I could’ve sworn I remember seeing they B had like 140? Although i may be misremembering, it’s been a while since i’ve looked at anything pertaining to amraams.
The Tornado F.3 manual puts the battery life of AIM-120B at 80 seconds.
Kkay
So the answer to his question is “no”…
For the record, a target with the M2.0 at 10km alt parameters over an 80s battery life equals a target horizontal travel of 47942.4m, putting the intercept range from the point of launch out to 77057.6m, giving the AIM-120A an average horizontal velocity of 963.22m/s (M3.21) over the course of that flight (actual average velocity would be higher, since there is the loft component to account for).
So it does check out to the 120km claim huh.
Anyway, I think it’s getting a bit off topic now (even if it’s very interesting)
No, once again
I think AMRAAM performs more or less how it should (lacking a bit range yes, but not that much)
It can reach 120km in a head on scenario (in fact it does not really reach it, since the target basically does half the work). In the meantime, A variant of AMRAAM usually comes with the figure 80km of max range.
If the missile travels about 80km, and your target 40km in the opposite direction, then it hits a “120km” shot
All i’m stating, is that MICA should basically behave the same, as public sources also state an 80km max range.
I fail to see what’s hard to understand really
Yeah i think we’re done here if you don’t have anything else to add
As MIG_23M said eralier better than i ever could :
MBDA must use an other standard of measurement to calculate its missile range really, because selling something in a scenario where your target does everything it shouldn’t is the way to go ^^’
(/s, if it wasn’t obvious)
There’s no way mica has higher min range than r-77-1 or r77
Spoiler
(should say rear hemisphere for both)
at least we have stated launch parameters and battery life for amraam. mica, we know nothing other than max range. it could go either way.
Meh to that for a couple of reasons :
- First because it’s non sensical to measure a missile range this way.
- Secondly because of the VL version :
NASAMs figures give a 20-25km range, more or less in the same ballpark as MICA VL.
50km of max “travelled range” for MICA from a high altitude air launch is no where in the same ballpark as “80km travelled range” for AMRAAM B, let alone the claimed 120 for the AMRAAM C.
80 is though
Could make sense considering MICAs brutal acceleration. Also depends on what they mean by 500m. Or maybe it’s just fuse related. Too much variable on this one imo
There’s sources stating 300m from behind, 1km from the side and 1.5km head on engagement distances on that side of the spectrum
1 Like
What’s FDC ? Cause without knowing what it is, it looks to me like it’s not actually missile range ?
yeah mb
I’ll edit
No publicly stated figure explicitly states the AIM-120A/B has an 80km+ “travelled range”. The 80km+ range you are obsessed with stating was simply the AMRAAM’s old publicly stated max range (no mention of it being “travelled” range), which is superseded by Flames 125km max launch range under known extreme conditions source which itself does not reach the 80km+ travelled range you are assuming to be what “80km+” refers to.
You are just choosing the interpret “max range” as “travelled range” because it fits your narrative.
5km (25-20) is a 25% increase in range between the 2 btw, which is not really “in the same ballpark” when you think about it in any other way than the super simplistic “5km is a small number” kind of way…
1 Like
anyways R-77 is the most nerfed cus they can’t model dynamic drag.
it’s better what it is in game than irl likely being honest
1 Like
People it’s getting off topic
2 Likes
i was joking , but maybe yea its probably better at low alt than it is irl. but at high alt its worse than irl.
And you’re doing the same by interpreting it as 80km in a head on scenario ?
Remind me the difference between 50 and 80, expressed as a percentage ?
Regarding that 25%, MICA VL was developped to be VLS compatible, not NASAMS, so it could also be part of the explanation (more turning to do). Not to mention a fast acceleration but low burn time would not help in low dense air compared to an up high altitude shot
This might be a little hard to understand but the “max” in “max range” generally does imply more or less “ideal” launch conditions yes…
I’m not against increasing the coded in max travel distance, I frankly dont care about that number whatsoever. What I’ve said before and what others here have explained themselves is that the 50km max travel distance is effectively irrelevant to the MICA’s performance at long range, since its not actually the limiting factor in-game.
Even launched under absolutely ideal conditions, the MICA-EM fired at a 90km range (fits the 80km+ stated range) is not travelling more than 50km, so the 50km range coded in the game is 100% irrelevant to its max range in-game.
1 Like
To be fair there it states less than 500m.
1 Like