I thought deeply about MICA range matter but as long as we don’t know in what conditions (Launcher alt+ speed and target alt+speed) no one will be right or wrong because no proofs exist to clearly say MICA underperforms or overperforms we can only suppose it underperforms because except in very advantageous launch conditions that clearly don’t fit opperationnal use (1000m/s closure rate launch) MICA doesn’t achieve 80km of maximum range.
yeah but this logic can be applied to any missile in game, including AMRAAM, that’s where i’m trying to get at
For example : AMRAAM is advertised with 70km range (more or less the same as MICA) but can hit further away than MICA in game (70 vs 50km) on a non moving target
No matter how you look at the problem, there’s a flaw in the reasoning
2 Likes
where is this 70 km coming from? it’s literally 80 km at least from the trial i posted
even other docs state more than 70
ok 80 if you want
So both missiles are advertised with 80km, but one can hit 70 away and the other 50
The problem remains the same
And that’s from a subsonic aircraft as well.
2 Likes
It does not matter
80km can not be reached if fired from any plane going mach 2, even at 15km altitude
Unless MBDA markets its missile range based on ISS velocity… ?
That even being said. The only way you’d hit something 70-80km away with an AMRAAM is if it was flying straight towards you and not defending. I’d rarely fire a B at a target greater than 30 to 40km away. Even at alt with speed. C5s I push that to more like 50 to 60km
On a non evading target flying at mach 2 up high you could fire further away than 70km.
Point is, the missile can travel 70km in game, MICA can’t
You didn’t watch Ron test then because at 10km alt with a closing speed of 1000m/s MICA can hit a target 80km away. But i highly doubt MICA 80km range was obtained in such conditions. It’d mean the missile would have very poor perfromances when launched at standard speeds. And as MICA is classfieid as MRAAM it probably achieved 80km in harder conditions than in Ron test.
I watched it, but you don’t want to understand what i’m saying for some reason…
In game :
- MICA in Ron’s test fired at 80km, hits after travelling a bit less than 50km. The missile travelled 50km, the enemy plane generously travelled the other 30 in the opposite direction.
- If you do the same test with an AMRAAM : fire at 100km, the missile will travel 70, and the plane will travel the remaining 30 in the opposite direction
By this definition we would have an AMRAAM A with a range of 100km and a MICA with a range of 80.
This doesn’t line up because both are advertised with the same range at least according to the little documentation we currently have.
1 Like
Why take advertisement ranges (which might be understated) instead of actual, trialed ranges/data? AMRAAM is based of trial data not advertisement
and i showcased that the mica can engage at target at >60km
we speak of TRAVELED DISTANCE,… so again,… you’re flawing your reasoning,…
because the 70km of AIM-120A in game is Traveled distance, and not as MICA is demonstrated in @ron_23 video.
1 Like
Where’s the evidence that the advertisement for mica was for travel distance and not target distance
Yes, and by this same reasoning you are applying to MICA an AMRAAM can engage a target >100km, while it shouldn’t be able to do so
Only because of battery not kinematics
wrong fired at a drone 67km away and hit it
On May 8, 1998, a two-seat Di fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away
so you prefer to be bitching about it? when all missiles are defined the same way - Operationnal range.
i’ve given Definition of Operationnal range before,… and it clearly establishes that the range would be advertised for a Traveled distance.