Not at all, TVC is for fast reaction of the rail and at low speeds.
The design of the mica is such that the fins produce AoA, and the body and chord wings produce the majority of the lift. Abit like ASRAAM.
Not at all, TVC is for fast reaction of the rail and at low speeds.
The design of the mica is such that the fins produce AoA, and the body and chord wings produce the majority of the lift. Abit like ASRAAM.
Is there a similar graph for super 530 sitting around anywhere?
I wasn’t really in the reporting community when the 530 was reported, you’ll have to ask other people
Do you really think it has GPS and knows exactly how much metres it travelled before self explosion? This is Gaijin’s doing. MICA and SRAAM both shouldn’t have this.
Well, MICA does have Inertial navigation, which would be able to estimate the range its traveled as it knows speed and time.
SRAAM, I assumed was some game limitation regarding battery life or something from back when it was first added. Though it needs a total overhaul as its underperforming by crazy amounts. Though again. Distance can be estimated if a speed is known and it has a basic timer. GPS is not required for guessing distance traveled
If this would get brought up, I think MICA-EM would be awesome even at high speed launches.
I am just taking the claims at face value. Personally I think he has shopped for the highest possible values and the most generous interpretation of his sources.
There is a different MICA VL brochure that phrases the 50G and 30G claim differently.
In this context it might be reasonable to conclude the G values correspond to altitudes and not horizontal distance at sea level. They might actually just be using the values from the air launched version.
But DirectSupport always assumes the maximum possible interpretation and lobbies for that. He always assumes that France consistently understates it’s weapons performance so we should always use the highest number he can find. He also ignores or downplays when they have overstated their performance
So I’m showcasing the missile performance if it is modeled the way that he wants it.
I see, that makes more sense
MICA VL can’t even reach 12km of altitude, where are you even going with this ? X)
It can, in game and just about with fixes anyway
In game it can reach 9km barely, if your target is nice, does not move too much and is basically on top of you
Besides, it’s off point. The brochure claims 9.1km of max altitude but would give the manoeuvrability of 30G for 12km for altitude ?
I’ve seen some reasoning flaws in this thread, but come on, this one is quite a low bar
Well yes it depends, if you mean literally reach 10km or you mean track a target who is at 10km(or whichever altitude we pick).
In this one regard. MBDA does seem to do this quite a bit. Like ASRAAM is stated as Mach 3+ but plenty of sources/evidence suggest more like Mach 4.5 and it states 25+ km range but again, plenty of sources suggest 40-50km with 1 CAMM source giving a range of 60km (though note, that is just distance traveled)
But I do agree with the rest though. Does feel like a lot of cherry picking of sources rather than an conservative estimate of all available sources
Indeed, doesn’t really make sense.
I think the source should be interpretted assuming a target relatively high though, like 20k ft and not at sea level. So the missile hasnt expended a huge amount of energy doing a hard turn to engage something relatively low and isnt sat in thick air the entire time.
It doesn’t change much
The energy you gain by not turning hard, you lose by converting KE to PE while ascending
Everyone likes to make this claim when it comes to missile ranges. A lot of the time it seems that people just like to use or assume that the launch range and the distance it will travel is the same. Or assume the reference target is stationary.
This is how you end up with American mains thinking the Phoenix should be able to easily slam targets from 100km away when they launch them as soon as their wheels leave the runway.
You can look at R-77 brochure or Sea Harrier AMRAAM chart and see that missile ranges are heavily influenced by the launch conditions and reference target altitude and closure rate.
Don’t want to sound rude, but everyone in this thread is already past this kind of statements.
The brochure is for MICA VL, they’re not going to advertise MICA VL using some data coming from a plane launch. 30G at 12km is what you would expect from a SAM of this size, and it is no where near claiming a Phoenix will hit from 100km from the ground with a low speed launch
You would think that is obvious, huh.
not to some people