To my understanding, smokeless fuel in the US had catched up to the ISP of non-smokeless fuel because development had continued for smokeless fuel while development of non-smokeless fuel types for air to air had ceased. This doesn’t mean however that non-smokeless fuel types in other countries still didn’t continue progression.
1 Like
One thing to take into consideration is that CAMM is radar, so more aerodynamic.
Multiple sources state the max speed of CAMM from ground launch is 1020 m/s (Mach 3) (so basically same as MICA)
As for MICA VL, the range is stated to be 20km, but we don’t know if it’s an IR one or EM. MBDA doesn’t state any difference between the 2, while they make the clarification when air launched (60km for IR, 80km for EM, up high and fast)
Seems to me like those 2 missiles are really close, and MICA burns for slightly longer, for some weird reason i can’t really explain. As for the range difference, especially up high, it may be due to the fact that mica is thiner and longer, as well as slightly heavier ?
That could also explain why it has an advantage in range air launched but not ground launched, it may have to fight less gravity ? I’m just speculating at this point tbh X)
You could make the assumption that in the UK those advances have also been made.
I say that because one of the reasons ASRAAM was rejected by the US was the motor’s propellant being too volatile for the US Navy’s requirements.
I would take that to mean that ASRAAM maximises the motors potential at the expense of volatility and could be considered to be as good as a non-smokeless motor.
But also I’m not an expert to me it seems probable.
Roxel nowadays manufactures the motors for both ASRAAM and MICA. I find it unlikely that the smokeless fuel types would match or exceed the ISP of non-smokeless fuel types, otherwise there would be no incentive to continue using non-smokeless fuel types.
1 Like
MICA is used on carriers too.
Its entirely hypothetical i understand but if ASRAAM has been rejected for carrier use with the US and France is the only other nation cleared to operate on US carriers…
Also when you consider CDG had some influence from the US. I don’t think its a stretch to suggest that the MICA is a more stable motor so it can be used on carriers operated by the US and France.
1 Like
isn’t it used by F35s on the QE though ?
1 Like
slightly off topic but
The schemas are very rough, but it seems to match your caculations regarding motor dimensions on MICAs and ASRAAMs @Flame2512
EDIT : source for those interested https://www.roxelgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/brochure-2021-roxel-uk-web.pdf
QE was designed by the UK so that more ‘volatile’ motors such as the one used on ASRAAM could be stored safely.
Basically what I am suggesting is that the system on CDG and US carriers (As they are likely similar due to the information sharing and cross-decking), are not suitable to safely house ASRAAM and therefore perhaps ASRAAM’s booster takes advantage of a compound that provides a better propellant than most other smokeless compounds in order to match reduced smoke compounds as used on MICA, but also has the drawback of being more volatile.
I haven’t seen any pictures of F-35’s with ASRAAM on the Wasp class Amphibious assault ships either, so I’d assume they too cannot safely store ASRAAM.
1 Like
I don’t buy that excuse from the Americans, and I also haven’t seen a reliable source for that having been their reason for pulling out.
The official reason they gave was that because Germany had pulled out ASRAAM was behind schedule and under-funded so should be cancelled as it would enter service too late to be useful. The MOD didn’t really buy that excuse though, in their view the US had been looking to get out of the ASRAAM programme for a while and were just using that as a convenient excuse.
Spoiler
7 Likes
But doesn’t AIM-9X not meet these requirements as well
AIM-9X recycled alot of components from the 9M probably for this reason, the only big things really new are the seeker (which is the same as on ASRAAM) and the steering section.
Cough cough Hughes Cough cough
1 Like
America works in mysterious ways.
Unless there’s something I’m missing AIM-9X doesn’t seem like a great missile. Short range performance is likely worse than IRIS-T / Python 5, while long range performance is worse than MICA / ASRAAM.
Seems like a worst of both worlds missile.
7 Likes
Arguably the range performance is likely to be worse than Python 5 if Python 4 is anything to go by. I would not be surprised if IRIS-T and Python 5 outclasses AIM-9X Block 2.
2 Likes
Its okay give it 2 years ingame and itll be the best SRAAM after US mains sob that it isnt a “kill in any aspect, any launch angle” missile
As i explained above, choice of 9X worked simmilary to Ajax choice. Some pressure here, some benefits there and we have a contract.
1 Like
It’s the relatively cheap option and does it job well enough, as well as having significant institutional & political inertia invested into the Sidewinder ecosystem as a whole to say the least, on top of being able to remanufacture existing stocks of missiles to some useful configuration, yes there might be better missiles out there but for the most part it won’t be fighting them, also Sidewinders are almost entirely optimized for range and is better than needing to use the gun, with modern tactics its also practically not going to see use unless things really go to shit considering how much has been pumped into radars, AMRAAMs and their follow on AIM-260, though if I’m honest the biggest issue is being stuck with the 5" form factor, which is technically a hold over from the original prototype using the at the time readily available HVAR’s rocket motor and having a shoe string and a some gum for a budget, which somehow seems to be a common thread for US Missile design once you get down to it (practically any guided missile / bomb designs from the mid '50s though '70s reuse a number of Sidewinder & Sparrow components anywhere they can).
The internal carriage issue is sort of half valid since they needed to cut down the AMRAAM’s control surfaces to make it fit in the main bay of the F-22(honestly the F-22 was the wrong choice, the F-23 was what was actually asked for), and the extra space needed would be an issue for the yet smaller shoulder bay ~127mm (5") vs 166mm (~6.5") motor diameter (Wingspan of a Sidewinder is ~280mm (11"), and the wingspan of an ASRAAM is 450mm (~17.7")) for an already built airframe, but then again they managed to cut down the AMRAAM to make it fit, but I have a feeling that it may have been a bit more involved to make the necessary changes to an existing airframe let alone what it would do to the stealth characteristics.
3 Likes
I was looking for a version of the Twin Missile Carrier image without the red arrow, and stumbled upon a second image of the TMC which I have not seen before. It is fitted under the other wing of what is presumably the same Spanish Eurofighter.
And for completeness here is the image everyone’s seen already (still not found a version without the arrow):
4 Likes
Nice find. Let’s hope the EFA’s in game will receive it.
1 Like
They dont? it was demonstrated on a german typhoon but it’s not used by anybody until P4E
1 Like