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.
My mica modem does those ranges and altitude, it has much less drag than the IRIS-T, yes IRIS-T is slightly faster, because it has a significantly higher deltaV but more drag.
The warhead masses are nearly identical. 11.4kg for the IRIS, and 12kg for mica, Mica has larger sensors in both the EM and IIR form, and have more electronics. I would also note the IRIS-T model is based off the same Czech study so I would not expect extreme accuracy. Proportionally the IRIS-T motor is quite long too
I plan on running a more expansive loft optimization test at some point in the future, cuz im not a fan of how poor gaijins loft profiles are…
As per my old AIM-54 loft profile tests, gaijins loft profiles tend to leave quite a bit of long range performance on the table, seemingly for no real reason.
The report was poorly sourced and the M1.2 guesstimation was rather poor and quite a reach, hence the reason it was closed it seems.
As Fireball mentionned, the MICA is a more advanced control layout than the Magic II, theres no real reason to assume they require the same speed to pull the same G-loads.
1 Like
Fair enough, but in this case it shouldn’t be any higher than ITO90, MICA VL NG will be the one filling the gap between ITO and SAMP/T then (assuming the missile can enter service in time ofc)