it’s 50yo at the date of the last entry in the document. so if MBDA or DGA adds any note to it, the counter goes back to 0,…
and the best part is, it can be prolonged into secrecy every 10 years, after a comission to see if the document can be disclosed, or not.
For exemple some docs might have been updated alongside the MICA NG program,… so - that’s out for 2074-2075
Imo such a level of gatekeeping is kinda dumb as in the military domain if a weapon isn’t upgraded or replaced by a new one after like 20-25 years(Or even less) it becomes obsolete so why keeping infos on obsolete equipment secret.
but some techologies passes on through 2/3 generations of weapons, that’s why. ^^"
Just make new docs each time you upgrade it and archive the previous document(And the declassification counter begins at this time). Like MICA V1 → V2 → V3…
Have you seen some french manual for aircrafts?
Even for Mistral-1 there is a lot of secrecy.
and this because the basis of the vehicule/weapon often remains the same with recent variants
the only thing we could hope is to see “fast” (2041) are the reports of MICA testing from 1991 to 1996, but those would be discarded by Gaijin as it’s about prototypes and not the serial production.
Why are you talking about the operational range of vehicles when what is being debated is the maximum range of air-to-air missiles? Those are distinctly different things.
In my experience the maximum range of a missile is usually defined as the maximum distance between launch aircraft and target, at which the missile can be fired and still hit.
For example the RAF Tornado F.3 manual states that the maximum rang of the Skyflash missile at 5,000 ft altitude is 14 nautical miles and the maximum range of the Skyflash SuperTEMP missile at 5,000 ft altitude is 16 nautical miles (you can ignore the range numbers for Russian missiles in this particular instance as in this case those are estimates based on what intelligence the RAF had available during the Cold War).
Now I don’t have firing envelope diagrams for 5,000 ft altitude, but I do for 100 ft altitude, which is fairly close. You can see that the maximum launch range is about 13.3 nautical miles for Skyflash, and about 15.9 nautical miles for Skyflash SuperTEMP.
So it is pretty obvious that in this NATO manual maximum range is defined as the maximum separation at launch. And it makes sense that it would be defined that way. If you are using a missile you really don’t care about how far the missile can fly, you care about how far away you can be from the other guy when you fire the missile.
ok, then the AIM-120 being able to reach a 80km target, should get a similar 50-55km range and not 80km as in the game (i talk of A and B variants)
the way it has been made simply not ticks.
i don’t own such diagrams (secrecy), but there is a clear mess with the MICA.
MICA-VL testing by DirectSupport showed a lot of troubles going on, for a missile that should reach 20km (in 90° VL), but hardly able to reach 13km with a 70° VL shot, also not reaching it’s peak speed of Mach 3
both MICA-VL and MICA-EM are the same missile, in different use, so it’s clear to me that the missile is currently hold back pretty much.
And as I’ve said before the AIM-120 has been modelled to match the performance detailed in many declassified documents. It is not modelled on an advertised max range.
On that note though: I’m not aware of anything from the AMRAAM’s manufacturer advertising its max range is 80 km. What is your source for that claim that you keep making?
Gaijin put 80km, and since @ron_23 think gaijin is right,… i’ll use the same data
i understand about British MoD,… that’s not what i’m against,… but there seems to be a disbelief of how the manufacturer (MBDA) is classifying it’s own missile against the rest of the world.
you are lieing again
and it is even hard to disprove that but nice that you seem to ignore my messages
you lied about me wanting an OP missile, when maths i’ve been giving you clearly stated the AIM-120A/B would still keep it’s advantage, just less of it.
you have clearly showcased that that is what you want
and you keep lying, but it’s ok,… i don’t care say what you want,… you’re free of speech,…
if you fail to understand how the Mica IR would be OP iam sorry for you
becasue you argue in bad faith and arent able to give any logical counter argument to me
you kept ignoring them,… so i won’t bother anymore,… keep in you beliefs, as wrong as they’re,… i’ll keep in mine
show me one of your “logical” arguments i didnt counter
i even disproven you posting something about diesel engines
the only one who showed something sensical in here was @UNN_Daedalos
all you are doing is comparing apples to oranges
even the oh so suffering french community dissagred with your take of the rafale being hold back by gaijin
told ya i won’t speak to you anymore,… isn’t that clear enough? you keep engaging like if you don’t have enough bullying today.
works pretty badly for you dosent it
and if you think you bullied me then i should report you so that your account gets banned from the forum
all that i have seen is that the MICA shouldnt self destruct at 50km but 80km
which didnt even come from you
but that dosent prove that it is majorly underperforming kinematically
which was proven by DirectSupport and not by you
all you are doing is making something up instead of addmiting you are wrong
Bullying is proving u wrong?
he is saying i got bullied