Kula66 Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 According to the article they did; it's what is meant by "full amraam capability". . I know initially it could carry the AMRAAM but couldn't update the AMRAAMs in mid flight ... so you say the ADVs have had another upgrade!!! Typhoon will take a few years to get into service. The pilots are going to have to re-learn dogfighting after the ADV!
tflash Posted May 18, 2006 Author Posted May 18, 2006 I know initially it could carry the AMRAAM but couldn't update the AMRAAMs in mid flight ... so you say the ADVs have had another upgrade!!! Yes, it was the "Amraam Optimisation Programme" which followed the "Capability Sustainment Programme". They must have thought the Typhoon would suffer further delays. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Kula66 Posted May 18, 2006 Posted May 18, 2006 Yes, it was the "Amraam Optimisation Programme" which followed the "Capability Sustainment Programme". They must have thought the Typhoon would suffer further delays. Ahhh ... sounds like a typical MOD c..k-up. Like the Jag upgrade, just prior to withrawing it or FA2 ...
D-Scythe Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 I see an advantage in Asraam's speed. It is a mach 5 missile, faster than Amraam. As we can see in lockon, speed is very important: the fact that R-77 in Lockon flies faster than Amraam clearly gives it an edge. Um, you're seriously misinformed on the ASRAAM. An extreme fast approach speed limits the ability of the opponent to outmanoeuver or to bring chaff and flares into the seeker cone. It also reduces the need for course corrections. Yes, high approach speed does do all that, except the point is moot because the AMRAAM is faster than the ASRAAM.
Pilotasso Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 BTW how does the ASRAAM price tag compares to the AIM-9X and the AMRAAM? .
tflash Posted May 19, 2006 Author Posted May 19, 2006 Um, you're seriously misinformed on the ASRAAM. Yes, high approach speed does do all that, except the point is moot because the AMRAAM is faster than the ASRAAM. Where do you get that from? In my opinion, Amraam is *slower* than Asraam during powered flight. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
The Beast Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 Where do you get that from? In my opinion, Amraam is *slower* than Asraam during powered flight. according the specs i read the ASRAAM is a MACH 3 missle while the AMRAAM is a mach 4 missle, either way we are comparing apples to oranges here. The ASRAAM was made to compete with the -9x. Also its a heat seeking missle. Where as the -120 is a radar guided medium range missle therefore you cant really compare these to and judge which ones better
tflash Posted May 19, 2006 Author Posted May 19, 2006 These specs are well-guarded secrets, so often websites contradict eachother on this. I also found older sources saying Asraam is Mach 3-class, but the RAF lists approximative specs for both missiles, and they give Asraam Mach 3,5+ and Amraam only Mach 2,5+ http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/airtoair.html This consistent with the interview I was citing, where the F.3 squadron leader insisted on the added value of Asraam because of its speed. Of course, they currently fly the older Amraam AIM-120A and not the C5 version. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 The AMRAAM will happily break mach 3 in the boost phase, IIRC ;) You've got a nice long sustain phase then. Dogfighting missiles, IIRC are mostly all-boost, which -may- give them a higher peak speed. It's possible that the ASRAAM is quite fast, but ... take the speeds mentioned here with a grain of salt. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
The Beast Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 here is some interesting reading on the AIM-132 (ASRAAM) http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-132.html did you know that the 120 and 132 were part of an agreement between the US and europe. The USA got to make the BVR missle (120) and europe got to make the dogfighting missle (132) but in the end the US decided not to buy the 132. well either way good info
D-Scythe Posted May 19, 2006 Posted May 19, 2006 Where do you get that from? In my opinion, Amraam is *slower* than Asraam during powered flight. Hmm, most sources credit the AIM-120 as a Mach 4 missile. The speed given by the RAF is actually the lowest speed I've seen quoted for the AMRAAM, but to be fair, Mach 2.5+ can mean anything from Mach 2.5 to Mach 5.
Recommended Posts