its easy to claim that MICA IR has XYX km range when most sources talk about MICA without an addon.
To me these longrange stats make sense for a radar variante, not so much for the IR but hey… maybe the french had a developed a magical IR seeker that could see 60+km from 1982 to 1996 and to this day not a single country could develop something similar…
everyone can believe what they want idc :D
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is necessarily claiming that. Modern IR missiles have a LOAL mode so they can be fired at long range, fly to the estimated target location and then lock on with the IR seeker. Just like how many modern IR missiles can be fired at targets behind you without needing a seeker that can look backwards through the missile.
3 Likes
to me the LOAL argument makes even less sense.
these are all theoretical ranges against none maneuvering targets
more important is the burntime (how much it can follow a maneuvering target) of the motor and the powersupply (how long till self deto) of of the missile for applications like WT.
The seeker obviously can’t see anything at that distance in any realistic operational scenario.
The 3d gen seeker for the MICA is said to be able to see target up to 4/5 time further aways than older gen IR seeker. So maybe around 20km at ground level against an afterburning target and i mean 60kms at higth altitude and a afterburning target , the seeker migth see the exaust (but the missile would be able to chase the airplane obviously due to kinematic limitation).
As @Flame2512 said, the MICA IR missile has a LOAL (Lock On After Launch) mode and can be linked to radar or the OSF on the rafale to be shot at long range without any warning for the opposing aircraft.
We all agree on this, those range are not in any operational scenario, where the NEZ of the missile is mutch smaller. An IRIS-T is never going to be able to intercept a real target at 25kms while a MICA IR is never going to intercept a target at 60kms
The burntime and the motor specification are not known so we can only speculate on the thrust the missile has.
It’s said (the source is not available to me so it’s not a certainty) that’s the missile is 50G at close range and 30g capable at 15kms.
The powersuply is the same as for a FOX3 for exemple since you have a LOAL mode, so it’s should be enougth for a BVR shot.
i really want to see an IRIS-T SLM on a fighter now… would only be an IRIS-T M then but still, would be cool
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