I did not deny drones were not SAM killers, i just said that a detection of 15m/s is not going to change that. Besides, you could probably detect a decently sized quadcopter even with a low speed because of the rotors once again
A lot could be said about MICA VLs downsides, but the radar just ain’t it
Sure, but that’s not a MICAs problem then, but a game limitation one. Which should be changed, by the way, since some helicopters are going to receive invisible shielding to IIR sensors next patch
Link ?
Ok, so now i’m confused :
Except it’s far too stable and continuous to be what you describe
Main stage burning :
Less than 1 second later :
and 2s after that :
It’s just too consistant to be residual heat, which would instead slowly fade away. Instead the flame just brutally reduces for 1 second, then stays stable for 2-2.5s and then suddenly cut off :
ok that makes more sense
Also you can see they dont mark it as 2 stage
FWIW while I believe MICA doesn’t have a sustainer, a single stage motor doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a sustainer. A missile could have both booster and sustainer and still be single stage.
Yes, however we know it’s also just boost only so.
I guess i was not precise enough.
I did not meant 2 stage as with a discarding booster.
I meant burning stages, and you can see, unlike other missiles, there is no divide inside the motor section on roxel page.
Yes we’ve had that conversation already. I’ve also stated that a boost-sustainer modeling in-game gives a better accurate modeling of a boost-only missile due to better modeling the ramp-up and ramp-down in thrust of missiles.
Okay that makes a lot more sense.
Don’t believe that is the case, the ramp up and ramp down contribute about <5% of the time. And the change in thrust through the burn itself is close enough to be easily averaged. The only way you would model two burns would be a boost boost motor, which again wouldn’t make much sense to model.
I don’t think the size should be taken into account too much, since the diameters and shapes are all over the place, but it gives a bit more info on MICA NG’s 3rd stage (maybe 2nd stage then, if the main boost has no sustainer ?)
30 years of electronics development for this little cylindrical section X) :
Nothing in that diagram is properly to scale, people really need to stop using it for size comparisons. For example if you assume the width of the air launched MICA to be 160 mm then proportionally it is only 2.6 m long in that image (real missile is 3.1 m long).
Or for another example Meteor is only 6.9% longer than MICA in the diagram, but is 17.7% longer than MICA in real life.
Edit: just realised you were saying it didn’t make sense that VL MICA was on a Roxel website. Thought you were comparing the motor size between the two websites.
It was not for scale, but used to show that Roxel makes the motor
Yeah added that in an edit once I realised
Yeah, this diagram looks more to scale. Electronics sections is noticeably smaller.
@DirectSupport did the warhead also get shrunk for MICA NG? Looks a bit smaller in this image.
yeah the diagram is a mess, no missile seems to have its correct dimensions
Regarding the absence of sustainer, i played a bit on statshark (i know it’s not perfect but that’s what we got)
in order to get something that comes anywhere close to a MICA as advertised by MBDA (20km, 30G at 12km), and assuming Fireball estimations are correct you would need to change :
missile would reach mach 2.05 from 0 in this configuration, but it is questionable if it could hit 30G at a mere mach 0.8 at 12km, reducing the drag further would make the missile go further than 20km
Afaik they did not mention any change to the warhead
