Maximum range is typically given as the maximum range you can fire the missile at in a head on launch and have it hit the target. Aerodynamic range is how far the missile could theoretically fly before it loses all it’s speed and tumbles out of the sky. The obvious problem being that maximum range will vary greatly depending on launch speed and altitude, so comparing the max range of two missiles with a single number is largely pointless unless you know the numbers for the two missiles reflect the same conditions.
If we assume a 10 km launch at Mach 2 head-on launch the AIM-120A has a maximum launch range of112 km in game (according to stat shark), vs primary sources stating the maximum launch range under those conditions is 125 km.
The best source currently available for MICA says it has a maximum range of over 80 km. It can achieve a maximum range of over 80 km in game.
The best source currently available for AMRAAM says it has a maximum launch range of 125 km under defined conditions. It can only achieve a maximum launch range of 112 km under those conditions in game (according to stat shark).
I can only imagine the MBDA engineers making the missile during the 90s being « let’s make a HOB ARH missile so that we get an OP plane in a video game in 30 years »
AIM-120A/B are known to be UNDERperforming in range, not overperforming “by far” like you say.
The bug reports discussed here have the AIM-120A/B underperforming by ~13.3% in the first shot discussed and ~3.5% in the second shot for the tests vs non-maneuvering targets if you take the more conservative SS numbers. Moreso if you go with the in-game test results.
The second bug report indicates the AIM-120A/B are also underperforming vs maneuvering targets, though giving you an easy percentage number to represent by how much isn’t quite possible in that case.
If anything, according to currently available information, the AIM-120’s are artificially nerfed significantly more than the MICA-EM despite what the people in this thread like to pretend.
AMRAAM A public info gives it 80km, and can fire at 120 or so in a set scenario (with a cooperative, non evading target).
MICA public info gives it 80km, and the same scenario wasn’t tested.
You are just trying to apply the scenario tested on AMRAAM to fit the narrative of “MICA = shorter range”, but there’s nothing proving the 80km results of this scenario. It just states “80+km”, basically just like AMRAAM A.
Every nation’s players on their way to claim that their nation’s ARH specifically is the most nerfed (I am not immune to this, gimme my AAM-4 buffs gaijin).
I have to say I don’t see the MICA reaching 125km on cooperative targets. It’s a smaller missile than the AIM120 and you can’t beat that. Considering the MICA NG should have 120km range, and that is mainly achieved through a bit more fuel and more importantly controlled dual pulse, I think its fair to say that in this situation the missile would at best reach 100km. Which would seem to not be far off from what fireball claimed before saying it could reach about 90km as of now
No, more like 90-100km for cooperative targets and 70-80 for maneuvering ones (best case scenario obviously, in principle a bit less), that could be achieved if the missiles lofted, and it managed to perform the VL configuration that it currently do not (50G at 7km, 30G at 12, max range of 20km)
Well this declassified report (dated 1992) gives a generic maximum range for AIM-120A (the only version that existed in 1992) as 60 nautical miles (111 km) for a high altitude head on launch.
Spoiler
I do have another declassified source which includes data from a large number of simulated AMRAAM firings. That one puts the maximum launch range at 125 km specifically for both aircraft at 10 km altitude, Mach 2, head on. However it presents the data rather unintuitively (a graph of F-POLE range vs speed & altitude, where you have to use a formula to convert F-POLE range to maximum range) and I can’t be bothered to write up a post explaining all that at this time of night. So you can either take my word for that, or roll with the 60 nautical miles figure; either way the max range is a lot more than 80 km.
You’re literally claiming they are overperforming though. Regardless of how you try to weasel your way out of it.
There IS primary source information that the AMRAAM is underperforming in range, its been reported and accepted, but not actioned.
There ISNT any currently available information that the MICA is underperforming in range. The missile reaches and exceeds the currently stated minimum figures available.
The standard being applied is “best publicly available information”, which is being applies equally to both missiles. You are arbitrarily trying to use a different standard “public range for both missiles is 80-km+, so AMRAAM is overperforming” because it suites your position (either that AIM-120 is “overperforming” or that MICA-EM is “underperforming”) better.
P.S: Sources for the AMRAAM range are declassified an publicly available, making them “public range”, you’re just picking a lower public figure as a point of comparison because the other figures don’t suite your narrative, which is even more embarrassing.
Depends what you mean by “reach”. It won’t travel that far of course, but if the target is 80km from the launch point by the time the missile gets there, it should theorically hit, at least according to what’s currently known (assuming high altitude and good launch parameters, of course)
In other words it should “travel” 80km, just like AMRAAM A.
To be fair, the AIM-120 irl has an insane active life doesn’t it? like in the range of multiple minutes. So I could very easily see it hitting something at a long range mach 2 head on just by sheer loiter time. So I dunno how well that head on range translates to effective range.
You like misinterpreting people. He claims that MICA should perform just as well as 120A/B. That’s completely different.
On the rest of your points, I do agree that we can’t compare publicly available data from the 120 to… well, unavailable data from MICA. Especially since France has history of defining range differently from the US, i don’t think we should directly compared publicly claimed 80km values from both missiles
The rest of the discussion on MICA ranges (at least from my part) are just assumptions considering other factors. Currently, it does not loft (but also has a bit too much DeltaV). It should also have a better range from ground launched configuration. Hence why I would personally say it’s range is likely somewhat underperforming, but would not perform nowhere near what you guys claim for the AIM120 A/B
