The "Silent Killer" Missile - MBDA MICA - Performance and Discussion Thread (WIP)

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
429

you’re the one misspreadingly things,…
and yet you’re the one gettting angry about being pointed out your own mistakes?

bro,… if only people could be less emotionnally unstable and more inclined to read facts, this forum’s moderators would have far less troubles to solve,…

the problem is not that i pointed you out,… but what you think it means, is the actual problem.
can’t have people being factually right, without creating a E-WorldWar 9999121368541265613181320165 (or am i already out of 2 billion?)

you feel attack, and your Ego told you to attack me back,… you’re acting childlishly when told that you’re basically not entirely right.

if you wanna keep a war, then do it,… but frankly i was you making such reactive post many times and you might learn to calm down sometimes.

430

Dude what? Is English not your native language because I feel there may be a misinterpretation of what I said here.

I said they’re the exact same, you said they were not and I accepted this but also said it is needlessly pedantic as it has 0 functional effect. You doubled down and I reiterated how it has zero functional effect. You now reply with a rant about how I need to be less emotional? That makes no sense. I did not insult you in any way.

I promise you if you test notching every single ARH in the exact same conditions they will all do the exact same thing.

431

PID isn’t a seeker thing though, it’s guidance laws only.

The only difference between MICA and 120 is the fact that it accelerates faster, which affects the notch sector slightly, but even that isn’t specific to the seeker, it’s just a result of a harder acceleration on MICA, instead of longer acceleration like AMRAAM

If we want to be pedantic, @SidewaysCube946 is right, both seekers on AMRAAM and MICA are strictly the same in game

13 Likes
432

Do the Devs not comprehend F=MA ?

If you have a “smaller projectile,” meaning a projectile with a smaller mass (m) compared to another, according to the equation “F=ma,” it will experience a smaller acceleration (a) when subjected to the same force (F) as the larger projectile, because a smaller mass will require less force to achieve the same acceleration; essentially, the smaller projectile will be easier to accelerate with the same force applied.

Meaning Mica should be able to achieve nearly identical range if not greater than missiles with greater mass.

Why do the devs think a Very high thrust lightweight missile which accelerates better due to having less overall mass to accelerate would have less range than a heavier missile with less and or equivalent thrust.

It’s like saying a bow with a set value of force it can exert every time would somehow allow an arrow of greater mass to go further than a lighter weight lower mass arrow. with both arrows being nearly identical except one has greater mass than the other.

The equation for Kinetic Energy is: KE = 1/2 mv2. Kinetic energy has a direct relationship with mass, meaning that as mass increases so does the Kinetic Energy of an object . The same is true of velocity.

Unless the input energy is greater in the lower mass object.

Because it travels at a slower speed due to its increased weight, meaning it loses energy more quickly in flight and therefore won’t reach the same distance; a lighter object will typically fly further with a flatter trajectory.
That is how physics works…

Especially when the manufacturer has blatantly stated its range is on par, if not better than older missiles.

With Mica being stated having a range of 60-80 km and 120-A being around 32 km

Seems like the devs think they are smarter than the Engineers at multi million dollar aerospace defense agencies whom have IQ’s, degrees and a base comprehension of physics of way higher quality than them.

“Sure … there is no bias to be found here”

" A landslide of point backing factual knowledge and common sense vs Nah i’m right because … Ignorance"

1 Like
433

No ?
F=ma,
If m is smaller, then a is larger for the same force. Re-read yourself before putting factually false things in bold (especially when it’s such an obvious mistake)
Also, while your reasoning has some truth to it, in a vacuum, please do something for me, and try to throw a rock, and throw a paper ball with the same force.
The paper ball will not go as far, because you are forgetting drag. Drag will have more influence on the speed of lighter objects (with the surface area being the same).

Overall, I agree with the point you are making, just not how you make it, as you oversimplify to much. The diameter of the MICA is still to big in game, which mean more drag for a lighter missile.
The missile also wobbles, which increase its induce drag way to much compared to other missiles. And the MICA is also hard coded to detonate at 50km.

6 Likes
434

I don’t know if it has been posted here but MBDA recently updated its website and features a new page for the MICA NG, with a range claim of “up to 40% increase over MICA”, alongside other things

2 Likes
435

So 112 km range at high altitude and high closure speed. If we take that MICA-EM has 80 km range.

1 Like
436

Mica ir ng should be 70km then with a 40% increase, hoped for more for both heard a lot about 80km no clue from where.

Hopefully those numbers are slightly higher than that in reality.

Otherwise on the ng variant of the ir mbda say that it provides IRSTS but i have no clue what this means is it just the fact that the missile also help the plane with their own IRST ?

437

image
image2940×1238 182 KB

Yet another source for the diameter lmao

438

The irst is already a feature of the current mica. It means that the plane can use the missile sensor as an IRST when the missile is on the rail

439

i got 84 km and not 70

afaik MICA IRs range is around 60km

440

It is well-known that MBDA often understates the ranges of their weapons, especially early on after its development. Other sources state 60% increased range which is more in line with MBDA’s claim of the MICA NG having 100% increase in vertical launch range.

So 60km to 100km for MICA NG IR, and 80km to 130km for MICA NG EM.

12 Likes
441

Did I hear automatically detonating at 55km? What an improvement!

2 Likes
442

I do wonder. In game MICA is the fastest missile if we don’t count Fakour-90, but it loses all its speed quickly and also for some reason it doesn’t have good lofting. If we increase battery time, loft profile height, add more fuel to the booster/sustainer with maybe better efficiency and remove TVC twitching (with improved drag too)… I could see it being 130 km in WT.

443

That would probably be incorrect. The missile thrust and fuel load is most probably correct as of now.
80km effective range would be more plausible. Currently the MICA lacks kinetic energy to effectively maneuvering at below 50km

Edit : I can’t read did not see it was about the NG

3 Likes
444

People coping about the MICA being good at the thing it’s supposed good at is funny, especially when they compare it to AMRAAM.

I suppose everyone thinks the grass is always greener on the other side.

3 Likes