Then why would it self destruct at 80km if it can’t reach 80km distance by himself?
Tell me more about that, as you just agreed on the MICA being 80km Travel Distance able.
and i’m making no sense,… funny one though
because unlike you there are people in here how can provide proper sources and especially primary ones and not some weird laws about diesel engines
that didnt happen just now and i showed to you at least 3 times already that i agreed to that
yet all you did was calling me stupid multiple times
and yet you cant manage to read a quote which i linked multiple times in messages responding to you
but maybe after the 4th or 5th time you gonna read it, surely
I am not joining the debate because :
- In my books, you are a completely biased person, and anything that does not go you way can be rejected without any basis (such as the argument about the claimed AIM120 vs MICA range being similar, and yet one is performing 50% better)
- There has been like 250 messages in the past 12 hours with only like 30 or so which were relevant and not repeating the same argument 10 times
While you can not compare diesel engines to missiles, “portée” does carry the meaning of kinetic range (aka 80km travelled distance), but since you still want to debate on that, be my guest.
For me this whole discussion on MICA range currently does not matter :
- The MICA is currently plenty powerful, and when it’s range will be a major issue, then I guess it would be time for actual long range fox 3, in which case the Meteor is a fine missile
- The MICA could have a much higher range by simply increasing battery time, correcting the caliber (hence the drag), and reducing wobble induced drag. None of these changes would make the MICA stronger (beside having it keeping speed at higher range), but would probably help the MICA reaches its 30G manoeuvring at 12km from vertical launch (@DirectSupport says 13km since the brochure says over 12km, but I think we should assume the lower value, as in every reports, such as the Iris-T report at 50G) that it definitely currently do not reach even from a 70 degrees angle (shown by direct), which should actually give it better range since there’s less energy loss for the initial turn
6 Likes
becasue i have seen proper sources for one and not the other
but yeah wanting to see sources is biased
I think this would be a far more reasonable change if sources can be found to prove it had a longer battery life
I think its current kinematic performance is accurate based upon the sources i’ve seen, but it wouldnt be the first time where lack of battery life limited missiles excessively and didnt have any sources IRL for said life. Brimstone is another example. It barely reaches its reported 20km range most of the time because it self destructs after 60 seconds.
Wobble I think its stuck with until they re-write missile code entirely
1 Like
Bro reminded me Gaijin were that icompetent. They even have a report with Primary source sitting since Seek & Destroy dev servers. Rafale had the time to come and caliber is still wrong.
We’ll come to the time MICA NG will be a thing in game and MICA caliber will still be wrong.
don’t worry MICA-NG caliber will be wrong aswell.
what bother me is that MICA was a Next Generation missile, and it’s given only +10km range over the missile it is replacing : Super530D (40km range)
just from that we know Gaijin did low work.
Current battery time is also complete guess work for many missiles. Even without historical report, devs could decide to modify it on both the brimstone and the MICA.
For the MICA, both drag and wobble are still the most important issues. This alone might be enough to reach the advertised 30G at 12km from a vertical launch, which is the main metric that I think is actually worth mentioning for MICA kinematic issues. I’m quite certain that with accurate fixes to make it reach that datapoint, it would make the missile able to reach 80km of travel time without having to tune the battery time, since it would keep more speed at range
Then again, the MICA is perfectly fine for me (still some wobble issues at low speed, but better since the last major). As of now, range isn’t really an issue. If multipath gets nerfed then it might need an small boost when thing like Aim120D and others arrive tho imo, since that’s currently the main limiting factor to long range shots currently (aside from proper evading maneuvers). But in the end we know the MICA will be completely outclassed in range as new fox 3s are introduced. Then there’s MICA NG that could come in the futur which would massively increase the NEZ despite a still lower range than other missiles with its smart dual pulse. And then, when countries start receiving long range fox 3s, there’s the Meteor, PL15… coming for like half of the tech trees including France so range won’t be an issue then
2 Likes
The issue with MICA is the source that says it got a Dv of 1000m/s
if you want a mica that looks closer to what most of the documentation states, you would have to basically :
- fix the diameter (165 → 160)
- reduce the Cx (drag) value from 1.65 to 1.4 ish (amraam level)
- change the engine burn for a shorter time
- give it its lofting back
This way it gets a bit more than mach 4 max speed at high altitude and high speed launch, as per documentation (while it can be hypersonic, > mach 5, in game currently), but it would keep its speed better over longer distances.
Most people here believe fixing the MICA would be a straight buff, but that’s not necessarily true, as it would lose one of its defining features : the mental speed at closer ranges. It’s more of a mixed bag really, although i won’t lie, it would stay very strong either way.
The issue with the above fix would be the following : it contradicts the source i mentionned and which is currently used by Gaijin, stating a Dv of 1000m/s, and we are in the uncomfortable situation where we have contradicting sources
An other problem with fixing the missile is that it would make MICA VL very underwhelming (think of a glorified elde 98 that can glide to 20km instead of 12, but barely faster). That’s a bit off topic though
2 Likes
Well not to be that guy but clearly in this thread there are people who make this forum a better place and others I won’t name, who actively make the vibe worse. It doesn’t even matter who is right, some people really need to think before posting: is what I’m writing helping the convo or is it bringing someone down? The problem really not one-sided here
1 Like
Please try to post on topic. This thread was derailed.
thank you.
4 Likes
what does the israeli dash hmd look like? heard that india uses it on their rafales
2 Likes
no hmd iff like scorpion? seems like a jhmcs alternative
JHMCS does have IFF, but that depends on plane
at least in game none of the jhmcs get iff, if only french rafales get the scorpion and the british/indian one doesn’t, french ones will definitely be superior
Thats mostly cuz gaijin seems to think HMD IFF works using the magic of friendship and unicorn farts imparted by the relic of god known as the Scorpion HMD, instead of what it actually is; a TDL, which gaijin categorically refuses to admit exists in-game, and as such refuses to add it to any other HMD, leaving the Rafale as the only fighter jet ingame with TDL based IFF for both air and ground units, giving it a massive informational advantage over everyone else.
1 Like
I mean the only iff hmds in game should be I think striker 2 on later euro fighters, and jhmcs. Pretty sure striker one doesn’t get iff, only striker 2, as that’s a feature listed specifically for striker 2. As for jhmcs idk enough about that. Btw, did the rafale ever use other hmds other than scorpion in service? If I recall correctly this rafale we have in game technically shouldn’t have scorpion, it should have either no hmd or another hmd (I forgot if scorpion was tested on f3r, pretty sure they’re only on 4.1 rafales)
Striker 1 has IFF as well… but this is the Rafale topic.
6 Likes