Oh, so there is a one set range? I have seen SHROAD be called well up to 30km, but if there is a singular definition, then please, share the document covering it.
Same with Medium Range. I see it called up to 100km, interesting it is 50km.
1 Like
Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies
on the same source:
SAMP/T Aster 30:
UK modern systems:
CAMM is a based ASRAAM SAM (similar to what Germany and france did with IRIS-T SL series and MICA VL series)
and yet, you speak of 50km bubble.
but you have to understand too, that a missile having 40km range, can intercept ennemies coming from outside such range.
be it 50km bubble for 40km missile range seems appropriate to me.
That is not what the talk is about.
You say:
I say: back it up with a source stating these are short medium long ranges.
As for the range disparity. 40km is SLM effective, against unspecified targets, not max. Just as is SLS 12km effective. So 15 and 50 max is more than believable against for example flying straight target.
1 Like
yes, but no:
i’m not going through all the NATO documents regarding IAMD layers to found 1 graphic.
it’s common sense,…
Aswell as it is for different missiles, depending on purposes (SAM have their charts, AAM have theirs, Cruise Missiles have theirs depending on Nuclear or Conventionnal, and firing solution (from ground or air).
anyway,… “Up to” means Max. Range, not Effective (quote from SLM part)
and i found much more reliable to check onto Specialists and Manufacturer datas , than a Ministerial presentation.
if it was effective range, then MICA would be 80km missile as many other missiles, since those 70-80km range are the ones comming from both manufacturer and Taiwanese results.
Cool, but I didn’t dispute ranges.
I suppose I should have worded my original message as “To my knowledge the only somewhat reliable source…”
Missilery.Info is a random website, it’s not a reliable source by itself. The article cites four sources, I can’t find a copy of “Jane’s Defence Weekly, 11/I 2006”, but none of the other three sources mention it being capable of Mach 3.
As I said in my original comment, there is very little in the way of reliable evidence to support the claim that VL MICA is capable of reaching Mach 3. And it reaching Mach 3 would require a significantly higher delta-V than people think it’s likely, based on primary source information.
So Mulatu did find a primary source stating 100km range, not 100km range class but 100km range.
It can’t reach 100km even with increased battery time to 100 seconds with both launch aircraft and target aircraft going Mach 2 at 10km alt.
1 Like
Are you planning on making that report ?
10 extra km would be nice.
Although tbf I personally doubt the 80 (or 100km) figure is for a Mach 2 intercept, it’d still be a buff.
1 Like
yeah that battery life really kills it…
tried with a su-27sm going basically rip speed at 12km alt at 2400 kph and a mirage 2k going 2300 kph…
still won’t hit even though the missile itself still is going mach 1.9 when it self destructs
1 Like
I increased battery life from 70 second to 100 second. Didn’t change much on it.
It’s for sure added to the list of reports to be done soon.
so mica should be buffed to 80 or 100 km? which one is it (MICA EM)
Seeing as one primary source states >80km range and another states 100km range. It makes sense to get it buffed to 100km range, which could be achieved by simply increasing the loft angle I would think.
1 Like
yeah I hope next major, but gaijin can drag it till next year
if only MICA-EM was already buffed to 80km as advertized since early 2000’s by MBDA.
it would at least be realistic by public datas available (remember that Taiwan trials made it over 50km, with ease)
also, i also think of MICA-NG EM/IR that are incoming soon in service, which had an objective to increase range of 20km. (so 100km for EM NG // 80km for IR NG)
Could it be possible that not only it has more fuel because of shrunk electronics, but electronics themselves are better - netting more battery time?
120 km and 100 km for NG EM and NG IR respectively?
That objective to increase range by 20km was for VL. For surface to air, MICA VL went from 20km to 40km for MICA NG VL
It is 100% (2x) increased range in vertical launch and 40%+ increased range in air to air.
It def has to include increased battery time for sure.
Not to be that guy but I’m not really sure buffing the Rafale is a top priority right now
1 Like