Talk:ASRAAM

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ASRAAM article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Asian / South Pacific / British / European / Indian / South Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Asian military history task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Tail Aspect Only

I'm almost sure that the ASRAAM is tail-aspect only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.168.182 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, rear-aspect only weapons were obsolete several decades ago, like in the 1970's, how can you possibly be "almost sure"? Its is most definitely all-aspect. 94.175.244.252 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss usage

Does the Swiss Air Force really use the ASRAAM? I was under the impression they used AIM-9P and AIM-120B and were currently replacing the Sidewinders with the AIM-9X model. RKloti 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes from this link [1] it would appear you are correct. Riddley 00:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisation?

Under "Characteristics", what the hell is a "Vocal Dlane Barry?" Im no expert but shouldnt this read "a Focal Plane Array"?

And in the same section, I'd be very surprised if the F-35 Lightning II did indeed "use its its internal organs bays for reproduction"...

I smell a vandal...

---Have now corrected the article in light of this.

US designation?

Why does this missile have a US designation when it's not in U.S. service? I understand the development history, but it's still odd, is AIM-132 the RAF designation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.48.194 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's not totally clear in the text, both the AIM-120 and AIM-132 were part of a program by some NATO nations to produce new medium- and short-range missiles. The US developed the AMRAAM, while the UK anf Germany were to develop the ASRAAM. All partners, and hopefully the other NATO nations as well, were to buy both missiles. In the 1990s, the US decided to develop its own short-range missile, as did Germany. THe UK continued development of the ASRAAM, and the designation seems to have stuck. - BillCJ (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you've stated in the article, but what I don't understand is why is the current designation of the missile AIM-132. Who refers to it as that, BAE,Hughes,the MoD/RAF? If the MoD which is funding it and the main customer doesn't designate it as AIM-132, I don't see why this article does. When I typed "ASRAAM" I was re-directed here. I recall reading several years ago on the RAF website when this was still a "future" weapon, it being referred to as simply ASRAAM, if Im not mistaken they refer to the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile as AMRAAM and not the AIM-120 AMRAAM, ofcourse I could be wrong so no harm no foul.67.150.59.65 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was requested by RAAF/DoD due to the high level of joint ops etc.Daemonllama78 (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indian usage?

Are the indians still planning on using it? Can't find any new information with that respect. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move?

I see this was mooted about 4 years ago. I'd like to raise it again - Why does the page name include the US designation for a weapon system they don't use, have never used and were only peripherally involved in? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was an agreement in the '80s that the the UK and FRG would develop the ASRAAM as an AIM-9 replacement, while the US produced the AIM-120 as an AIM-7/Skyflash replacement. The US would have then adopted the ASRAAM and the UK and FRG the AMRAAM, which is why the ASRAAM has a US designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.237 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reunification and German exit

Germany left the program in July 1989? Then this cannot have been motivated by R-73, for R-73's performance was understood only after the German reunification of 1990. Lastdingo (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range

Suddenly Youtube is an acceptabble source to define it's range?Cantab1985 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's a professional video. ASRAAM has the same Roxel rocket motor as CAMM and that manages >25km from a ground launch. (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/common-anti-air-modular-missile/, http://www.mbda-systems.com/camm-solution/camm/), despite being heavier than ASRAAM. VL MICA, which is literally a ground-launched MICA only manages 20km, meanwhile MICA is rated at 50km when air launched.http://www.mbda-systems.com/ground-based-air-defence/vl-mica/ I therefore think it's fundamentally obvious that a lighter missile with the same motor does way, way, way in excess of 25km when air launched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.181.164 (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Range 25km or 50km? This article mentioned both of them. One of the information should use.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 06:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the official information from official website. The actual range is 25km. Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G or R?

Second paragraph/third sentence at New ASRAAM. I can't tell if the 'RAF' is a typo or not. It starts out talking about Germans but the following sentences talks about the Brits. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement

"carry a larger warhead to meet the requirements expressed by the AIM-9X program"

The ASRAAM has a larger warhead than the AIM-9R (formerly known as X), 22 lb to 21 in the X. Its larger size also offers more capacity for upgrading it. This statement seems suspect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF

The RAAF no longer use the missile, having retired their Classic F/A-18 Hornets. Some of the article needs to be rewritten given this. 2A00:23C7:C797:FC01:B03D:102C:80DF:65DA (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide a source that ASRAAM has actually been fully retired by the RAAF?

They certainly were only in use on the legacy Hornets, but I can't find a source that the missile was retired from service entirely.

In 2017 MBDA did a test firing of an ASRAAM from an F35 in Australia so acquiring the capability for RAAF F35A's was certainly something MBDA was hoping for.

Has Australia formally decided against that in writing anywhere? 2403:4800:3447:2501:5097:8C15:EE54:ABF3 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References to reformers and fighter mafia

The Fighter Mafia and self proclaimed Reformers are individuals who have had no actual effect on influencing US fighter or weapons design from their inception. They always claim to be a larger part of the design process than they are and references to them do not contribute anything to this article. A full removal of mentions of them in this article would not negatively impact it 51.7.108.179 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado ADV

On the wiki page for the Tornado ADV it says it could carry ASRAAMs but under launch platforms there is only mentions the Typhoon and the Lightning, and the history section doesn't mention Tornado ADV but Tornado GR4

I'm assuming the ”launch platforms” is only planes currently in service but why is the ADV not mentioned in the history? 81.231.117.7 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]