Knowing Gaijin… They’ll get implented sooner rather than later.
For some reason they like making it stronger. At the very least .MICA EM has already gotten more bug fixes than Aim-120 (any variant) has.
Im just talking about these proposed MICA EM changes.
Rafale is already 14.7 worthy, in a vacuum, would need to be 15.0+
Given that MICA IR is just a MICA EM with an IR seeker. The French already have their “Gen 5 IR”.
Well, if you count the nerfs the C has gotten, technically they have had more « fixes » ahah
Fair enough. While i don’t personally think rafale should be 15.0 compared to current 14.3, I do agree there’s a gap to say 14.7 as is. Tho, there is still a huge compression at high tier (like 12.0-13.3), so a higher top BR would still be welcomed (say 15.3 to 16.0 ahah)
Most of those I think were probably wrong and they were just reducing it from what it should ahve been down to match the performance of the A/B which is underperforming.
Some things maybe.
But others have been removed seemingly for no reason. The seeker change, the HOB (should start turning sooner, even tho it turns less with clipped wings overall)…
All in all, from what I recall, the MICA didn’t have that many reports actioned aside from initial setup during dev. Mainly the seeker FoV, I don’t really remember anything else ?
MICA was strong from the get go, it’s just the Rafale that made it so much better, since it gets in firing positions even faster than the already excellent M2K
France is the only nation with their Gen 5 “IR” missile currently.
Which is why the Mirage and Rafale are the meta
Maximum range is typically given as the maximum range you can fire the missile at in a head on launch and have it hit the target. Aerodynamic range is how far the missile could theoretically fly before it loses all it’s speed and tumbles out of the sky. The obvious problem being that maximum range will vary greatly depending on launch speed and altitude, so comparing the max range of two missiles with a single number is largely pointless unless you know the numbers for the two missiles reflect the same conditions.
If we assume a 10 km launch at Mach 2 head-on launch the AIM-120A has a maximum launch range of112 km in game (according to stat shark), vs primary sources stating the maximum launch range under those conditions is 125 km.
The best source currently available for MICA says it has a maximum range of over 80 km. It can achieve a maximum range of over 80 km in game.
The best source currently available for AMRAAM says it has a maximum launch range of 125 km under defined conditions. It can only achieve a maximum launch range of 112 km under those conditions in game (according to stat shark).
I was under the impression the A and B were stated to be 80km max range while the C7 was 120km and D even higher
I can only imagine the MBDA engineers making the missile during the 90s being « let’s make a HOB ARH missile so that we get an OP plane in a video game in 30 years »
Probably thought the same for ASRAAM, but alas, that isnt allowed
They should have integrated CAMM on air platforms, what can I say
AIM-120A/B are known to be UNDERperforming in range, not overperforming “by far” like you say.
The bug reports discussed here have the AIM-120A/B underperforming by ~13.3% in the first shot discussed and ~3.5% in the second shot for the tests vs non-maneuvering targets if you take the more conservative SS numbers. Moreso if you go with the in-game test results.
The second bug report indicates the AIM-120A/B are also underperforming vs maneuvering targets, though giving you an easy percentage number to represent by how much isn’t quite possible in that case.
If anything, according to currently available information, the AIM-120’s are artificially nerfed significantly more than the MICA-EM despite what the people in this thread like to pretend.
Essentially being done with the Tempest iirc
Yes so you are using a double standard.
AMRAAM A public info gives it 80km, and can fire at 120 or so in a set scenario (with a cooperative, non evading target).
MICA public info gives it 80km, and the same scenario wasn’t tested.
You are just trying to apply the scenario tested on AMRAAM to fit the narrative of “MICA = shorter range”, but there’s nothing proving the 80km results of this scenario. It just states “80+km”, basically just like AMRAAM A.
They’re not overperforming at all in fact, read again
The simple thing i’m stating is that MICA and early AMRAAM should basically reach the same range, which is currently not the case
Every nation’s players on their way to claim that their nation’s ARH specifically is the most nerfed (I am not immune to this, gimme my AAM-4 buffs gaijin).
AMRAAM is probably the weakest ARH in game at the moment and used by most nations
I have to say I don’t see the MICA reaching 125km on cooperative targets. It’s a smaller missile than the AIM120 and you can’t beat that. Considering the MICA NG should have 120km range, and that is mainly achieved through a bit more fuel and more importantly controlled dual pulse, I think its fair to say that in this situation the missile would at best reach 100km. Which would seem to not be far off from what fireball claimed before saying it could reach about 90km as of now
So 80km for cooperative targets and 50km aerodynamic range for the MICA sounds about right then
No, more like 90-100km for cooperative targets and 70-80 for maneuvering ones (best case scenario obviously, in principle a bit less), that could be achieved if the missiles lofted, and it managed to perform the VL configuration that it currently do not (50G at 7km, 30G at 12, max range of 20km)
Well this declassified report (dated 1992) gives a generic maximum range for AIM-120A (the only version that existed in 1992) as 60 nautical miles (111 km) for a high altitude head on launch.
I do have another declassified source which includes data from a large number of simulated AMRAAM firings. That one puts the maximum launch range at 125 km specifically for both aircraft at 10 km altitude, Mach 2, head on. However it presents the data rather unintuitively (a graph of F-POLE range vs speed & altitude, where you have to use a formula to convert F-POLE range to maximum range) and I can’t be bothered to write up a post explaining all that at this time of night. So you can either take my word for that, or roll with the 60 nautical miles figure; either way the max range is a lot more than 80 km.