So what about this presentation showing VL MICA to have 750 m/s speed?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
MBDA presentations is reliable in that what can be shown is the floor or bare minimum. Even the current MICA figures are still understated values, although we have to model what is stated. To provide an example, take a look at this:
This is in the current modern brochure you can readily find online:
Note the 30G at 12km figure
Now this is what I came across when I went through MBDA archive websites:
3 Likes
So you can see here that modern brochures may state possible 30G at 12km but in older archives, 30G is possible still past 12km.
In-game, the MICA does not have the energy or speed to be able to do 30G at 13km let alone 12km. Maybe it is a mixture of loft guidance and speed. It is likely that developers will take a look at its trajectory/guidance logic before they start reducing the drag on the MICA, similar to what they have done for AIM-120A.
I still think that’s the impulse rating, which would give you a fuel mass of 30.55kg.
sustainers mostly do increase the speed indeed, no matter the launch parameters.
Of course they’ll increase the speed more or less depending on launch parameters (mainly if fired at low speed, or at high altitude, and even more if there’s a combination of the 2)
If launched vertically with a straight up trajectory, the missile will be 4000m at least by the time it reaches its peak velocity, where mach 3 would be 974 m/s
If the target is lower, the missile will do a turn and lose less energy to gravity, although it will probably lose more to drag induced by high AoA. Not sure it would reach mach 3 in that case, maybe more around M 2.85-2.9.
Still, to the present day, and after testing multiple scenarios (straight vertical shot to high target, straight up to middle altitude target, and shot on lower target), the best i could reach was M 2.56 at 2000m or 851 m /s. So basically 250 m/s lost on the initial DV
The missile was also below M0.9 at 12km after no aggressive maneuvering, meaning it wouldn’t be able to pull the advertised 30G at this range
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/fVxq4GpLjbPO
MICA EM is missing over-the-shoulder capability
8 Likes
Where does the assumption that it will be able to reach a peak speed of 974 m/s at 4km come from? Is that in-game data?
With 1,100 m/s deltaV that is already quite spectacular.
1 Like
I think he is just saying Mach 3 at 4km alt = 974m/s, not in reference to any missile in particular
2 Likes
I’ll try to clarify a bit, please excuse the long explanation :
Currently, in game, it reaches 850 m/s as its maximum speed.
But as DirectSupport said, i was just clarifying that M3 is in fact 974 m/s, not 1028 m/s at 4 km altitude, because i though it would be the altitude of burn off (test below shows i was overestimating it a bit). I just did that clarification because drak_claw was pointing out that a missile losing 66 m/s to gravity and still going mach 3 (1028m/s at sea level) would need to have virtually 0 drag, which is a good point mind you.
So i redid the test to check the burn off altitude (i thought it would be 4km high for a straight up shot) :
The missiles burns out at an altitude of roughly 3.3 km (taking into account the 3.4km travelled on the capture and taking into account the fact that the flight path isn’t totally vertical)
This means a rough speed of 846 m/s, meaning a loss of 256 m/s compared to the initial Delta V, of which 66m/s are accounted for gravity, leaving us with a loss of 190 m/s to drag alone.
Assuming we had a MICA reaching mach 3, the burn out would occur slightly higher due to the velocity being better during the burn. If we assume a burn out occuring to 3.6km high, it means the missile would be 978 m/s, meaning a loss of 66 m/s to gravity still, and a loss of 58 m/s to drag.
All in all, the MICA currently experiences an average 3G deceleration during its burn due to drag alone from a static firing position, while the fixed one would experience a 1G deceleration during its burn due to drag alone, still from a fixed position.
That is assuming the delta V and burn time in game are correct of course.
That’s where my explanation stops, as i don’t have all the data regarding burn time, DV and Cx of MICA to conclude anything.
Some sources suggest MICA VL can reach Mach 3, and there’s still the problem of MICA not being able to reach 30G at 12km, so it’s still undeniable there is a problem somewhere
4 Likes
But it should not do mach 3 vertical and the maneuvering capability is temporarily hampered to prevent the funny spin issue it shares with R-73
The day the snail manages to properly tune a PID controller for a decently modern missile will be a day to be remembered.
3 Likes
Been having issues with MICA lately, ‘hitting’ people for zero damage. Turns out the warhead is 1/2 the size of the AIM-120, but the proximity fuse is identical. No wonder. The missile needs a proximity fuse copied from the AIM-9D/C (similar warhead explosive mass), instead of AIM-120 (2x MICA explosive mass). Or the warhead is wrong, which also might be possible.
1 Like
Or gaijin could implement its historic directional warhead so that the decreased mass doesn’t impact its lethality. Not that they have the desire or technical ability to do that.