“Slightly larger seeker FOV” “moderately lower dV” LMAO. 300+ m/s difference in ΔV is “moderate”?? On top of that, Mistral’s propulsion design is single-stage with 2.2 seconds of burn. Sure, it’s less visible, but it really can’t compare in energy with the AIM-92A’s 2 stage design with total 7s burn time. Stinger also has the better acceleration.
Yes, there is advantage of 16G Mistral vs 13G Stinger. But the Mistral max fin angle is lower, meaning it can’t pull AOA as well. It also has 3s shorter guidance time than Stinger at 14s, which when combined with the worse ΔV results in a much lower range.
I don’t believe Mistral is definitively worse than Stinger. Mistral is ultimately a sidegrade, with the only significant advantages being the much higher explosive power of warhead and the reduced time of visibility.
Yeah, I did look at the wrong missile, that was an oversight there. But anyways, AIM-92A is almost exactly the same as FIM-92. Differences are that guidance lifetime of FIM92 are 15 seconds (not 17s of AIM-92), and that FIM-92K has a proxy fuze. Probably the largest difference is pre-launch gimbal limit of 8° (FIM-92) vs 15° (AIM-92). In summary, that’s three (3) parameters difference in comparison to the dozens of parameters total.
Otherwise, it’s identical. Mass and dimensions, engine, all the seeker values excluding aforementioned, explosive mass, fins, maneuverability, everything. Even the PID values are the exact same. Therefore, my argument still stands; the only meaningful difference is Mistral’s superiority for close launches due to its larger gimbal limit. Otherwise Mistral is mostly worse.