Do we have masses of both propellants?
We have the AIM-120’s propellant mass from a primary source. The source from the Czech report states around 41.88kg for the MICA which is 100% believable based on the size of the propellant section of the missile and in comparison to other similar missiles.
Here is the reasoning I have for believing the MICA should have >750 m/s deltaV
Spoiler
The R-73 and PL-8 for example are similar weight missiles of similar caliber. (Pulling in-game data for these missiles right now).
MICA has ~41.88kg propellant weight
R-73 has 34kg propellant weight
PL-8 has 38.7kg propellant weight
Yet both R-73 and PL-8 exceed 800 m/s DeltaV and approach 900 m/s deltaV.
MICA’s propellant weight accounts for 37.4% of it’s overall mass.
R-73’s propellant weight accounts for 32.4% of it’s overall mass.
PL-8’s propellant weight accounts for 31.9% of it’s overall mass.
In conclusion, the MICA’s assumed propellant weight of 41.88kg would put it’s fraction of propellant weight higher than other missiles of similar size. Those missiles of similar size and with smaller fractions have a DeltaV approaching 900 m/s and therefore the MICA’s could be no less.
This is based on the Czech report’s propellant weight of course.
Also to reference Adrien’s post, the NASAMS AIM-120 had a range of ~15km. The MICA-VL has a range of ~20km.
If we then do the math from the Czech source, 20 km / 15km = 1.33 (33% increase in range from MICA to AMRAAM) when surface launched. The MICA has 11% smaller caliber, and a claimed DeltaV of 1152 vs the AIM-120s calculated 908.9.
That shows a 26.7% increase in DeltaV over the AIM-120 and an additional 33% increase in range. This perfectly matches both the claimed DeltaV of 1152 m/s for the MICA and the 11% reduction in caliber (and therefore lower drag). @Fireball_2020
1 Like
Furthermore, to compare NASAMS to VL-MICA, since the MICA is launched vertically with hot launch (the motor start in the launch tube) the 1second of the boost phase is used to get out of the tube and turn toward the target. On the other hand, the nasams launcher turn toward the target so it’s more optimised for the propulsion for long range shot (at the cost of minimum range).
1 Like
I would think it’s the opposite. That the MICA VL traveling straight up would let it be able to travel through thinner air and come down later, increasing the range. If it’s pointed horizontally across, then it would have less range that way.
2 Likes
The NASAMS still will be lofting. I don’t think the AIM-120A can go to 15km without lofting
I don’t think the difference would be a lot between the two but the time taken to turn the missile on the VL version would still reduce the range compare to a rotating turret.
Do you have any proof of this?
?? Community Bug Reporting System and the rest is already better on 530d
This is the main reason the 530d underperforms in game Community Bug Reporting System
Yes, two reports were submitted. One showing Super 530D was lacking in seeker range Macekeeks provided link to.
Another showing that Super 530D was lacking in kinetic performance.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/KlRVc90fclX9
Here’s the document used for both the seeker range and kinetic performance.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1031186687839195167/1145466728776745141/unknown-44_3-1.jpg
For seeker range, top scenario
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1031186687839195167/1145467322782453881/unknown_5-1.jpg
4 Likes
As well as i’m really impatient to see those changes applied i must admit that conidering the JAS 39C has been leaked by apparently an official leaker or a very good one i’d dare to say MICAs are arround the corner and that we won’t have to worry about 530D performances as much as we do now soon enough. Again this is a Wild guess it may be totally untrue.
If you talk about the pictures from today; these are deep fakes. (Though we know the Gripen C is coming, Gaijin literally confirmed it already, but we don´t know when exactly)
Well, I still want Mirage 2000C to be competitive, but someone pointed out that the Gripen statcard leak used the same stats from Viggen.
yeah that’s why i’m really careful when i said that it’s pure theory plus i didn’t know the grippen used a mauser 27 and such stats kind of confused me at first as this stat crad suggested Mirage 2000 stayed better in many aspects
1 Like
A little info on the VL-MICA with a comparison to the CAMM.
Warning : It’s long.
Spoiler
The MICA is objectively adapted to BVR: just look at its long wings, which can’t help in terms of maneuverability (hence the vectored thrust, with deflection in the jet, which significantly reduces thruster performance (the V2, whose deflectors were much less invasive in the feather, lost 7% thrust due to these deflectors. The situation must be worse on the MICA).
The basics of the MICA are excellent, for air-to-air. Transposing an excellent air-to-air missile onto a ground launcher (minus the marginal changes linked to ammunition storage) does not necessarily make a good ground-to-air missile.
The MICA’s combination of smooth BVR aerodynamics and hot launch is objectively not ideal for ground-to-air use.
Compactness and cold firing are clearly CAMM’s strengths for ground-to-air applications.
