You seem to be assuming that all engagements involve situations where aircraft can see each 10s of kilometres away, and so come down to which party’s missile has the longest range. That’s not how combat works in real life, if it were then you’d see air forces doing away with short range missiles and carrying nothing but Meteors (and similar such weapons).
There are engagements that occur within the maximum range of both parties missiles. That is where other factors come into play. For example your missile being super fast is useful, the faster your missile is the less time the enemy has to fire a missile in return before they blow up.
So if medium range missiles are just better why does nearly every air force in the world still operate short range missiles?
You seem to be obsessed with the idea that MICA has better range than ASRAAM, which yes it does. However while ASRAAM does have a high maximum range, which opens up some interesting use cases, it is at the end of the day primarily intended to fill the role of a short range missile (it’s literally in the name) and in short range combat maximum range is not the only thing that matters.
Again that’s not the point though
The same could be said about IRIS-T vs ASRAAM:
“If you are firing your ASRAAM at its maximum range, then the IRIS-T equipped aircraft will fire an AMRAAM at you”
I appreciate your explanation, but the point remains the same
If we accept that IIR missiles are “undefeatable”, then if you can launch at longer ranges before the enemy gets the chance to launch then you can score a kill without dying
And your example is somewhat misleading
One could further minimize the difference by citing an example of a 1km range missile vs a 1.25km range missile … “Basically no difference” …
While both missiles are classified, MICA and especially MICA NG will likely have enough of a range advantage that you could launch from outside ASRAAM’s envelope and remain outside of it until your missile gets to seeker range (or close enough to seeker range that it could reach the rest of the way using INS only) …
It’s not like ASRAAM is getting to target instantly and MICA takes an hour
The difference is small … And at that point you are basically “hoping” that the enemy doesn’t launch one back at you before your missile gets to him …
Not a great strategy if you ask me …
I think you are assuming that ASRAAM will have shorter time to target than MICA throughout its entire envelope / range, which is not necessarily correct.
For example Magic II accelerates faster than AIM-9M and hits a higher top speed, but it also loses its speed faster and while it has better time to target for the first half of its flight, it has worse time to target for the second half.
Likewise ASRAAM will likely have better TTT than MICA for the lower part of its range, but worse TTT for the upper part of its range …
To change the subject. Was there such a thing as a TWS HMD mode for the Typhoon. Essentially have the TWS scan area be slaved to the HMD (both horizontal and vertical axis) CAPTOR-M was supposed to be extremely user friendly and that sounds exactly like the functionality it would have
In this scenario, if user is careful and skilled, he will launch his MICA while already going into notch/off bore (and already making enemy missile go much farther).
For example, I do it, when I spot enemy that was unspotted due to Gaijin mechanic at close range, I simultaneously turn into notch and lock and fire a MICA, thanks to TVC and 6,5 s burn it flings around wasting no time.
Because ASRAAM doesn’t have TVC, it will accelerate into nothingness and then turn very hard to point at the enemy, then will the inertia play its game.
MICA’s TVC works better than R-73, so I can’t say how would R-74, AIM-9X and IRIS-T react (they have failry longer burn times than ASRAAM).
Again you are comparing a short range missile (with an admittedly long range compared to other SRAAMs) to a medium range missile. It’s like comparing an AIM-9X or an IRIS-T to an AMRAAM and declaring the AMRAAM as better because it is longer ranged.
You are also assuming that the engagement unfolds in such a manner as to allow a MICA to be fired at it’s maximum range.
I’ll ask the question again then, why does anyone use short range missiles if range is the only thing that matters? Maybe because it’s not. Both in game and real life you see short range missiles being used. There are situations where you don’t want to or can’t use an AMRAAM and where having kinematically superior short range missile is useful.
And following this comparing the ASRAAM to the other short range IR missiles is also not very good. After all, MBDA calls the ASRAAM a « near BVR » missile, so it’s not like it fits in the category of short range IR missiles.
Looks like you just want to compare the ASRAAM with shorter range IR missiles to make it it looks good in all aspects, while its categorization is in between WVR and BVR, and thus, imo, it’s just as fair to compare it to the MICA IR (and lets disregard the NG for now) that it is comparing it to the IRIS-T.
