Where does that come from? ASRAAM’s range is 25+km(25-50km).
I’ve heard that too. Such a design does not seem to be unique to the IRIS-T though.
Edit: As an example here is the Pyhon 5 thrust curve. There’s an initial burst of power to get it moving off the rail. Then thrust drops off so it can do a tight turn after launch, then builds up again to give the missile good speed after the turn.
1 Like
Where on earth did you hear that? The main selling point of the ASRAAM is that it has superior range to the other IR missiles. The AIM-9X has the same 5 inch diameter Mk 36 rocket motor as the AIM-9M (which is essentially the same as that used on the AIM-9D - with reduced smoke). The IRIS-T also uses a 5 inch diameter rocket motor.
By comparison the ASRAAM uses a much larger 6.5 inch diameter rocket motor, specifically to give it significantly improved range. Infact that is what caused Germany to break off from the programme. The UK wanted a longer range IR missile, while Germany wanted a shorter range, but more manoeuvrable IR missile.
2 Likes
Nammo produces the rocket motor for the IRIS-T but information like this is literally impossible to find
Yeah the Python 5 datasheet is the most detailed I’ve seen compared to any other modern missile:
Spoiler
1 Like
Asraam is so good the RAF fired off a shit ton of them so they can get rid of them All at once
What point are you trying to make? The RAF fired some ASRAAMs in a training exercise, therefore the ASRAAM is bad? If so your argument makes absolutely no sense.
jesus…man
also look at users of IRIS-T and users of ASRAAM (its only 1)
It’s hard to tell, you seem pretty desperate to convince everyone that the IRIS-T is the best IR missile ever created and everything else sucks in comparison.
1 Like
If you want to make a comparaison then IRIS-T is better at short range thanks to better fligth surface and but the ASRAAM is better at medium range thanks to it’s bigger motor and less drag induced by it’s control surface.
The ASRAAM is still really good at close range but not as mutch as the IRIS-T.
The number of user of a said missile is not only about the capabilities of the missile, politics, economics and capabilities in production are also really big factors in the buy of A-A missile.
If you want to compare it to other missile: (obviously it’s all supossed on the tech of the country and the size of the missile)
R74, worse seeker , worse range , same maneuvrability
Pl-10 , Really similar but almost no info on the missile
Mica IR, Different kind of seeker (witch one is the best depends on the situation) , better range ++, , worse maneuvrability
Mica IR-NG , Better seeker ( new one and improved one), better range+++, worse maneuvrability as close range but with better maneuvrability at medium range thank to it’s longer range.
Python 5, better seeker (newer) , worse range , same maneuvrability
Aim-9X block 2, Similar capability seeker , better range, worse maneuvrability
because it is lmao
- mica IR NG presented in 2018 and is planed to be in service 2026
its NOT in service also the comparsion sucks cuz the equivivalent to this the Future-Combat-Air-to-Air Missile (next generation IRSI T) and mica NG got a double stage motor (everything in current service has this already)
- R-74 got canned
- PL-10, invalid to use it cuz China doesnt puplished any kind of test or live firing shit also full of propganda - feel free to belive it but i take that with a good amount of doubt
- Base mica IR is older then IRIS - T, 10 yrs btw
- Python 5 is kinda same level with IRIS - T
- A-Darter wich is a IRIS-T copy
- 9X has a worse seeker, its way more
subsceptible to Flares and Laser Dazzler
5 Likes
Care to cite any evidence. All you’ve said so far in this thread is “it’s better” without ever saying why or linking to anything to back up what you say.
1 Like
An overview of the IRIS-T FCAAM
3 Likes
PL-10 is also almost a carbon copy of the IRIS-T body…
What i wanted to say, at the end is that:
From best to worse:
At close range (<5km):
IRIS-T with all it’s copy (PL-10*/A-Darter) and Python 5
AIM9X
ASRAAM
R73M/R74
(MICA NG)
MICA
Explaination:
-IRIS-T/Python , best maneuvrability and sensor
-Aim9X, good maneuvrability and sensor but behind TOP1
-ASRAAM, same as above but behind
-R73M/R74, worse range and sensor, more prone to flare
-MICA, worse sensor of the bunch for high-off-boresigth whitch make it the worse for a dogfigth
At medium range (<20km):
(MICA NG)
MICA
AIM9X
IRIS-T
ASRAAM
PYTHON 5
R73M/R74
Explanation:
At this kind of range, pulling 70G is useless and is going to consume too mutch energy
The best is then the missile with the biggest range and the best sensor
At long range(<50km):
(MICA NG)
MICA
//Other missiles cannot really go beyond 20km in any practical situation
Explanation:
Only missile able to go that kind of range
*Depends on what you think about the PL-10 but idk why it should be “propaganda”.
I included the MICA NG because it’s going to be soon integrated on the rafale and other systems.
The IRIS-T FCAAM is only a CONCEPT and is not supposed to go on any airplane at any time. It’s a proof of concept for maybe the next generation of missile on the FCAS or other 6GEN aircraft.
Is not going to be in service by at least 2030 while the MICA NG is “SOON TM”.
That has absolutly no sense, i think you meant a double impulse thruster.
Indeed it will get one to have better maneuvrability in the terminal phase to be able to pull 50G even at 50kms. It will greatly improve Kill probablity for shots at greater range.
It didn’t have variable thruster like the IRIS-T because when it was made, the main goal wasn’t to be able to shot at a target behind but the furthest away and for that a main pulse+ a sustainer is the best. It’s still possible to shoot behind the aircraft but at the expense of a lot of range.
1 Like
no missile would need to pull 70g on such ranges…such kind of pull is only needed shortly after launch.
Also mica, how would mica make such distance possible? With what? There is nothing on it that Producer lift…the fins at the back dont do sh*t
Thats why IRIS T has als the fins in the body to gain lift - to make long ranges possible
There is a reason why MICA RF exists… and it is a BVR weapon…
Because the MICA IR is a 60KM max range IR Missile while the IRIS-T is a 25km max range missile.
The MICA NG being sold at 80km max range.
How they do it is another question, but that’s a fact
Why is ASRAAM below AIM-9X and IRIS-T for medium range? The AIM-9X is using a smokeless version of the AIM-9D’s rocket motor (a motor that originated from the early 1960s). By comparison the ASRAAM has a far larger rocket motor specifically for the ASRAAM to give it better performance at long range.
Likewise the whole reason Germany dropped out of the ASRAAM programme was because Britain wanted a very long range IR missile, while Germany wanted a shorter range missile with superior manoeuvrability. So it would logically follow that IRIS-T has better short range capability and ASRAAM has better long range capability.
How could you possibly know that?