thus you would be arguing that the +1000m/s increment isnt even provided at 0 airspeed, which makes the claim all the more ludicrous.
Not that a missile’s drag can be seen to the naked eye, but MICA does’t appear particularly draggy to me, at least not necessarily more than SLM
Would have to check that one again tbh.
The important thing is, +1000m/s how? because mica already does +1000m/s in game
If it does 1000m/s of total acceleration in game, doesn’t it mean that it’s good in that aspect ? But that the burn time is wrong and should be 3.5s.
Also correction @Fireball_2020 when mentioning the speed. I think I said most sources I have say Mach 3.5+ with one at Mach 4, but it’s actually Mach 4+ with one source at Mach 4.5 (corrected)
Currently in game the MICA does about that if I am correct, meaning that motor deltaV might actually be correct ? And then from ground launch due to the initial turn and denser atmosphere it drops down to 750m/s or something like that
i havent seen anything legit at mach 5 personally.
i think the top speed of mica now is more a reflection of it’s lack of loft. It gains about 0.1-0.15M by giving it a higher loft.
The top speed for a feasible launch with the in game model is 4.79 with current loft and 4.85 with an extended loft.
Yeah no you are right I went to look again at where I remember seeing the highest figure and it’s indeed Mach 4.5, don’t mind me confusing myself half of the time
EDIT : most say Mach 4+ with one saying Mach 4.5. Here I am finally correct lol
No worries aha. And if you were to correct the burn time but maintain the dV… i expect it would rip through mach 5 and keep going… oh and thats without fixing the calibre either.
Not necessarily. If the deltaV remains constant, it should not accelerate any faster if the burn time is slower.
With the current fuel mass(same dV), a single burn, fixed calibre, and improved loft it does M5.1
If we reduce the dV(and so thrust to 1000m/s), it does 4.77M.
I see… so yeah im not 100% convinced by the current dV/fuel mass
Quick question (probably long answer), but how do you measure that ? You have some tools ?
This is using statshark, not perfect, but better than nothing.
1 Like
MICA VL uses the exact same missile as the air launched version, its the name of the system, not the missile afaik. Pretty sure DS has made that point repeatedly.
1 Like
MICA VL is the name of the system, not of the missile, and that’s what i was refering to, so i don’t really see your point
You said the 750m/s source was “quite old” gunjob mentionned it was from 2012 and newer than the 1000m/s source, you said the 750m/s source was for the MICA VL specifically, which should be irrelevant seeing as theyre the same missiles.
Maybe I misunderstood something, but saying the 2012 source refers to the VL MICA seems irrelevant to the discussion of 1000m/s vs 750m/s.
1 Like
What i was stating was :
- Considering a Dv of 1000m/s
- Assuming said brochure from 2012 is correct, with a max speed of 750m/s (Mach 2.2)
→ This means a loss of speed of 250m/s due to drag alone
I will run an additional test on statshark tonight, but this would imply a drag coefficient so high the missile wouldn’t really reach 20km or even 80km, which contradicts other primary sources (such as this one : https://www.mbda-systems.com/sites/mbda/files/2024-06/2020%20VL%20MICA%20datasheet.pdf)
would be drag and gravity, with 90 degree VL launches either you use alot of energy to turn sharply(close range), or turn less sharp but have to climb and then descend(basically lofting), i seem to get about 820m/s with a MICA-IR representation which is still too fast.
80km might also be a high and fast launch. Where naturally there is a lot less drag and the missile is being launched with a healthy boost of energy and not a cold start.
Using SAMs for an air launched missile is tricky
Yeah, and doing so you would therefore have to add more drag go from 820 → 750
Look at how the missile behaves at longer ranges if you do that
note mica-ir is commonly listed as 60km not 80km.