After all, it seems that the difference in range between the MICA and ASRAAM is at the very least comparable to to the ASRAAM and IRIS-T, let alone the AIM 9X, if I follow the previous assumptions that were given of the range of the missile.
Is there ever a world where the Typhoon receives it’s actual counter measure systems?
MAWS and DASS are hopeless, I have never been protected by the flares from the DASS system
even Aim9H on an F-14 ignored them and the footage from the dev server of it countering an R-27ET also never happens.
I know TRDs are too hard to incorporate into game.
But what about this, give the Typhoon a greater chance against all the things that are coming to game.
Not to beat a dead horse, but AIM-9X/IRIS-T and AMRAAM are fundamentally different …
The first two are IR missiles with the ability to engage high off boresight targets in a close range fight.
AMRAAM is a radar guided missile that can’t engage high off boresight targets in a close range fight.
On the other hand, IR MICA / IR MICA NG, just like ASRAAM is an IR missile.
And apart from the fact that it can engage targets from further than ASRAAM can, unlike your example with AIM-9X/IRIS-T vs AMRAAM, where AMRAAM can’t engage high off boresight targets in a close range fight, MICA can do so, and is actually better than ASRAAM in doing so (thanks to its thrust vectoring) …
Well, if you want to go that route … “You are also assuming the engagement unfolds in such a manner as to allow an ASRAAM to be fired at all” …
That’s the thing, MICA can engage both short and long range targets
Whereas ASRAAM has a “sweet spot” that you have to engage your targets in …
It can’t reach as far as MICA, and it can’t engage as close as MICA due to lack of thrust vectoring …
Pretty much the only thing it has going for it (As far as we can tell … Who knows maybe IRL ASRAAM is 99% reliable and MICA loses target etc 9/10 times), is that it can reach “part of its range / envelope” slightly faster than MICA …
In essence, instead of the enemy having say 12 seconds to launch one back at you, he has say 10 seconds …
Of course all this is assuming IIR missiles are or will be “undefeatable” like people claim … Which I don’t think they will be in the game (And doubtful that they are IRL) … So if you are launching at say a 5-10km target, the higher speed might give it a little better IRCCM just like Magic II and PL-5EII currently have …
But what I’m saying is that this whole “ASRAAM’s speed makes sure you can kill the enemy before he kills you” doesn’t make sense …
Because in most scenarios the enemy will have plenty of time to launch one back at you …
And in closer engagements where the enemy won’t have the time to launch one back at you, he probably wouldn’t have time even if you launched a “slower” MICA that takes 6 seconds to get to him instead of an ASRAAM that takes 5 seconds to get to him …
But is it better then AIM-9X and IRIS-T at this off bore sight no
Does it beat ASRAAM in time to target at these close ranges no
MICA is just a mid missile really because it is trying to two things at once
it is mid as WVR missile because it turns worse then the other TVC missiles and can’t beat ASRAAM in speed or time on targert ( ASRAAM can also engage targets behind the aircraft it was done by the RAAF when they were testing it.) As a BVR missile it is mid at that because of it range as its not beating AMRAAM and only really beats Russian missiles which isn’t a higher bar
MICA is the worst of both modes and before you say that MICA IR can be launched at longer distances then ASRAAM and go really far that point is mute because an AMRAAM would and will always do that job better
I haven’t seen anyone mention this, but I think it is fair to say, that ASRAAM will be caried in bigger numbers than MICA. I will be playing 6x ASRAAM + 4x AIM-120B. On Rafale I would play 2x MICA-IR and 6x MICA-EM.
UV MAWS will only detect it when the motor is burning. After that it wont. So if its fired beyond its range, then the MAWS on the Rafale is useless. Typhoon’s MAW will detect it throughout its flight even after the motor has finished burning.
Yeah, as I said in the comment(s) that started this heated debate about ASRAAM vs MICA, later Typhoon as a platform will have more things going for it vs later Rafale, one being the ability to carry more missiles.
