confirmed ASRAAM can’t loft ? That would be surprising to me

921

As far as I know there are no publicly known values for ground launched ASRAAM. However CAMM uses the same motor as ASRAAM, and has both a longer advertised range (>25 km vs 20 km) and a higher advertised ceiling (10 km vs 9 km) than VL MICA.

In terms of burn time (based on video evidence) ASRAAM has a boost stage which burns for 3.1 seconds, and a sustain phase which burns for at least 2.1 seconds. The thrust is not known.

The rocket motor on ASRAAM is bigger. Using this diagram from an official RAF document you can determine it to be 1.39 m x 0.166 m:

image
image1490×337 58.8 KB

Meanwhile using these two diagrams of the MICA (both from MBDA documents) the motor is about 1.2 m x 0.165 m.

image
image1024×146 56.4 KB

image

So the ASRAAM motor is 0.6 cm wider and about 20 cm longer than MICA’s

Multiple videos show the main motor on ASRAAM burning for 3.1 seconds. My expectation is that the boost motor has a higher thrust than MICA, but the sustain motor burns for less time, and possibly has less thrust.

It’s not confirmed that it does not loft, but there’s so far been no evidence to suggest that it does either.

7 Likes
922

It is simmilar situation to DL. No official data but nothing against it.

1 Like
923

11km ceiling for MICA VL or 33,000 feet from MBDA is the highest figure given. The 10km ceiling is also another figure given, but we know MBDA has no problem stating lower than expected values. Even CAMM’s 10km ceiling may also be lower than actual IRL values.

Also, ASRAAM is completely smokeless which may suggest lower efficiency for the fuel type. IRIS-T is also smokeless. MICA is reduced smoke, good enough for BVR where reduced smoke might as well be smokeless.

We also can expect Gaijin to model the IRIS-T overall values using the Czechslovakian data same as they have for Derby and MICA. It suggests to me that IRIS-T will be decent but its range is going to be nothing to write home about.

924

these phrases are used for the same thing and how would a low smoke motor mean it is less powerful

925

There is a very noticeable difference between the amount of smoke produced by MICA and ASRAAM:

MICA (quite a bit of smoke):

ASRAAM (practically no smoke at all):

At least in the early days of smokeless motors there was a trade-off in that the more smokeless the fuel, the less efficient it typically was. I’m not sure if that’s still holds true for modern motors though.

3 Likes
926

I get that the terminology of reduced smoke and smokeless can be confusing, but I’ve stated in the MICA EM reduced smoke report that it should have less smoke than other missiles but not to the extent of AIM-9M, ASRAAM, IRIS-T. There’s a visible difference to the naked eye between MICA EM’s smoke and ASRAAM’s smoke.

According to MBDA atleast, MICA EM is “reduced smoke” and ASRAAM is “low signature”. So there’s a difference.

1 Like