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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Suddenly Youtube is an acceptabble source to define it's range? Cantab1985 ( talk) 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Suddenly Youtube is an acceptabble source to define it's range? Cantab1985 ( talk) 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)