The Red Top (which entered service in 1964) had a front aspect lock range of over 20 km, if the target was high enough and fast enough. I imagine a seeker that’s over 30 years newer will have substantially better performance than that (even if not quite 60 km seeker range).
Historically, the Magic 1 & 2 seeker’s outpaced anything else in the world. I would not be surprised if they continued this trend going forward.
Nothing anyone else produced could perform similarly to the magic 1 or magic 2 until well after it’s introduction.
Not to mention the MICA-IR might even have mid-course and datalink, lock on after launch. This would be common sense for an IR missile of that range.
that wouldn’t just be common, that would literally be a requirement.
compare it to launching an amraam at max range with only one position that it should go to. realistically, it wouldn’t hit.
in this case it’s even harder because the seeker probably as a smaller field of view than the seeker of an amraam(just a guess but its very likely).
Imaging infrared seekers can have a much wider field of view and scanning area than an older IR missile seeker (especially those with crossed array or older IRCCM techniques) and more so than a mechanically scanned radar.
It still has a wider fov than most modern AESA - tipped missiles but lacks in how fast it can scan in comparison.
The British evaluated the MICA and found the seeker to be inferior compared to the AIM-9X / ASRAAM one:
Click Me
This paragraph is just to show GECM offered the MICA:
This is their evaluation of the seeker:
When was the evaluation conducted?
We have this document from SAGEM , the manufacturer of the seeker:
It migth not be the same seeker that this evalution is talking about.
Transalation:
From Matra’s partnership with BGT a secondary project emerged in the 1990’s, using the autoguider (TELL) developed by BGT on the occasion of the initial ASRAAM project and the MICA body. The result was a lightweight, highly maneuverable combat missile, the MICASRAAM, which sought to compete for the British combat missile requirement at the time and is still looking for potential markets in Germany and third countries. third countries.
As you can see the MICASRAAM is not the same as the MICA IR.
The MICASRAAM is an teaming between BGT and MATRA.
Edit: Added the translation for the image
Sometime in 1992. The document was only declassified last year, so I suspect anything more recent is probably still classified.
matra defense | gec marconi | report marconi/matra | 1990 | 2738 | Flight Archive
micasraam seems to be a general term for an ASRAAM competitor based on the MICA IR…
“TELL” seeker is interesting. I dont know anything about it but I’d assume that its the IRIS-T’s seeker? but it is definitely not the GECM seeker
1 Like
As I suspected, and furthered by evidence posted since I posed my question… the competitor for the ASRAAM was not the MICA-IR itself or was a preliminary / export model.
1 Like
That document states that the MICA IR is likely to be more inaccurate and the only proof of that being the higher explosive weight. That is using the logic that a missile likely features higher warhead weight because it’s more likely to miss a target.
I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with that train of thought but it’s important to keep in mind that the MICA IR’s purpose is to be used at much longer ranges than other typical IR missiles. So it is natural for a BVR IR missile to have a higher miss rate than a shorter ranged IR missile on average. The MICA IR can be guided in by TWS at ranges excessive of 60km, and thus scans a much larger section of the air and is likely to have less kinetic energy once it finally reaches its target.
BVR missiles in general have a larger explosive weight than shorter ranged IR missile. MICAs should be in the class of other BVR missiles such as AMRAAM and the likes.
I dont particularly like the comparison of MICA IR to IRIS-T/ASRAAM.
For anyone doubting the range of the MICA IR, take a look at this:
The MICA IR fired at sea level from a ship managed a range of 15km to hit a drone, a range that other modern IR missiles have when fired from high altitude and at high speed. The MICA IR is stated to have a 60km+ range at high altitude and high speed.
Apologies for hijacking this thread, it’s supposed to be about the IRIS-T but had to give my two cents.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1124122919681933393/MICAIRRange.jpg
2 Likes
When fired from planes:
MICA = 80km
MICA NG = 110km
Shave off 20% in range for their IR variants which features a less aerodynamic seeker.
1 Like
Gentleman we got a new possible SPAA for sweden and germany. Kongsberg presents NASAMS with IRIS-T missles on a german ACSV G5 chassis.
