It underperforms quite noticable against somewhat maneuvering targets.
And quite noticable
Maneuvrabilty =/= range.
In range against maneuvrable targets too.
I won’t complain though, the Rafale is such a great plane in-game and micas can be buffed later when we get better competitors
Range defines who shoot first and who will break lock first to defend,… and if well played,… you can loose 2x AIM-120 as the third would hit, while the MICA wouldn’t even be fired at you.
in such i’m against that double standard.
after this explanation, i also see you think that the AIM-120 would keep it’s max-G for the whole filight duration,… this is all but true, as would the MICA.
as you make the ennemy turn it loose energy, such energy can’t be re-used.
so you thinking AIM-120 underperforms come from the fact that you had fired to awared targets.
now,… we can compare in 2 ways:
Maneuvering Targets or Unaware Targets.
in MT case, the NEZ (No-Escape Zone) is what matters the most.
in UT case, the Max Traveled Distance is what matters the most.
But even if MICA’s NEZ is pretty solid, the MTD is “WEAK” compared to any R-77 or AIM-120.
as explainned earlier, even if your enemy come full speed, and straight at you, it will fly at 540m/s (as you similarly).
so when an AIM-120 is fired from outside it’s MTD, it’s still have a low % of hitting at it’s 80km MTD, due to:
- having minimal airspeed
- approaching aircrafts (540m/s x Time of missile flight = distance reduced from firing point)
So in the exemple, i used AIM-120.
AIM-120 MTD is 80km
AIM-120 Max Speed is Mach 4 (=to MICA-EM)
it will be active for 80seconds per battery life time, so an UT is approaching a distance of
80secs * 540m/s = 43.2km
meaning that you can fire your missile AIM-120A from 80km+43.2km = 123.2km
and still have a minimal chance to hit.
now, we got the MICA-EM:
MICA MTD is 50km in game (should be 80km)
MICA-EM Max Speed is Mach 4 (=to AIM-120)
it will be active for 60seconds per battery life time, so an UT is approaching a distance of
60secs * 540m/s = 32.4km
meaning that you can fire your missile MICA-EM from 50km+32.4km = 82.4km
and still have a minimal chance to hit.
that’s CURRENTLY, 123.2-82.4 = 40.8km difference.
Now if we consider the MICA-EM range IRL values of 80km:
MICA MTD is 80km IRL
MICA-EM Max Speed is Mach 4 (=to AIM-120)
it will be active for 60seconds per battery life time, so an UT is approaching a distance of
60secs * 540m/s = 32.4km
meaning that you can fire your missile MICA-EM from 80km+32.4km = 112.4km
and still have a minimal chance to hit.
Making the firing solution to be closer to the AIM-120A, but still under it:
112.4km < 123.2km = 10.8km difference
Time wise, between each aircraft 1st missile launch:
MICA-EM (game) vs AIM-120A : 40800m / 1080m/s = 37.77 seconds (current AIM-120A advantage)
MICA-EM (IRL) vs AIM-120A : 10800m / 1080m/s = 10 seconds (IRL AIM-120A advantage)
[all calculations considering unware targets flying straight at each others, under perfect conditions, and in high altitude sector of the sky]
well thanks to ground clutter being such a highly protective shield?
check the advantage of AIM-120’s in high altitude, and you’ll be stunned.
Except that if you looked into the subject of the discussion carefully you’d have realized that in the AIM 120 case the lack of range is due to bad kinematics that gaijin made for ALL missiles. For MICA it’s bad kinematics + bad modeling of thrust vectoring + hard limit of 50km when it should be 80.
For all the people that are on a crusade against MICA range buff you have to understand that the request isn’t “MICA should be able to hit targets at a minimum of 80 km” but rather “The hard limit of 50km should be lifted so that the MICA can actually be more in line with it’s IRL counterpart that is made for both short and medium range combat” the real issue WAS NEVER the fact that MICA doesn’t consistently hit targets at 80km+ or in a 80km+ radius but that it should be able to reach such a number in ideal launch conditions (High Alt, High speed, Static target).
6 Likes
Except that as Cpt Bel proved just below that is an 80km shot but you are totally off subject with your point as what we claim is not that “MICA can’t hit targets coming from 80km away” but that “MICA can’t cover a total distance of 80km in (almost ideal) launch conditions”.
To make a proper test you should fire a MICA at 80km on a static target (Helicopter for example). And you would see that you are the one in the wrong.
3 Likes
i wasnt shown anything that suggests that that is where there 80km figure comes from
all i was shown was 80km of range which usally means it can engage a target 80km away
unless you have a source that states the france tests their air to air missiles against stationary targets, you are wrong
even the Mica VL was tested against a moving target / a target that is closing in
and do you really think that @DirectSupport wouldnt have corrected me if my testing / assumption was wrong?
ontop of that no missile will reach 80km if not launched at high speed and high altitude
1 Like
Except that in the case of testing yeah targets(drones) are moving but at such slow speeds that the movement is almost neglectable also most targets that are used often just follows a circle movement on a radius that meets the range requirements of the tests.
And as DirectSupport said later if you read there are primary sources that state MICA can hit targets at greater distances than 80km and this must be the results obtained againts oncoming targets. So no he wasn’t going to correct you based on the fact he said that MICA can actually hit even further than 80km. 60-80km is the traveling range of MICA if the target is approaching at great speed of course the missile would be able to hit from “further” away since the target is approaching thus your missile needs to cover less distance in the end.
If you really want to i suppose that yeah @DirectSupport could rectify you on your reasoning. Also he isn’t 24/7 on the forums so sometimes he just won’t correct you cuz he isn’t there duh.
2 Likes
Which is an eroneous reasoning because for example if your target is closing in at 1000m/s or more the MICA could very well have 100km+ of “range” against it since the travelled distance(Which is the term reffered to when people talk about range most of the time) would be way shorter due to the closing speed.
Because if i reason like you i could just make a test where i fire an AIM 120A at like 120-130km against a 1000m/s+ closing target and could hit and i could go all “Wee Woo Wee Woo AMRAAM is super duper overperforming please nerf”.
4 Likes
then show me any primary sources that proves me wrong iam still waiting
every other nation means when they say 80km that they can engage a target at that range
be it the USA, Russia or Britain
unless you show me something that proves that france does it otherwise my point still stands
and i can say the 9m has more than 200km range which dosent makes it true without providing any source
yeah i can’t count lmao
The sources are not mine to begin with so i can’t show you something i’ve just seen or talked about.
Yeah but do they precise its on an oncoming target? Because then in game AMRAAM range could be very false since AIM 120 can hit targets at above 80km while it’s advertised as 70-80km.
more actually, if the launch air craft was not a damn harrier, without considering battery restrictions it would hit 100km prolly. comparing mica to amraam is dumb, amraam is likely battery restricted, while mica prolly doesn’t have the actual kinematic range. (aim 120a)
Think this is form gunjob or flame
1 Like
You tell that to Gaijin then.
If you did the same scenario you did with MICA, an AMRAAM could technically be fired at 100-110km, while the A variant was never advertised to hit those range.
By your own logic, every other missile would have to be nerfed
only because of battery. it can fully hit it, it has the kinematics
https://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html
Hit a drone, 67km away (most likely MICA EM, not MICA IR)
MBDA themselves :
“>60km”
that just means it hit a drone 67 km away, not that it traveled 67 km
Yeah but we don’t know the firing conditions making this result kinda meaningless. As long as we don’t get MICA range values with known launch parameters we will never be able to conclude anything.