Its almost as if lofting was a trajectory, and lift is a force… 2 completely different things…
1 Like
Oh no, don’t worry, I have not taken anything wrongly.
My initial statement about loft was only from previous discussions on the ASRAAM. I did not start discussing why or how ASRAAM might (or might not) loft.
My personal assumption on why the missile would not loft but MICA would has nothing to do with loft, but rather the seeker and guidance method.
Since I assume that ASRAAM doesn’t have DL (at the very least for earlier variants), it’s also likely it doesn’t have a method to get accurate range to the target, and thus can’t really assume an efficient lofting profile.
MICA IR, on the other hand, can receive data from the airplane and get distance through the radar of the plane (or laser range finder for the rafale), and thus can assume an efficient lofting profile.
I only responded on your comment because it was the last of the thread and I saw that you were not really understanding what the other was talking about
Yes, totally. Lift and drag are in some cases almost interchangeable. I did not say that ASRAAM doesn’t produce lift through its body, or it would not even be able to turn. I was just saying that ASRAAM not having « lifting » thins like other missiles like MICA, it will produce its lift less efficiently. I would however assume that it can turn tighter at lower speed because the fins of the MICA probably give it slightly better stability overall
It 100% doesn’t, it’s IOG only and we’re not even sure Bl.6 has DL (there’s no real reason for it, these modern seekers will get locks 20km+ out anyways).
As for lofting, technically beyond me I just pointed out that in most launch footage it does seem to pull into a climb. Could be a coincidence with the target drones flying very high.
2 Likes
Depends on the pre-launch information. In LOAL BVR shot it would take data from IRST or Radar pre-launch and then use that until it gets a lock at the expected location.
But yes no DL so far to speak of, so longer shots that require mid course correction would have reduced Pk due to the lack of updates.
2 Likes
I assume this is done on the assumption that a smokeless IR missile won’t be reacted to.
Theoretically would a launch based off of an IRST have “worse” accuracy at longer ranges compared to a launch based off of the radar if/when developers model passive ranging for the IRST?
I guess it may be less accurate if the missile lofts. Otherwise it would be just as accurate, if not more so, than firing from a radar lock.
1 Like
I do wonder if Gaijin will add LOAL for IIR missiles when they are added.
If Gaijin limits the missiles to LOBL only then presumably that could leave the MICA with somewhat lackluster off-boresight capability due to only having 60° of seeker gimbal.
It would also mean seeker lock range plays a very important role in determining the best missile.
1 Like
This is my guess too. Its a good way to mitigate the potential range advantage for some of them.
Let alone the fact that I have no idea if IR missiles would even work with the current spaghetti code at longer ranges
My understanding is that the IRST without the laser would tell the ASRAAM a position in space with a deviation of up to a certain degree compared to a radar which is somewhat exact in the position in space of a target.
They already introduced LOAL for IIR missiles in the form of the SLS and SLM, even if it’s still quite buggy. I don’t see why they wouldn’t introduce the same mechanic for airborne missiles that do have DL as well. It’s not like they care about balance anyway, when looking at current top tier.
1 Like
I imagine to a degree, however it is confirmed that PIRATE has superior performance compared to CAPTOR-M in angular resolution.
From what i’ve read of PIRATE, the permissible deviation is indeed of a larger threshhold it seems for the IRST, however this deviation is factored into the analysis and calculation and therefore accuracy only increases with repetetive measurements as deviations work towards an average.
‘It was immediately evident how the capability of the FLIR in terms of target tracking was often comparable to the RADAR one, especially giving even better angular accuracy, as it should be according to the theory, and acquiring the targets at a comparable range.’
Honestly I’d say the limiting factor of ASRAAM in this hypothetical would be down to the lack of confirmation of Datalink and not down to any hypothetical and seemingly mitigated concerns at the performance of PIRATE (though it’s worth noting CAMM shares a body and has no external DL antennae like ASRAAM, it however is confirmed to have it ASRAAM is up in the air).
4 Likes
Typhoon vs raf = if anyone on enemy team fires before you… you just lock, relock and lock again the incoming missiles
The FM and the rest doenst matter as the gameplay is broken as incoming missiles win the day…
BVR is a joke on the EF… a random.game of can i actually shoot. Which leaves you 10km in the sky with 10 missiles to dodge. So I just fly low as BVR is a pointless activity
Fun = zero
they somehow already did that with AIM-7P
This is what MICA used to have (before the buff to no limits with LD/IOG guidance to mica and r77-1), and i find the difference to be absolutely massive
I mean the IR missile would still have the 360 degree envelope right? Just the seeker is limited to 60 degrees if i am not mistaken.
one more picture just for the funnzies
I think his point was to only allow for LOBL capabilities, which would mean the missile wouldn’t fire outside of its gimble limits
It’s not bad, but it’s also not 90°. Like sll the other Western 5th generation missiles are capable of.
4 Likes
Along with the Chinese PL-10