This also isn’t necessarily the way that 30G is achieved; more likely you fire at a target further away, and then see its speed mid way through. As if you had fired at an oncoming target.
Mach 1.2 comes from magic 2.
Mica however is much closer to super 530D/F, so that would be more relevant in comparison. However those are much larger.
Yes, but in reality the body lift and fin layout is very different from the magic 2*. It’s indeed closer to the 530 in shape, but that would also indicate a required speed much higher than say the magic2, so well over Mach 1, since the 530 is a missile that only picks up high G capacity at higher speed
with 1.65 Cx, 160mm diameter and the fixed engine, it’s subsonic past 10 clicks
And i honestly don’t mind it. First because i don’t know what speed it needs to be to hit 30G, anything less makes me raise an eyebrow however, one because it would be abnormally draggy, and 2 because it would basically be dead weight by the time it reaches 12km. I can paint a missile hitting 30G at transsonic speeds, however at medium subsonic speeds it means the control surfaces would basically not answer to the good old rules of physics (and it would question the installation of TVC in the first place)
Indeed, however mica is much lighter, and the proportions for the chord wing are different.
Not at all, TVC is for fast reaction of the rail and at low speeds.
The design of the mica is such that the fins produce AoA, and the body and chord wings produce the majority of the lift. Abit like ASRAAM.
Is there a similar graph for super 530 sitting around anywhere?
I wasn’t really in the reporting community when the 530 was reported, you’ll have to ask other people
1 Like
Do you really think it has GPS and knows exactly how much metres it travelled before self explosion? This is Gaijin’s doing. MICA and SRAAM both shouldn’t have this.
1 Like
Well, MICA does have Inertial navigation, which would be able to estimate the range its traveled as it knows speed and time.
SRAAM, I assumed was some game limitation regarding battery life or something from back when it was first added. Though it needs a total overhaul as its underperforming by crazy amounts. Though again. Distance can be estimated if a speed is known and it has a basic timer. GPS is not required for guessing distance traveled
If this would get brought up, I think MICA-EM would be awesome even at high speed launches.
I am just taking the claims at face value. Personally I think he has shopped for the highest possible values and the most generous interpretation of his sources.
There is a different MICA VL brochure that phrases the 50G and 30G claim differently.
In this context it might be reasonable to conclude the G values correspond to altitudes and not horizontal distance at sea level. They might actually just be using the values from the air launched version.
But DirectSupport always assumes the maximum possible interpretation and lobbies for that. He always assumes that France consistently understates it’s weapons performance so we should always use the highest number he can find. He also ignores or downplays when they have overstated their performance
So I’m showcasing the missile performance if it is modeled the way that he wants it.
4 Likes
I see, that makes more sense
MICA VL can’t even reach 12km of altitude, where are you even going with this ? X)
It can, in game and just about with fixes anyway
In game it can reach 9km barely, if your target is nice, does not move too much and is basically on top of you
Besides, it’s off point. The brochure claims 9.1km of max altitude but would give the manoeuvrability of 30G for 12km for altitude ?
I’ve seen some reasoning flaws in this thread, but come on, this one is quite a low bar
1 Like
Well yes it depends, if you mean literally reach 10km or you mean track a target who is at 10km(or whichever altitude we pick).
In this one regard. MBDA does seem to do this quite a bit. Like ASRAAM is stated as Mach 3+ but plenty of sources/evidence suggest more like Mach 4.5 and it states 25+ km range but again, plenty of sources suggest 40-50km with 1 CAMM source giving a range of 60km (though note, that is just distance traveled)
But I do agree with the rest though. Does feel like a lot of cherry picking of sources rather than an conservative estimate of all available sources
Indeed, doesn’t really make sense.
I think the source should be interpretted assuming a target relatively high though, like 20k ft and not at sea level. So the missile hasnt expended a huge amount of energy doing a hard turn to engage something relatively low and isnt sat in thick air the entire time.