i was always in favor of the more exotic widow and boeings frog instead of f35…

Ehh , how is that relevance to your statement ?

You’re funny. Okay, the AIM-132 diameter is larger by 6 mm (BTW, how much of this applies to the propellant ?). But what about the MICA being 200 mm longer ?

Well, i just put the numbers (160 mm diameter +310 mm length) vs ( 166 mm diameter +290 mm length) into this http://www.online-calculators.co.uk/volumetric/cylindervolume.php, and the result is that AIM-132 has bigger internal volume, you can argue neither missiles is exactly like a tube, but then then it applied to both design, so… Moreover, Mica has a TVC and data link, also a bigger warhead so again, not saying that it is 100% true that aim-132 will carry more fuel, but it wouldn’t be really a big surprise if it does. How much that can translate to range is another matter as i said be4.

The ASRAAM is a sprinter using its fuel to reach mach 4 as quickly as possible while the MICA rocket is more focus on range. One is doing a sprint and the other one a marathon. Both missiles have a very different way of burning their fuel. So it is not all about size etc

Didn’t they change from boost-sustain motor to fully boost to increase missiles range for AIM-120 family? (i remember the problem with boost-sustain motor is that fuel is often not fully burned)

All aircrafts are not Sukhois.

So sukhoi aircraft use magic to generate lift? Ffs

Kinematic wise, AIM-132 can probably fly further than MICA based on how much rocket fuel it can carry. On the other hand, Mica has much bigger wing surface area so it should be controllable at lower speed than Mica, hence likely longer effective (controllable) range

It’s a digital fbw

Digital fbw does not change CLmax

Do you have a source for either of those ? it hard to believe that Rafale sustain turn rate is even higher than F-16 instantaneous turn rate at sea level

i would assume it came from here

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/
look like whoever wrote the piece just put turn rate of various aircraft at different altitude and speed together , and call it a table comparision. If you pay attention , it look like sustain turn rate of F-35 is taken at 15k feet while of F-16 is taken at sea level , drag index 0 , f-15 value also look like it is taken at 15k feet , value for Rafale , Typhoon , Gripen , F-22 on the graph are basically ass pull and have no support evidence.

LOL
The HMD is a mean to designate an off-boresight target (by looking at the target to select the corresponding track), which is often seen as more convenient than having to play with HOTAS stuff. So there is a point to mention the HMD, by contrast with any fighter that doesn’t support it yet, but there’s almost no point to mention the need for a solid tracking for a HOBS shot because that’s a basic prerequisite.

I think you are the one who read too much between the line here, i see no where do they mentioned that they acquired target by radar before turning away in Python-5 video but you keep insist that they got a track before turn aways, then there is also HMD, if the purpose is simply to be a little bit more convenient than HOTAS then there is no point mentioned it, they may as well said their Python-5 allow 360 degrees shot, no need to even talk about HMD ( since it obviously doesn’t matter)

Beside, MBDA still doesn’t claim that the helmet mounted sight alone (no other sensor involved) can feed a target anywhere around the aircraft. They claim the HMD can feed a target, period. It happens that in such a case, the target must be either in the frontal hemisphere for the seeker to lock on before launch, or the target must be tracked by other sensors before being designated (track selection) with the HMD (or any other mean, for that matter), at which point the track informations (or better, an interception point) are fed to the missile’s INS so that it can reach a position where it would lock onto the target.

Once again, you’re reading too much between the lines.

MBDA claims that their AIM-132 can receive targeting information from aircraft sensors such as radar or HMD or it can also act as an IRST, basically they considered HMD as a sensor ( since it does give angular direction) , no where do they mentioned that HMD only works in LOBL or that it need another sensors to work along with it. And even in case of frontal hemisphere LOBL, if target is outside FoV of radar then the missiles Infrared sensor locking into target doesn’t generate range or velocity information either, as passive sensors, it only generate angular information which is exactly what the HMD will provide when pilot look at target and pulled the trigger