We agree on that, just that the WEZ of the IRIS-T is smaller than the one of the ASRAAM (especally for HOBS) and it can be very usefull when you’re in rolling scissor very close dogfight.
The R-27T/ET and especially the MICA IR (+ MICA IR NG) would like to talk to you :)
(Well the R-27ET is better kinematically but has a worse seeker and cannot use inertial guidance → is only LOBL so less range effectively than a MICA or an ASRAAM)
Worth pointing out ASRAAM makes up for the no thrust vectoring by having its control surfaces at the rear. Easy way to explain this in simple terms is rear wheel drive and front wheel drive. Missiles with control surfaces at the front like 9M etc (again this is purely simple terms of explanation) would understeer but stuff like ASRAAM would oversteer . This allows it to change direction much quicker than you would expect. I’m not ignoring thrust vectoring it’s just thrust vectoring once the missile is out of juice that thrust vectoring is then redundant.
The 9X does not have control surfaces on the front. Those are fixed fins.
Oh yeah you right I had a long ass day yesterday
Same for the IRIS-T
The CAMM has indeed 25km range but is also:
-11kg heavier
-30cm longuer
-more aerodynamic (conical nose cone vs rounded one)
-using soft launch so wasting less fuel to turn initialy
If a missile has 25km when ground launched , you can expect around 100km max range when air launch at high altitude, high speed (for reference the AIM-120C5 has 25km max range when launched from the NASAMS and 105km max range when air launched)
For other reference :
So i think that the 10 miles figures (= 16km) is more logical considering the weight and characteristic of the missile.
Jsut gonna add thats a ASRAAM Block 6, that uses parts from CAMM, dont ask me what, expect the DL that they claim the ground launched one has i have no ide what.
Do you got a source for that?
Because all i know about the Blck 6 is that:
I never seen anything related to CAMM.
So from what i know:
Block 6 is the most probable to been mounted, as it could be exported
and source for the parts
Yes the CAMM uses ASRAAM componenet (and vice versa) but that doesn’t mean the ASRAAM Block 6 has the same range than the CAMM.
They have the same diameter, the same warhead and proabably similar electronic for guidance but they do not have the same motor or kinetics abilities.
Its not the same max range, its effective range, max range for CAMM was claimed to be 40km, if i find the site i will link it here
Well, here is offical brochure claiming it can go over 25km, how much we know not
It should be under 45km as that is where they do >45 on the camm ER
source
From what I have read CAMM and ASRAAM do indeed share the same motor. The extra length and weight comes from the soft launch booster and the longer RF seeker.
Interesting if that’s true. Tbf it seems logical since RF seeker are often bigger than IR ones.
The only thing differentiating them would be the aerodynamics of the seeker head then (kinetic wise).
It still seems very strange that a 25km when ground launched missile only has 50km effective range when fired from the air with optimal conditions.
I think it has to do with the fact that Block 1-5? did not had a data link, so shooting any further would be useless in a IR missile, or battery life, why make a battery that will last longer when you will not be using it in such distances. It might be possible for it to go further, but there are multiple factors that can limit it.
Seems that a ground launched CAMM / ASRAAM would have a ballistic range of 60 km (obviously effective range as a weapon is significantly less):
Before conducting a missile test, engineers the need to define the area of terrain that a missile flight will place at risk. The ‘worst case’ from the point of view of safety is that a newly launched missile will turn to face the worst-possible direction, then make no further manoeuvres but fly until it runs out of energy. The resulting distance from the launch point may be inconveniently long, but any location closer to the launch point could be at risk from a malfunctioning missile. In the event of a guidance failure, the missile used for these early cold vertical launch trials could have landed up to 60 km from the launch point if powered by an off-the-shelf ASRAAM rocket motor. So, in order to meet range-safety requirements, a short-burn version of the ASRAAM motor was used for these test firings.
Now thats nice, so the claim i saw that it hit a target 40km away has some base, and saying >25 is a safe game from their side
I’m almost certain the ASRAAM always had Datalink, you sure it didn’t? Because the 50km range would be useless without Datalink since the seeker would probably never see that far (except at very high alt against a very hot target).
The things i’m now thinking about is how a 88kg missile can have more than 50km range kinematically (not talking battery into account).
When you think about it, the 9X Block 2 is only able to do 40km, and while it’s draggier , it was also designed to reduced drag to a minimum.
Damn, that’s impressive if true. But i’m still not conviced because like the AIM-120C7 has 30km range when ground launched.
So if true, the battery would be the HARD limit on both of those missile (but they could theoricatly reach a lot further that what we know). Like kinetically they fly for 4min but the battery only last 60-90s.
