RWR itself is irrelevant here … It’s just a warning system
Whether you deploy the chaff/flare because you see the incoming missile visually or whether because you see the warning on RWR or if you have automatic deployment enabled makes no difference, in terms of it being ECM or not, or being passive or active …
Passive / Active refers to the thing that does the deception or jamming; And seems like different sources classify them differently …
E.g. Some classify flares as passive ECM, and some consider them active ECM (regardless of it being deployed automatically or manually).
Yes, you’re correct, but what I mean is that “ECM” isn’t a thing; it’s an integrated action of the aircraft’s self-protection systems (active and passive). When you refer to “jamming,” it’s a process exclusive to electronic warfare in conjunction with ECM. For example, the ECM process (active or passive) against a radar missile requires information from the RWR to act accordingly. That’s what I meant.
MICA NG is not in service in either category for now.
It was supposed to enter service in 2026, but considering the current context, the french gov decided to accelerate its delivery to the end of 2025. It remains to be seen if they will be on time.
In any case, this missile won’t be necessary in the few months that separates us from the end of the year.
For now there are videos of DGA testing the propellant reaction to shocks (making a model of the missile filled with propellant fall on the ground), and calibrating/testing the proximity fuze by flying it low to the ground on an helicopter.
More news should arrive soon
Personally I think of it still as expendable, it’s the logical next step to decoy improving radar seekers that are resistant to chaff, and it’s surely less effective than onboard ECM
For example, Spectra is surely more potent than Britecloud in power, but Britecloud has advantage of physically being in a different place
Brite cloud works like MALD it is programmable to mimic an RCS. I dont think you will fool AESA seekers they scan so quickly and will make the distinction between why I have 2 aircraft shapes when I expected one?
Its a combination effect, BriteCloud, chaff, TRD and onboard jamming. The idea is to make the situation as noisy as possible where in its almost impossible to pick the real target.
Shouldn’t look at BriteCloud being using in isolation on platforms like Typhoon, its always part of a larger operation by DASS.
If you were tracking a Typhoon you’d be contending with TRD, BriteClouds, Chaff and the onboard jammers all at the same time. The FCS looking at that would have a hard time sorting the real target from the sheer number of EW options being deployed.
Hey, maybe we’ll get the real range of MICA. We won’t, but hey, if I pretend it might happen there might be some hope and I won’t be stuck spitting about the fact they didn’t add Gripen NG.
New yank missile warrants an improvement in MICA given what it is. Its introduction alone warrants decompression. But it’s a yank weapon, so chances are nothing will come of it.
Wont make any real change just better in close ranges. As said many times all missiles have the same bloody seeker (excluding MICA) and it looks like it’s only coming to F/A-18C at the moment
