It does not have them, as it uses its body to generate lift.
3 Likes
ASRAAM being a single cylinder body shape doesn’t generate lift on it’s own as MICA does
or, generating lift means it actually tilt it’s course to always point at the sky by 2° to 8° in order to get that effect.
Fins ≠ wings. MICA still needs AoA to generate lift as does any other missile.
2 Likes
do u think a missile lofts while maintaining 0* ? btw even symmetrical airfoils dont produce lift at 0* AOA
read again,… not anywhere near what i’ve said,…
far less AoA for MICA, thanks to body fins.
ASRAAM would need a far higher AoA (also = far more Drag, and induce an higher consumption of energy)
ASRAAM body generates lift
It is why it is a lifting body
2 Likes
I mean, yes it generate lift,… but like 0.000005% it’s needs to stay in flight while going straight,…
the ASRAAM works on inertia (like any missile), and does not have anything that will prevent it’s fall in any regards.
Take your pen,… throw it, and tell me if it generates lift enough to sustain itself in the air?
do the same after giving it wings.
Just common sense.
ASRAAM is not a pen
MICAs AOA comes from the TVC motor the strakes provide stability
ASRAAM the AOA comes from the rear fins and the body provides the lift
Most of the lift comes from the body which is why it is a lifting body
The lift is not coming from the rear fins
1 Like
I’m not an aeronautical engineer and I doubt you are so, maybe we trust the people who make the system and not try and imprint your basic understanding of aerodynamics
ok,… doubt all you wants,…
you guys speak to me of turns, and i speak about straight lines trajectories : 2 different things
ASRAAM lift is provided by its body that is a fact
It fins provided the AOA to do 50G
I don’t know why you think it has no lift and just bleeds all its speed instantly
The tail fins provide AoA too, they’re not fixed stabilizers.
Yeah but most of it comes from the TVC
not what i’ve said,…
first of all,… we were speaking ASRAAM able to loft or not,… and it’s not lofting
then come lift,… and as we all know,… the effectors are the tail fins of ASRAAM, that gives the tilt to ASRAAM body, which use DRAG to make the turn. (because the body is lateral to the airflow, it will provide more drag than lift,… engineers talk of “liting body” instead of “drag effect”, because aeronautical vocabulary is based on the scheme of a wing design,…)
Mostly doing so on the first seconds of the flight, while rocket burns it is able to reach a Peak of 50G
we all have to understand each others sometimes,… and we all do speak of the same thing,…
so you are saying ASRAAM cant loft because it does not have wings ? like the mica ?
By this logic every wing operates entirely on producing drag instead of lift. Any lift produces drag inherently because it’s creating a pressure differential.
That force doesn’t come from nowhere. You can’t just push air out of the way by magic.
There is functionally no difference - you are redirecting air to create an area of low pressure and an area of high pressure, which inherently produces both lift and drag, irrelevant of whether through an airfoil or through a fin.
Also, again, the MICA does not have wings, but fins. They are symmetrical and can therefore only produce lift through AoA.
A symmetrical wing (a fin) cannot provide lift at zero AoA.
Either way, lofting is an intentional manoeuvre that involves pulling into a climb, which is irrelevant of how the missile changes direction.
Additionally, From MBDA: “[…] gives ASRAAM unrivalled speed and manoeuvrability throughout the flight envelope”
It’s clearly not going to drop far below 50G, because it’s not “unrivalled” if it drops below about 35. Plus unlike many, many thrust vectoring missiles, ASRAAM is never quoted with a “before motor burnout” and “after motor burnout” turn performance (which would make sense, as MBDA quotes the system as “relaxed stability” so the AoA it can pull would be quite absurd.).
1 Like
My initial mention of ASRAAM not lifting originally comes from what have been told by some British mains. It might be incorrect, I simply trusted them on that point.
Yes but essentially fins are still wings. They are around the center of gravity and help create lift to the missile.
Even if the profile is still asymmetric, by having those fins helping produce lift at positive AOA means that the missile will need less AOA to produce the same amount of list (and thus less drag), than a pure lifting body.
Meanwhile, the fin of the ASRAAM are purely here for attitude control and do not provide extra lift whatsoever.
I think you were both talking about basically the same thing but also missing each other points.
Yeah, but this is also the most MBDA statement ever. I’m sure there’s almost the exact same phrase in some MICA IR brochure somewhere. It also doesn’t mention what the flights envelope is, which would be defined in part by how it’d lift, how hard it would have pulled of the rail…
I don’t think I see the parallel between those 2 points. Aren’t basically all modern missiles with lifting body designs using relaxed stability, even those with TVC ?
4 Likes
Should have been more specific. An airfoil vs a fin. Point is to say the MICA requires AoA to produce lift in the same way ASRAAM does.
True, but he is claiming that ASRAAM produces significantly more drag than lift because it has no wings, which is simply not the case.
True. It can be safely assumed to say the “flight envelope” is the entire intended engagement region though. Either way it’s more of a supporting point than a main point.
Yes, but he says that after motor burnout the missile would lose significant performance:
I say this to demonstrate that it is almost certainly not the case, as missiles which lose significant performance after motor burnout often have a before and after motor burnout pull rating, and with relaxed stability there is no reason to assume it’s unable to maintain its pull.
I’m not saying anything against MICA here, which is how it appears you’ve taken it. I’m simply pointing out the fact that claiming ASRAAM uses drag to turn while MICA uses lift to turn is blatantly wrong. Both missiles use the EXACT same physical basis of redirecting air, and MICA does not actually have any asymmetric airfoils and therefore requires AoA in the exact same way. There is, in fact, such a thing as a lifting body. It is producing lift, as lift is a pressure differential causing the object to be “pushed”. There is therefore no reason to assume significantly more drag would be produced, too. A smaller surface area at higher AoA will not necessarily produce more drag when angles are small.
Even beyond that, I don’t see how this relates to lofting at all. How does one get from lofting to “the ASRAAM doesn’t generate any lift, actually”?
1 Like
just because asraam produces less lift does not mean it cannot loft , there are plenty of missiles without wings that loft irl.
1 Like