The CAMM is based on the ASRAAM but is very different. The main difference between the CAMM-ER (the completed version of the missile) and the ASRAAM is that the former is considerably heavier at launch, and that the extra internal volume has been used mainly to give the missile a long-burn capability that does not exist on the air-to-air missile, enabling the CAMM to approach the endgame with sufficient energy. This design choice is directly reflected in the launch weights of the two missiles, at 160kg and 88kg respectively. The CAMM-ER also features wings with a very high chord/span ratio, not unlike those of the MICA (or other advanced missiles, both AA and SA).
The ASRAAM’s manoeuvrability must also be kept in perspective, as it is weaker than that of a 9X or an Iris-T, but still superior to that of an AIM-120. This is insufficient for a close-combat missile, but a surface-to-air missile doesn’t have the same constraints, and must necessarily sacrifice maneuverability for range (and therefore have the lowest possible drag in the lower layers). The CAMM (tail control, no wing) and CAMM-ER (tail control + long streaks) aerodynamic formulas have been tried and tested in many robust ground-to-air systems (PAC-2/5V55/9M82/TK-III, RIM-67/RIM-161/9M38).
For the MICA NG, the aim of the double impulse is not to arrive propelled in the terminal phase, but to re-energize the missile mid-course. If we were to draw an analogy with the Aster, this second thrust phase is the equivalent of the delayed-ignition cruise engine of the terminal stage, not the PIF used to improve maneuverability on impact. What is true is that the MICA NG is able to announce a maximum kinematic range of 40km relatively close to that of the CAMM-ER, which is 45+km (the standard MICA doesn’t exceed 20km), and this for a much smaller initial mass. However, the choice of three-missile launchers, where the CAMM-ER is already available as an 8-munition ground-launcher, makes this advantage relatively obsolete.
What’s more, unlike the MICA (NG), the CAMM(-ER) benefits from a propulsion curve adapted to ground-to-air use. If the classic MICA is limited to 20km, it’s mainly because the missile’s thrust profile is optimized for dual BVR/WVR air-to-air use. The missile is developed for MA/HA firing at high initial velocity, hence the choice of an ultra-short burn time. In contrast, a medium- or long-range surface-to-air missile traditionally requires long thrust (or a dedicated cruise engine), to enable trajectory shaping followed by a phase of acceleration and exit from dense layers. While the MICA NG partially corrects the problem with dual-pulse, it remains a “makeshift” solution, since it was decided that the MICA NG and MICA NG VL missile propulsion systems would be identical (without optimizing the thrust profile for ground-to-air use, which would enable the missile to go further, with a more interesting energy profile).
For point defense, the consensus is that hot launch is a definite limitation due to the difficulty of pivoting to face the threat quickly. In fact, this is why all modern point systems use either cold launch or full orientation of the firing platform when hot launch is employed (typical case: the RIM-166). It is also understood that the aerodynamic formula of the MICA is not the most suitable for low-speed, low-altitude engagements (the typical case of ground-to-air, therefore), due to its optimization for a MA/HA + HV flight profile. For point defense, the traditional formulas are:
-Drag-minimizing aerodynamics (long steaks, rear control), coupled with cold launch and TVC to artificially increase pointing capacity at launch and thus compensate for reduced post-launch maneuverability,
-Aerodynamics maximizing manoeuvrability (integral tail+canard), coupled with hot launch, whose constraints are accepted due to the vector’s high mobility, making it possible to compensate in the autonomous phase (a somewhat out-of-fashion architecture, by the way).
Pictures of the VL-MICA command center:
Spoiler
My understanding from what MBDA has stated, is that it is flexible on this depending on the situation. The missile has its own smart guidance calculating the appropriate solution. That it can turn on the double impulse whenever it’d like rather than it being timed or delayed for a set amount of time. I.e. turning on during mid-course flight to chase a fleeing target or delaying the second booster if it knows it has enough energy to reach the target and will need the thrust vectoring against the maneuvering fighter.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1130197058083639306/1145482236116877392/and.jpg
yeah i was talking about max distance shot.
If you want to have the longest shot possible , you have to active the second pulse between 1/2 and 2/3 of the way there for maximum range.
For a 40km range shot , there will be no TVC for endgame interception.
It’s for closer shot that the motor will activate only like 10sec before impact to improve endgame maneuvrability and PK%
We’re in agreeance here. Also, MBDA let slip a little something about the MICA NG. “In firing from the surface, the MICA NG will be able to intercept targets beyond 40km.”
1 Like
“beyond 40km” is probably under 45km. We can maybe expect a 42/43km MAXIMUM range (where the missile really has 0 energy left and is just dropping on the target)
It has a new dual pulse motor, so not really a surprise given MICA VL is 20-25km
Well, motor can’t explain how the MICA NG doubled in range for VL while remaining at the same weight. Especially when MBDA states it only has 30% extra range in air to air application.
So for the MICA VL to go from 20km to 40km, a significant portion of that has to be from efficient guidance + extra battery time.