Look at ASRAAM sibling, CAMM, in game.
In Gaijins ways, it does not pull hard at all.
2 Likes
I suspect much like Comet. Aim-260 isnt designed to be run as the only Fox-3 on the airframe and instead is meant to be run with a mix of Aim-120D3s. Just gives an option for very long range engagement whilst retaining a different weapon for a different scenarios
We will have to see when asraam comes, i suspect camm’s issues are mostly guidance limitations from v-launch code
The thing is, after the V-launch, it should operate on the standard code, so it should have no impact. It just never wants to go over 27 for some reason, no matter distance, altitude nor target aspect. It just does not want to.
Tho developers say it can pull the 50G. I am yet to be given the conditions where that happens tho…
Maybe in the Vacuum of space?
(though no TVC… hmm…)
I was fully expected to see something like them saying it can do it while flying Mach 3 at 9000m
1 Like
Got any sources for the Sky Sabre being able to drive at Mach 3? :P
I have not done a very deep research or anything, just looking at the feed and saw this from The War zone so take it with a grain of salt
According to this it should have TVC
Anyways, its kinda too early to say that it will or will not have TVC, but like you said TVC on long range missile won’t make sense considering it would be same length as AMRAAMS to fit in F-35 and F-22 (but i do hope it has TVC)
I want to point something out in order to be fair to the authors of that article in case the AIM-260 is confirmed not to have thrust-vectoring because people could misconstrue your statement in saying that they’re claiming the AIM-260 has thrust-vectoring. They simply said it’s essential or necessary, not that it has TVC.
You can have a custom missile of CAMM and then remove the vertical launch codes no?
the only way i managed to make a camm/asraam pull 50gs in game was by forcing it to have the orientation phase that simulates the tvc work for a lot longer than it currently does. i also tried removing this orientation phase entirely and giving it a normal guidance autopilot and it still can’t do more than around 30Gs
2 Likes
Wouldn’t TVC nozzles be visible from the aspect the photo was taken anyway?
I did that, still was not very cooperative, capping around 20G when launched from a plane
1 Like
it probably is though
the equivalent for something like that would be LREW
1 Like
no
even a fully vectored nozzle could be indistinguishable from that angle
and jet vanes would be impossible to see
1 Like
Normally there would be indications it has tvc if it did from the aspect that the photo was shot in, which strongly suggests to me that it doesn’t have TVC. Take a look at all three pictures and notice that the AIM-260 lacks any of these side-on features, it’s not definitive by any means but it does caution claims of thrust-vectoring.
You can see AIM-9X has tvc just by looking at the side aspect of tail.
Same for MICA
Nothing of note for now on the AIM-260
2 Likes
Could be full incased, but im somewhat doubting it does
Wouldn’t that limit its manoeuvrability though? Though I guess that’s sort of the point for a missile that’s supposed to out-range the AIM-120D-3
I think it can be safely assumed it doesn’t have TVC (in which case, RIP for any close range shots)
It doesnt really need to pull crazy high G, it just needs enough to deal with a defending aircraft at long range, 25-30G would be more than enough, between fins and minor TVC… might be enough. But until we get a look at the motor itself, we wont know
close range shots with something like the Aim-260 is largely not going to happen I think. Much like how Meteor doesnt need to be good in WVR because thats what IRIS-T, ASRAAM and MICA IR are for.
This claim is entirely unsubstantiated, there is nothing saying this.
The closest thing is stuff saying the AIM-260 will complement the AIM-120D-3 but that’s referring to logistics and cost