https://x.com/SebLecornu/status/1935934727292068193?s=19
First test firing of the new MICA NG. To be ready in 2028 and deployed later on Rafale
5 Likes
Since it’s been test fired now should be eligible to be added.
IR one at least
1 Like
I think he’s talking about the IRL missile while you are mentioning the in game one
According to the doc we have MICA and AMRAAM-A are indeed quite close
Mica’s got a smaller warhead and a smaller diameter overall, which might explain the similar range despite the difference in weight. That and the 5 years difference between the 2 missiles
The docs I’ve seen dont explicitly state 80km travel distance. Only 80km range, which it can achieve in game no issue. The battery life might be too short. But good luck finding sources for that. It never seems to be stated anywhere.
But MICA EM is by far the most stupidly OP missile in game right now. That basically nothing can compete with. Not even Aim-120C5. So would need some pretty major nerfs or mitigations for the Rafale and Mirage 2K for MICA EM to be buffed.
@Kishin_SR6
Mica is smaller, and more importantly lighter, which makes long ranges particularly difficult, it’s in a different class to AMRAAM.
Although it most likely has a longer battery life than 120B and a more refined loft. It is difficult to get extended ranges out of a smaller missile.
We went over the “range” vs “travelled distance” quite extensively already
When it comes to modern missiles, the same standard should be applied to every nation, as there’s no way for any modern missile to know how their respective nations really test them. The only thing we have to go by is a mere number in some commercial brochure for most 2000+ missiles.
If you want to apply a different standard for each nation fine, but then it will just end up like the manpads thing where everyone (and especially gaijin) goes by the “we assume” argument all the time.
I will also remind you that MICA VL and the SL AMRAAM are usually advertised with a range in the same ballpark (20km for MICA VL, 20-25 ish for SL AMRAAM early variants).
I don’t disagree on that one mind you. If we could habe more info on the engine, maybe it could finally be bug reported at once. What’s for sure is that there’s one area where MICA is overperforming right now, which is speed. I’m surprised it’s not discussed more, tbh, because it’s the most obvious issue with the missile as it stands, and one of the reasons it’s so good at close ranges as well (little reaction time for the opponent)
And yet with the modification you proposed in your own bug report (nerfed engine, more residual weight, similar Cx to AMRAAM, normal loft), it could reach 80km no problem, if fired with the proper parameters of course.
The small engine section on the missile could also, quite ironically, explain why the missile can retain some energy at range, despite it being quite light weight.
So eiher Gaijin’s formula are so wrong they would give a missile overperforming by 30km while the french somehow use a different standard to measure their missile range compared to anyone else, or the MICA can indeed reach 80km IRL
Don’t know about “no problem” for high altitude and speed launches sure. But it’s still not going to go toe to toe with amraam…
and the Aim-120A/B is modeled not using that, but National Archive docs Flame found from their operation in the RAF/FAA.
So its range isnt based upon a brochure.
I dont want to be “that guy” but i wouldnt be surprised if some sources have been found and simply havent been submitted. But no idea how you would go about reporting that without sources.
But probably because everyone complains about AMRAAMs better range, even though that might be one of the least important attributes at top tier at the moment. Heck, even in this discussion of MICA EM vs AMRAAM, only the range is being mentioned.
But there are year+ old reports to buff AIm-120A/B quite a bit and C5 is an absolute joke, but you normally get laughed at if you try to suggest buffs for them.
I had an Aim-120C5 defeated tonight at a range of 5km. If that had been a MICA, they would be instantly killed
They would have to be quite exceptional conditions actually, for a parity launch at 1500km/h at 6KM. It hits at 40km(launching from 80), and is M0.93 at that point.
Usually the case for any claimed range number, is it’s the effective head on range for a broadly average set of conditions. Not the travel range.
1 Like
That’s mainly what I was getting at with the motor report, it’s quite a ridiculous model right now.
buffs for C5 are quite overdue at this point. I don’t really know who’d be laughing about that tbh, it’s quite obvious the missile doesn’t offer advantages over the B as it currently stands
Would have to search it back, but MBDA usually mentions “mach 4+” or “mach 4.5” as the max speed for the missile
Get a Rafale high and fast enough and you can make that thing hypersonic currently in game
My bet is, we don’t really now. Except for the AMRAAM A report, we don’t really have any source on any other missile, be it MICA, Derby, R-77s, only guesswork at best.
6km is quite low, i wouldn’t expect a MICA to travel 80km if launched at such a poor altitude
1 Like
You would need to nearly double its range via increased altitude and speed, maybe, but that’s not really a feasibke shot to advertise.
It’s possible, but you would require the launch to be at approximately 2000km/h and 12km, oh and that’s with a 120s battery life too. Top speed of Mach 4.2, I haven’t seen any claims much in excess of Mach 4.
Most sources say over Mach 3.5, one claims Mach 4 (I am not certain its primary, but chances are it is). I don’t think I’ve seen higher values
Which works, the top speed for my lower-end energy launch was M3, so the typical top speed is somewhere between Mach 3 and 4.
This works too because MICA-VL isn’t claimed to be Mach 3, its velocity in game would actually only be about Mach 2-2.2
Doubling the altitude yes
speed ? not so much
10-12 km is not unusual at the start of a BVR fight
Here, with the missile we used in the MICA VL thread a while ago (nerfed engine, normal loft, Cx of 1.425, like AMRAAM)
That’s the same as AIM120C-5, bearing in mind both missiles are more or less from the same year (96 for mica, 98 for C5).
Don’t quote me on that, but most batterylife are guesswork in game anyway afaik
@Kishin_SR6 @DirectSupport is there actually a decent source for VL MICA reaching Mach 3? As far as I can see MBDA have never made that claim.
The only source given for a Mach 3 top speed is this document from an Indian think tank, which is secondary at best: https://www.cppr.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Rafale-Aircraft–the-Untold-Story–Part-II.pdf
As far as I can see none of the references they provide back up the claim of VL MICA reaching Mach 3. And the fact that they have resorted to referencing a business insider article about the Rafale has me doubtful that they have access to any high quality non-public sources.
1 Like
Or… or it can just go up in BR as soon as we get higher BRs, and be replaced at this BR by the Rafale M F.1
1 Like