i accept that they are still capable airframes and maybe your argument is overall more realistically sound/viable, but i would still like to see the only german fox 1 before the IRIS-T on at least somthing.
as for the ECR, i think once ARMs are introduced, that jet will have a place
we will most likely get the 9L/i and maybe 9L/i-1 but i dont think itll be on any airframe thats in game right now.
as for the ECR, the ASSTA3 carries HARMS so theres no point in adding the ECR which is worse in every way as EW is not modeled in WT and probably will never be
my apologies, i was under the assumption that the ASSTA 4 and ECR had a similar weapons capability
We have a primary source stating it can turn 100 degrees a second. I’m sure some of the other missiles like IRIS-T can turn better but there’s the benchmark if you were looking for it.
The IRIS-T is better in short range (maneuvrability) compared to the ASRAAM thanks to a combinaison of bigger flight surface, TVC and thurst control.
Indeed the IRIS-T can control its thrust so when the missile is initialy launched, the IRIS-T has very low thurst so the missile can turn toward the target very quickly with the use of TVC and it’s control surface.
Thanks to this, it’s the quickest missile to do a 180° it also has one of the smallest (if not the smalles) WEZ (Weapon Engagement Zone) meaning it’s minimum range is really low.
The ASRAAM from what i found online is a 50G missile which is already very impressive. It can also do a 180° turn but since it doesn’t use TVC and it has a very strong acceleration it turn a lot less of the rail compared to the IRIS-T.
The ASRRAM is really optimised, motor wise, thurst wise and aerodynamicaly wise to have the longuest range possible while also be very good at dogfight.
On the other hand the IRIS-T is relly optimised for dogfigth and will be the scarriest missile when you’re close to an ennemy with it.
Anyways the G* limit is one thing but having more G doesn’t mean the best maneuvrabilty. A missile going MACH 3 with 50G is going to bigger turn radius than a missile doing MACH 1.5 with 30G.
And the IRIS-T with it’s TVC (Very good G pull), low initial thrust (= low speed so easy to turn) and big control surface can turn very well and quick of the rail.
But no worries the ASRAAM is also VERY capable dogfigthing wise and has two time the max range of the IRIS-T
Sure - but what I’m saying is that the extra manoeuvrability the IRIS-T has reduces the effective minimum range, but the ASRAAM is already manoeuvrable and powerful enough to hit anything inside its envelope. It already has a very small minimum effective range. At the other end of the scale however, the maximum range envelope of the ASRAAM dwarfs all other IR missiles, not just the IRIS-T.
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.
