As Macekeeks said, it’s a Rafale custom model with the current MICA EM to test it out.
1 Like
Some more MICA EM testing
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UUnqJpQfaCjE
MICA EM should have a guidance delay of less than 0.3 seconds (0.2 seconds is what’s recommended in the report)
8 Likes
Some rare photos obtained from a museum. These were pictures delivered to the museum from when Matra still existed.
8 Likes
From the pictures of the MICA flying, we can clearly see the absurdly small turning circle of the missile as well
1 Like
List of acknowledged reports so far on the MICA EM:
-
MICA EM is missing proportional navigation laws // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA EM should have a guidance delay of less than 0.2 seconds. // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA EM seeker should have a 28% higher seeker range // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA EM should be 160mm diameter and not 165mm. // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA EM missile should have increased maximum range // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA EM should have a directional splinter warhead. // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA-EM spins out when launched at low speed // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA-EM should have a beamwidth of 7.0 degrees instead of 15.0 degrees // Gaijin.net // Issues
-
MICA missile missing some kinetic energy // Gaijin.net // Issues
13 Likes
Magic 2 round 2
9 Likes
Maybe they can get around to buffing Magic 2 now that all radar missiles got reduced multipath…
11 Likes
Wait multipath got reduced ? What did I miss
1 Like
Yup. All radar missiles now can hit targets as low as 50m. Reduced from 100m to 50m.
1 Like
Could be wrong since its impossible to see your source, but 120 deg sounds like its the complete seeker arc, not the actual gimbal limit which seems to be what you’re claiming. Gimbal limit would therefore be ±60 deg. The seeker of the MICA IR is not physically far enough outside the missile for a gimbal limit beyond 90deg.
3 Likes
6 Likes
I think I found a bug with autopilot of MICA EM. I was playing in a Custom match today with other people and I was shooting off bore at close range to see how the TVC performs.
About the bug. When I fired a MICA EM at enemy, MICA used TVC normally until the main booster run out, during the switch to sustainer, MICA’s autopilot reseted and stopped leading for a small fraction of time and then started again. This loss of leading caused missile to spin out.
I believe if the transition to sustained didn’t result in a loss or soft reset of leading a target, MICA would be even better in close range scenarios.
Doesn’t have anything to do with the sustainer but you are right about the bug existing. When the missile is used right at the edge of the radar gimbal before being fired, it can have a tendency to go dead, and this hinders the MICA the most.
I checked files and yeah, there is a switch in autopilot, about one second after you fire the missile. If the transition between those two statest was normalized or fixed, MICA would lead the same way entire flight path, without stops. Would be way better in off bore close range scenarios.
moved the answer out of Flanker discussion, would’be been off topic
Some bug reports are under way regarding that part though, because it is indeed underperforming as far as we know.
There’s one pending for the caliber (165mm vs 160mm) : Community Bug Reporting System which affects the performances as far as i’m aware (taken into account for drag calculations)
One for drag (this one was justified by a missing mach 0.4 in top speed when launched in a ground VLS configuration, we will see if it is still necessary after the caliber is fixed) : Community Bug Reporting System
and it is yet to be determined if the 5° loft ingame is correct.
Thanks to @DirectSupport for the bug reports
From a balancing standpoint, it makes sense that this missile is in its current state, because it’s already quite amazing at close and medium ranges (TVC + high acceleration) and making it one of the best at long ranges would be overkill
However let’s say there’s still room for improvments when every one else will get upgraded r77s and amraams while we have to wait for meteor
It’s not underperforming kinematically, if caliber is changed drag will need to be adjusted to match current charts.
They should be more transparent about that, why make it 165 mm in the first place?
When Gaijin changed AIM-9D/G/L, Dev told us that they use their made up data, so it matches the charts, which it does (because their system isn’t perfect and cannot match real world atmosphere and physics so close).
There have been numerous mistakes lately even in basic FM dimensional data.
thing is, it doesn’t perform according to the charts, not to mention we don’t have any charts anywhere, more like bits of sources scattered here and there