Thats exactly my point, the modeling of the mica is much worst than the others; the lack of range is verry annoying, if gaijin think the missile is theoricly to good they can make another version of it without “breaking the balance of the game”. And i didnt know about the r77, but it should be fixed because aim 120 and other american missiles are well modeled. Its a bit unfair.
Also Russia have fakours, France have 0 long range armement.
I just showed you how it isn’t, so how does your point stand?
Life is unfair, what you think is unfair is only a disparity that you think was done intentionally. I assure you, it was not. The data for AMRAAM is far more extensive and thus it is easier to match it to a variety of datapoints that themselves confirm the others.
Russia does not have the Fakours, the Iranian Tomcat is in the US tech tree. Russia has no considerable long range ordnance because the R-27ER underperforms and isn’t very useful in the current meta.
Your point was about speed and manoeverability, not range. Keeping pressure at 50km could give you time to reach the deadly range of the missile. A small chance of hitting is enought to waste 1/6 missile. Not having this option is a disadvantage.
I got your point, ill just play usa until the fix.
I didn’t mention speed and maneuverability except for missiles that underperform in those departments. The MICA is already one of the top missiles in the game performance wise - no other missile will perform better than it under any circumstances that will result in a kill.
is there an active report right now for removing the launch angle restriction?
Another topic where pple well detailed the micas issue if you are interested.
Another image of the KS-172
I have been involved in the discussions with the French bug reporting team about the MICA since prior to it’s addition. I am very well informed on the issues currently.
Waiting for gaijin to actually give aam3 and pl12 to give more range than the aim120b
waiting for gaijin to add variable drag/drastically reduce static drag of MICA EM and R77
waiting for gaijin to remove the 50km self explode limit of mica
Literally all other arh are artificially nerfed in comparison to aim120b, american bias i call it
don’t we have an official photo of the aim 260 now?
We’ve got a render, and quite frankly, it just looks like an AMRAAM with no center fins:
It almost sounds/looks like all the AIM-260 is is an AMRAAM they shoved a new motor into, since they stated the AIM-260 was going to keep the AMRAAM’s dimensions which both wouldnt surprise me, and would also be tremendously embarrassing and likely just a government scheme to move money to some friends under the guise of “fixing” a problem the US has.
What I DONT understand, is why the US hasnt gone and shoved an AMRAAM-ER (ESSM body) into an F-35 as a stopgap measure for their range issues, the immediate answer ppl would come up with being “it doesnt fit”, which is true for the dedicated AAM station, since the AMRAAM just barely fits with its fins:
But that doesnt cover the fact the other station can carry a Mk84 2000lbs bomb, and thats longer (3.84m vs 3.66m), wider (460mm vs 254mm diameter), and heavier (925kg vs 280kg). And with the AMRAAM’s fins, the thin is 484mm wide fintip to fintip. I have a hard time believing the AMRAAM-ER couldnt fit or be made to fit into the F-35 is they wanted it to.
Considering the AIM-120D-3 is already claimed to be “nearing the threshold of the AIM-260A program”, it seems like the AIM-260 is a pretty low bar to clear, and puts it nowhere near the which makes all the fanfare and secrecy about it seem rather odd.
what if it got thrust vectoring for flexibility so they removed the front fins and lowered the drag.
and also dual motor separate action rocket motors
I wouldnt be surprised if it got thrust vectoring, but it still seems like a pretty baby-mode improvement over the AMRAAM at this point, and entirely undeserving of all this attention, which i mean, only those involved really know whats going on underneath, but to me it just sounds like its not all that special.
Are all fox 3s limited to 16km active seeker range for balance?
Presumably. Seeker range is reported for R-77-1, AIM-120A/B (and likely applicable to C), Derby, and MICA. Yet not actioned despite the reports having been reported for upwards of over a year.
The Su-35S is saved
R-77M is here.
Look how thick that rear section is. I wonder if there is an initial booster that is very high power to get it up to speed before switching to a sustainer and potentially also a follow up boost (dual pulse) design? This is not quite the same as the R-77M seen on display elsewhere previously.
Anyone else see that, or am I crazy?
It would not be the first time they’ve designed such a booster.
There is also a tiny slit along the length of the missile where you’d expect the proximity fuses to be, going away from the small circle type windows seen on other R-77’s.
Supposedly the Russian Air Force was supposed to adopt a whole new medium range missile, so we all might be mistaken and it’s something completely different.
Well, clearly this is an R-77 with some modifications. A new medium range missile could be in development but I have not heard of such a thing or any details. The US has like… three or four ongoing medium range missile programs.
I agree, with the rear section looking the way it does it has to be the R-77M with the two-pulse motor. At least that’s what I’m going to settle on until we hear something different.