The chasis is developed by Flensburger Fahrzeugbau GmbH.
It has a XENTA-M-Radar a X band radar developed from Weibel Scientific in Denmark with a range of 75km.
It will be build in Norway and test firing already happend end of mai
5 Likes
Ohhh nice must ask my Uncle about it he worked for FFG till Feb of this year as “Head” Mechanic
someone posted that in the old thread or at least something very similar
but ig this is the final version now. pretty cool.
also btw, there is an extra thread just for the SL variant
1 Like
Yeah MICA is a pretty interesting missile in terms of western missile development, reminds me a lot more of an R-27 in its range and modular seeker type, but obviously more advanced.
I actually think thats a very bad thing for France in-game though, as it leaves Gaijin limited in their implementation of next gen French missiles, seeing as the MICA is likely similar in reach to things like the AMRAAM and R-77, and is Frances first fox 3, but afaik is also WILDLY more maneuvrable than them, being over the shoulder capable pretty early on iirc.
I think its likely the MICA will be added as Frances first fox 3 in-game, but nerfed hard for balance reasons, and French players will cry (since thats their favorite thing to do in WT aside from being elitist snobs) while the Magic 2 will likely be retained as the french short range missile, but buffed?
I think in general were on the cusp of missiles gaijin will have to seriously think of redesigning maps and teams around tbh, as even early R-73’s in a 16v16 are likely incredibly hard to deal with due to their range and HOBS capabilitiy, while the upcoming BVRAAM’s such as the AMRAAM will require players to seriously reconsider how they play, particularly early game, unless gaijin continues to keep the extreme levels of multipath error, radar missile unreliability, problematic spotting system, limited radar capabilities and limited RWR capabilities along with RWR oversensitivity currently in-game which are all causes of the extreme lawnmower meta we currently unfortunately deal with…
1 Like
In terms of modular seeker capability, France was simply turning back to its roots with that design. The first missiles, R-511 had an EM and IR seeker, although the IR seeker was horrible and never entered into service. Then you have the R-530s with IR and EM variants. France then had a new doctrine with Super 530s and Magics similar to the US, before now going back to MICAs again, which greatly reduced logistic burden, costs, among other things. These same missiles were able to be put onto ships and vertical launch platforms as point defence missiles, further reducing costs.
As for implementing them in-game, they could give it 4 MICA EM and keep the 2 Magics as that was it’s early configuration, and hold off on MICA IR. M2K can only carry a maximum of 4 MICA EM if there’s no MICA IR anyway, while other countries like Mig-29/F-16 can get its 6 AMRAAMs/R-77s. Then as US/RU gets more advanced AMRAAM/R-77, then France can get the MICA IR, where 6 of them can be used on one platform. 6x MICA-IR where there’s no warning at long range launches.
And unlike AMRAAMs, you can’t avoid MICA-IRs by hugging the ground and relying on multipath. AMRAAMs would still deal with that silly gimmick.
They could further buff the M2K by introducing jamming into the game as datamine indicates is happening. F-16s have to carry a jamming pod while M2K has two internal jammers, one facing forward and one facing backward. So it’s able to carry 3 fuel tanks, 6 missiles, and still jam the F-16s/Mig-29s, while the F-16s have to carry a heavy jamming pod sacrificing the centerline fuel tank greatly limiting its range.
All in all, there are a lot of options going forward.
The jamming pod can be left on, dropped and continue to jam a missile / redirect it. The on-board jammers leave the Mirage 2000 susceptible to the AIM-120’s fantastic home-on-jam modes.
It still leaves you without a centerline fuel tank. A competent M2K pilot at long distance could decide to drag the fight out knowing you expended a lot of fuel to get to high altitude and high speed. And they can continue using afterburner all throughout the fight knowing you have to conserve speed.
And it really depends on how the jammers are implemented, M2K has jamming modes to make it less susceptible to be homed-on. Further, there may be limitations to home-on jam modes. A Mirage 3 manual states that the home-on jam mode for R-530 EM could obtain bearing but not elevation. So who knows what limitation there is on the home-on jam for AIM-120. I’d imagine extensive jamming modes + chaffing can make things difficult.