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.
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
MICA missile missing some kinetic energy // Gaijin.net // Issues
Conclusion of the acknowledged report is that the missile is missing substantial speed, which will lead to reduced drag as the motor’s delta v is already 1100m/s+
Taking into account the effects of gravity (9.8×6.75s=66mps), it is unlikely that a rocket with dv 1100mps can reach Mach 3 (3700kph/1028mps) when launched vertically at sea level, unless the air resistance is close to 0?
The missile itself is not traveling completely vertically into the air, but rather it turns and travels horizontally while reaching Mach 3. Consider that the Mistral missile which is an older and lighter missile can travel Mach 2.6 in 2.2 seconds. This is modeled in-game and is accurate to irl performance which I’ll link below. So MICA EM with a more aerodynamic head than Mistral, while also being a newer missile isn’t far-fetched to be believed to be a Mach 3 missile in vertical launch. Don’t forget that the VT1 missile is also a Mach 3 missile, and this is an older missile than MICA EM.
Mistral missile has an incorrect implementation of motor. // Gaijin.net // Issues
3.6 Mach, to be exact
Yup, and lighter and older than MICA.
The mach 3 figure is still unlikely because the required deltaV isn’t pushed in the boost stage, the sustainer can only maintain a certain airspeed… Not increase it. Especially not in lower altitudes. A peak speed of mach 3 may only be achievable in a very specific trajectory.
I think mach 3 is referenced but only applies to air launched configuration to say that it can do mach 3 + launch speed. This is of course understating the true capability from air launch.
Explain more? All fox 3s “sustainers” increase the airspeed of the missiles rather than maintaining the airspeed.
Yes, it is expected that Mach 3 is only achieved in a specific trajectory. Testing showed the highest achieved was Mach 2.54 currently rather than Mach 3.
It is specifically stated for Mach 3 in vertical launch. Mach 4+ can be found for air launched.
Most fox-3 do not continue to increase speed in very low altitude launches. They will reach the peak rather quickly.
The increase comes from higher altitude lower drag flight, but is still penalized more by the poor acceleration - having to overcome drag for longer.
I will have to test this and get back to you, I’m pretty sure most missiles in-game with sustainers continue to increase speed, even R-27ER which continues to accelerate with its sustainer, and this is the case presumably for R-77-1, AIM-120A, and etc.
