Energy might not be the only cause for underperformance in missile pull. The MICA’s strakes should help the effectivness of its conteol surfaces, but I dont think they currently do. Theres also the chance that, like with the IRIS-T, the control sections currently have less max deflection than they do IRL.
I based that statement on the current MICA seen ingame, which as tested by DirectSupport, underperforms the IRIS-T SLM in energy (as it should, tho it shouldnt be anywhere close like it currently is, the SLM should blow it out of the water).
But the primary reason i stated that its worse tha the SLM and Spyder, even as seen in their currently hyper nerfed state, is that it only has 4 missiles, and unlike the Spyder, it doesnt even have a modular missile rack, so they cant even pretend it carries more. 4 missiles isnt even enough to take out all munitions from almost all top tier CAS jets (most relelvant CAS threats run a minimum of 6 munitions, generally F&F), so they can quite literally just oversaturate the VL MICA and theres nothing that it can do about it
I’d imagine the electronics section of the warhead got smaller, since MBDA said the electronics throughout the missile got shorter.
It’s likely they tried to kill two birds (Italy/France) with one stone (Aster-15) but that is a lazy attempt on their end.
That make me kind of worried they might pull out a Indian Buk.
Would be a interesting scenario, but the reception would be horrible.
It’s still doing 20-30G’s at that speed, certainly not dead weight. And what’s your evidence that mica should be doing like Mach 2+ or whatever you expect in that specific case?
EMADS also kills 2 birds with 1 stone (UK/Ita), so the statement doesnt make any sense, as ive already said multiple times.
Then beats me. But to be fair, it wouldn’t necessarily stop Italy from having both systems, SAMP/T and EMADs.
Russian bias would atleast extend to UK although diversity would come at the cost of it, which shouldn’t be.
That’s fine and all, but the value it needs to reach is 30Gs, not 20
An other test at 12km this time, with a drag coefficient of 1.35 :
Magic II needs to be mach 1.25 to reach 30G
Refer to this bug report : Community Bug Reporting System
I think @DirectSupport might still have the source somewhere
Regarding MICA’s speed in vertical launch, no primary source really states it anywhere. There’s of course the 750m/s from MBDA, but the same source states 12km of max range, later contradicted by… MBDA itself, who updated it to 20
A few secondary sources are mentioning 1000 m/s or so, like the czech source gaijin used, or this :
More like M1.15, and mica is a more advanced design pulling more AoA.
1 Like
This shows the loft profile can definitely be optimised, I managed to get M0.94, up from your 0.87.
It’s also possible for gaijin to increase the ISP of the motor to help it match known performance characteristics like it has done for chaparral and 9X.
To clarify :
- MICA VL should absolutely have far less energy than IRIS-T SLM (it does IRL anyway)
- Current in game IRIS-T SLM is so badly implemented that it performs even worse than a real MICA VL, (except of course MICA VL can’t go 40 clicks like IRIS-T achieves in game)
I agree on that part. MICA VL is some sort of giant recycling program for AAMs, but this means they made the silo around a pre-existing missile that they did not want to redesign, instead of designing the silo and the missile together, like they did for SAMP/T, which is the proper french SAM site.
AFAIK the only reason french gov approved buying this system was due to the Crotale’s end of life and they needed an immediate solution for short/medium range air defence while waiting for the SSABC program
What parameter did you change ?
Fair enough, i wasn’t aware they could change the ISP as well
Mach 1.2 per the report, seems i overestimated a bit
Regarding MICA and AoA i’m really not so sure about that. At least currently there is no reason to believe MICA can reach more than 30-35G once TVC is off.
There is… because it can pull 50G at 7km and it’s certainly not burning at that distance. I would note this is likely at low altitude if you fire at a 7km static target that will show how fast it is.
1 Like
Ok fair point
M1.13 with 1.35 Drag at 7 km, still seems quite low
I don’t see how this thing would improve on the KH38 problem at all over the VT-1 tbh
Yes, exactly my point, dedicated SHORAD missiles are always going to perform better. I’d also note that the idea that mica NG is a serious range improvement further supports the mica model. Because if it were to have a further 5-10kg of fuel added to the current model… it will have a dV probably in excess of 1500m/s, and may even suffer range as a result.
Obviously
Still i can’t help being a little confused at the fact that an IRIS-T SLS, which is also arguably an IR missile from a similar era, originally air launched, more draggy than a MICA EM (since IR only), can reach a greater max speed while burning for 7s, while being 25 kg lighter :
IRIS-T, dev server :
MICA, with your “fix” :
Note that it also retains a similar amount of energy at longer distances :
IRIS-T SLS dev server :
MICA with the “fix” :
MICA is stated to reach greater ranges (20 instead of 12) and greater altitude than IRIS-T SLS (9 instead of 8) so something is not adding up.
Additionally, in the files, the IRIS-T SLS engine would burn for about twice the time as MICA VL, but for half the thrust. That means there is likely around the same amount of propulsive mass inside, which, considering the 25kg difference, is very questionnable, especially when you consider the warhead of the MICA EM being lighter than the one on SLS :
My model does both of those though? It can do 20km for a static target, and has reached about 6km just lofting so I believe it can also reach the altitude they advertise.