Wondering… the manufacturer (you know, the guys who like to show their products in the best possible light, maybe even too good) tell you ASRAAM goes beyond 25km (say, if it hits something 30 km away it’s great), while the MICA demonstrated (with Taiwan if I remember correctly) a direct hit at 67km, way over twice the maximum given range for ASRAAM… and some here explain, basically, that MBDA has no idea what they’ve built and that ASRAAM can compete with MICA’s range…
Don’t you think you should stop trolling at one moment?
Conservative figure. ‘In excess of 25km’ is not specific. RAF quotes ‘in excess of 37km’ for AIM-120C.
Equally MBDA does not state a range for MICA. But they do state a range for MICA VL and CAMM, which is ASRAAM based, and the latter has >25% greater range than MICA VL, whilst only being 10% longer than ASRAAM. Do the maths.
thanks for the pic but numbers do seem suspect
which f-35 is being used?
su-30mki with 3 external fuel tanks? it never flies with external fuel
same for f-35 for now.
It says all EXCEPT the Su-30 and F-35 had 3 tanks.
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 ?
Already calculated internal volume, see above. ASRAAM is larger – fact. CAMM has >25% more range than MICA VL – fact.
The MICA is about one third heavier than ASRAAM and on the top of that what some fails to see is that the propulsion pattern is completely different. 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…
The remark of GarryA is wrong on range/kinetic but he should also notice that with almost no aerodynamic controls the ASRAAM is pretty useless once all its fuel is burned (and it does at a high pace): it won’t translate its kinetic into an effective manoeuvre. On the contrary the MICA will still be able to manÅ“uvre once it has burn its fuel even further extending its reach vs the ASRAAM.
Cobblers. MICA is 1/4 heavier and both use a dual burn motor.
Indeed…One or two charts to look knowledgeable but you don’t understand basic principles …classic.
the MICA IR as another huge advantage over the ASRAAM. There is the range advantage which is significant but there is the datalink. Without it you can’t be an effective BVR weapon…And you can’t shoot in your 6 as effectively.
Prove it doesn’t have a data link.
So far the ASRAAM is the only one of the two missiles that has successfully demonstrated a live OTS shot. Where’s the evidence of MICA IR having done this?
It is your standard, defined on purpose, because you’re unable to understand some basic principles. This topic is beyond your reach and you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Reading papers here or there without being able to grasp the real meaning is all you can do.
ASRAAM is short range, MICA is not, and there’s a reason (that you don’t know, obviously). ASRAAM didn’t meet all AIM-9X KPP, and there’re some reasons for that too. Now go get a clue.
They are both of very similar range.
What makes CAAM (only 10% longer that ASRAAM) manage >25% more range than MICA VL?
You are wrong again. ASRAAM has more fuel than the AIM9X to reach mach 4 and being the fisrt to “hit”. Range advantage exists against other WVR missiles but it is marginal. ASRAAM is not a BVR missile otherwise it would have a datalink and would be marketed as such by MBDA who incindentaly markets it…as…a WVR missile ! (see link)
ASRAAM propulsor is about speed and energy…not range. It is burning its fuel too quickly to be an effective BVR missile…AND it lacks a datalink >> not an effective BVR weapon by any mean.
MBDA is a multinational consortium an markets the MICA as a BVR missile for your info. This not France. (see link)
Nobody has confirmed that it doesn’t have a data link.
France likes to think of the MICA as a BVR missile because it doesn’t have anything better but the fact of the matter is that the ASRAAM has more fuel due to larger internal volume and lighter warhead. How do you think the CAAM (only 10% longer that ASRAAM) manages >25% more range than MICA VL?
Ok, that is all I need to know because the numbers for the X plane in my example are not used randomly, there is reason to it.
Since other explanations and charts by Andraxxus and NASA are not good enough for you I have this:
Here is the real world example where we can see that the (record breaking) F-15 at 420 mph on the deck (~187 m/s), has enough SEP to break the speed of sound (~340m/s) at 90° climb angle.
You can also see that at 450 mph (~200 m/s) and 55° climb angle the plane is accelerating through the speed of sound!
This is all in the line with explanations Andraxxus gave in the above post and examples I provided. On the other hand your calculations are so wrong it is beyond comprehension. You actually concluded that EF2000 has almost two times better climb rate than Mig-29:
The only thing you should rest is this debate :rolleyes:
You’re still conflating SEP and rate of climb.
You cannot climb at X m/s unless Vsin(alpha) = X, this is a basic fact.
The video says the aircraft is at 450mph, pulls up into a 55deg climb and 25s later it is accelerating through the speed of sound (3:30).
So we see that SEP was converted into both d(KE/dt) and d(PE/dt). It did not reach maximum climb rate at 450mph, it accelerated and gained speed first.
At M0.9 (306m/s) the MiG-29 has a SEP of 345m/s, this cannot all be converted to climb rate at this speed, it must first gain speed, after which it will reach a point of greater velocity, where the remaining SEP is converted to climb rate.
You’re arguing a point you don’t understand with zero comprehension of physics. Basically, you’re trolling.
Sign In
