Im still curious at which would be best, the more defensive approach of the IRIS-T, or the offensive one of the ASRAAM/MICA.
As an AAM, the IRIS-T has been more successful commercially than both the ASRAAM and MICA. MICA has been more commercially successful in its surface launched variants on the other hand, with the ASRAAM generally having pretty poor commercial success overall.
That being said, MICA’s commercial success as an AAM is artificially inflated by it seemingly being the only AAM teh French are willing to integrate on the Rafales and to a lesser degree, the Mirage 2000’s.
I would not put it above them to say something in lines: “the missile can achieve this using the dual plane overload. In game all missiles use single plane overload, and they are limited to it, even if it harms their performance. For now it is impossible to implement this”
I think it really is going to come down to how they choose to model the seekers.
If they are decently resistant to flares, then ASRAAM and MICA IR will be the strongest, especially as MP will do nothing as you can fire volleys at longer ranges and score kills without ever entering a dogfight, nullifying any strength that IRIS-T or the others might have.
If they are tuned so they are easily defeated beyond about 5km, making MICA IR and ASRAAM unrealible to use much past 5-10km, then others like Aim-9X and IRIS-T perhaps come into their own.
Thats also why I included the MICA, which works under a very similar design concept to the ASRAAM.
There could be a multitude of reasons as to why the MICA isnt picked over other offerings like the IRIS-T, but its an interesting point nonetheless.
As a sidenote, idk why the brits would do something as shortsighted as develop a weapon the US could block using ITAR. The US accidentally birthed the EU’s missile industry through being horrible allies, and has been trying to kill it ever since.
well thats because the Mica is so superior to anything else that it would just be to expensive so they are all buying the IRIS-T with a bad seeker because it is cheaper /s
Iirc. ASRAAM was a co-development but the US withdrew from the program because they had so many Aim-9ms left over they wanted to upgrade and use up first, which led to the Aim-9X
Which is part of the reason why ASRAAM entered service in 1998 and Aim-9X not until 2003
I have no idea on cost, but given the main aim for the Aim-9X iirc, was to use up the surplus supply of Aim-9 parts (They had something like 30k Aim-9Ms or something crazy) and so it was always go to be hamstrung.
but I cant wait for the US mains to discover this fact
Its possible. I think MICA/ASRAAM will be better ingame simply due to the ease of use and the fact all missiles can reliably be used to intercept other missiles, meaning the range advantage is all that really matters in-game at that point.
irl the IRIS-T has the secondary role of semi-automatic aircraft self protection, which is not stated to be a MICA/ASRAAM capability (though it might be, but until proven otherwise, I assume it isnt). This would allow jets equipped with it to be more aggressive with the ARH’s and would have secondary benefits in SAM contested airspaces as well, which might alternatively give it the edge.
Given ASRAAM being used in a certain conflict and the main things it been shooting down is drones and missiles. I think its reasonable to assume ASRAAM can be used for that. No idea though if the RAF pro-actively use it for that though from a Typhoon
France offered the MICA to the UK as an alternative to ASRAAM, the reasons given for rejecting it were:
At 112 kg it is too heavy for some missile launchers (for example Eurofighter’s ITSPL pylons were designed to fire a 90 kg missile at 9g, and would have to have the g limit lowered for MICA).
It is a purely digital missile meaning it cannot be used on any analogue aircraft.
It is incompatible with existing missile launch rails causing interoperability problems with other nations / aircraft.
I think theres a destinction to be made between intercepting cruise missiles, and intercepting incoming SAMs and AAMs.
That being said, an alternative theory for the IRIS-Ts success could just be cost. Seems like the MICA is in the ballpark of $2.7mil per round, which is insanely expensive, with the AIM-9X being around $1.1mil, the IRIS-T ~$500k, and the ASRAAM allegedly only $225k?
Some of the numbers seem dubious to me, but thats just what I could find quickly.
MICA also seems stupid expensive from what I can find. To the point where it reaply makes me question why anyone would bother using the stupid thing if the numbers are accurate…