The literally states its talking about the requirement, you can review a requirement in retrospective.
Nope, it’s a hard coded limit in the files, you can find it in stat shark here :
The battery is currently 70s, and for a high speed high altitude shot, it will usually self explode at 65, so it would need to be adjusted to 80s maybe, not really a major change tbh
Also, i forgot about the loft, that one should be fixed from 5° to 20°, as basically every other missiles.
Eh, debatable, the change would give even more velocity at closer ranges, leading to an even shorter reaction time. The missile would also become a threat at longer range, though i will concede would be a bit more comfortable to dodge at medium ranges.
A mixed bag basically
I am an engineer studying aerospace content myself btw.
No I have always been adamant that it was around 3.5s, it was 3.7s in the video, and the new source suggests slightly less than 3.5s.
To be fair devs have given the Brits a hard time about documents that show “requirements” but doesn’t specify whether those requirements have been met so it would only have been a matter of time before the devs stated the same thing to us unless evidence shows it was met.
Then yes, hard limit removal is fair.
Yeah, thats fine, its probably set to reduce impact time at 50km and so will change.
It owuld but would be far less potent in HOBS as it would loose far more energy without a sustainer getting it through the turn. Also as a TVC missile, without something burning, it would loose that agility and owuld only acheive high G for the first 3-3.5 seconds.
And that as well
I’m also an engineer who studied aerospace stuff. Doesn’t mean I’m confortable with aerodynamics and stuff (specialized in materials)
2 Likes
And does modeling it this way meet the MICA VL claim if Mach 3 and retained speed of Mach 1.2 at 13km from a sea level launch to sea level target. If not then you have not met the key set points that DirectSupport has been arguing for.
It is true that reducing the burntime currently would affect its turn performance. There’s source materials that would/could allow the MICA to turn better within those 3 seconds though to help mitigate (to some extent) those concerns.
There is no claim of Mach 3 btw.
Depends what pathway and specialisations you have taken as you say.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OoskoLXRLTgx
The claim is right here.
As far as I know I haven’t seen DirectSupport abandon these two data point that he has extrapolated from old brochures and by comparing a different missile.
That is one secondary source. So still a claim. Whereas the top speed air launched is well sourced at Mach 4-4.5
So then why did you say that there was no claim?
Bad phrasing, I meant that Mach 3 isn’t a commonly claimed/well known attribute of mica-VL, mbda have never claimed that.
If it were Mach 3 capable in VL, it would also be Mach 5 capable.
No it does not
Sources are contradicting each other, so i try to get something that fits in the middle, but it means extremes such as a gain of speed of 1000m/s with drag included or the famous “750m/s max speed” are left out. The first because some phrasing can be left to interpretation, and the second because despite being a primary source, it was written in a context where MICA VL’s capabilities were understated, not to mention that we don’t know if we are refering to MICA IR or EM, so interpretation once again.
It’s not perfect, because gaijin physics aren’t perfects, but considering what we know it seems like a reasonable equilibrium. Maybe one day something will definitely prove that MICA is on weeds and can accelerate to 1000m/s with drag taken into account, or maybe an other source will show this missile was in fact a 112kg piece of garbage that can’t even reach Mach 2.2 and is somehow slower than a Stinger, but in the meantime, i will go with an in-between that seems more reasonable
That still doesn’t change the fact that I have not really seen anyone abandon this Mach 3 number nor this 30G at 13km (when measured horizontally in respect to the ground). This 30G number is under aerodynamic performance in a later MICA VL brochure and for all we know could just be a G value for a given altitude.
I’ll copy paste the relevant part of another post I made in the Rafale thread.
Represented here is the time to impact for 4 missiles on symmetrical Mach 1.6 engagement with a missile launch range of 80km. The blue missile represents the current MICA as it exists, the orange is Aim-120, and red is R-77-1. The other two MICAs represent modifications to the base missile; the green is simply the current MICA but with AMRAAM lofting profile and no self destruct, and the purple is the same but with its diameter reduced and a 1.4 drag coefficient which mimics a suggestion earlier in the thread.
Simply changing the lofting profile brings its long range performance directly in line with AMRAAM. Changing its diameter and drag makes it superior to the R-77-1 at range. And guess what…none of them will meet the Mach 3 vertical launch set point or the Mach 1.2 retained energy set point at 13km from a sea level to sea level launch. These are the set points that DirectSupport wants the missile to reach based on stringing together an old MICA VL brochure and data on the Magic II.
In order to approach those the 1.2 retained speed requirement, the missile drag has to be further reduced. In order to meet the Mach 3 set point and the 1.2 setpoint the lofting profile, thrust, and drag has to be changed.
The missile in red represents one that meets both requirements. Green is only modeled as further reduced drag to meet the final setpoint and blue is standard MICA.
How would these missiles look in game? Well lets go back to our BvR scenario.
Every version of the modified MICA ends up having a time to impact that is less than the R-77-1 which is currently the best missile in the game as far as straight line BvR kinematics.
The story doesn’t get any better at close range either. Improved MICA would have an even shorter time to impact at close ranges. It would be a 10% improvement over current MICA and R-77-1.
Now even if we ignore the Mach 3 claim but keep the 1.2 Mach at 13km figure… what do you think happens to the missile performance? In order to get that value the drag of the missile would have to be significantly decreased.
I understand his claims and wants. Mach 3 is not feasible for mica VL, it’s only been mentioned once in a random secondary source.
The G-pull at distance is definitely a fair metric, and has been used in the past to model mica in game to my knowledge. The issue I believe is that mica can’t pull hard enough with fins. Because its speed at 12km is only going to be about Mach 1.
The actual minimum requirement figure is 30G at over 12km. Edit : also could apply to the IR or EM, this is not stated, as always when it comes to most MICA brochures
Mach 1.2 and 13km is just interpretation by @DirectSupport because he assume that over 12 km means at least 13km, and also assumes that the missile needs to go at Mach 1.2 to achieve 30G. I personally don’t know how fast the missile would need to go to get this G load value tho.
Fireball assumes around Mach 1 I believe