Oh without HMD yes, but HMD changed the game. Engineers realised it was easier to make a missile turn than an aircraft and they do it so much better than an aircraft.

Not that easy since according to you a shot behind the 90° boresight is even worse than a tail chase shot.

Nic

So far I haven’t seen any OTS shots by MICA IR.

The missile is exactly the same except the seeker. So what difference would it make if it’s IR or EM?

Nic

The French response seems … unusual?

Not so much when you compare to the “french” responses to the brexit, for instance. hollande would threaten anyone but ISIS.

Nic

You are asking me why when I just gave you the definition in the previous post. Can’t you read? You even quoted it.

No ****.

Yes it was.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39653

What was what?

So the enemy amazingly just appeared between two Rafales with no prior warning. So much for sensor fusion eh?

Previous warning could have been Rafale 1 picking up the Mig with it’s RWR, and Mig switching to IRST after it had aquired the Rafale to stop feeding SPECTRA, and Rafale 2 being informed of the whereabouts of the Mig with link 16 and looking for it with its radar.

Anyway it’s pointless, it was only a technology validating test. Who cares about validating a narrative that suits you?

If the Rafale wasn’t so slow, it could have out-ran the MiG-29.

lol is that desperation?

Range would not be increased in the forward hemisphere for an OTS shot. The delta V between the launch platforms is still roughly zero, assuming they’re both at the same speed. It’s an identical start point to a tail chase, except the missile starts by going it the wrong direction (-ve closing speed) before turning, making it harder. In a tail chase the missile would be going in the right direction (+ve closing speed) from the off and would get there faster.

If the missile comes at its target from the front hemisphere, it will have more range than when it chases the target, all other launch parameters being equal. But nice try.

So an aircraft with ASRAAM in this situation would have salvo fired on both Rafales (the one it could see on IRST and the one it picked up on RWR) and killed them both before the MICA could swing round and reach it.

I thought that a Mig 29 could never appear in such a situation but now suddenly the Eurofighter just pops out of nowhere between two Rafales undetected? Nice twist.

The ASRAAM test was conducted at low altitude, as article states. The MICA test was clearly conducted at high altitude, since the tail chase range of a Python 4 or R-73 at sea level would be pathetic (1-2km) and certainly not BVR.

[/QUOTE]

Mica test could have been conducted at high altitude, or not. What was claimed was “way beyond the range of the R73 or Python 4”. Could be 1.5 times the range, could be twice the range… it’s too vague to make definitive conclusions.

I’m glad to know the R73 & Python have a range of 1-2 km in a low level tail chase.

Nic

ASRAAM didn’t use a second aircraft for the 5+km shot.

Nor was the shot in the 180° of the shooter.

But don’t you see why that’s pointless, when the second aircraft could have taken the shot. They could have at least used an AWACS in the distance or something more relevant for the targeting, rather than a second fighter that’s in a position to fire itself.

– The aircraft doing the targeting was several KM away = the missile would be longer to arrive, and thus would be easier to dodge & get away from it’s NEZ.
– Had the target been, say, a Mig 29 chasing the Rafale with it’s IRST to fire a R73 as soon as it’s in range, the Rafale couldn’t paint it with SPECTRA nor even designate it with HMD because it wouldn’t even be aware of it’s presence. Hence the need for remote targeting by another asset, which is what the test aimed at demonstrating.
– The Mig 29 would be painted by a Radar from a Rafale in another direction & much further, so it wouldn’t expect a missile coming from that other Rafale it is chasing, meaning it would be at a disadvantage to dodge it. Especially if it comes from the forward hemisphere where range is considerably increased.
– This was a test setup to validate shots up to 180° off-boresight and remote targeting, both of which were successful. Who cares if it doesn’t suit your narrative of how air warfare should be conducted?

By the way do you know at what altitude the test was conducted?
Do you know if the ASRAAM test was conducted against an incoming or an evading target?

Nic

The test is also kind of pointless. Here’s why. Why didn’t the second aircraft designating the drone just take the shot instead? Was the MICA too short in range?:highly_amused:

– Because a drone doesn’t have a radar for spectra to cue the missile on
– Because the FOV of the Mica isn’t 360° so it obviously couldn’t see the target in its back
– Because at 10+ km (using your estimate about R73 tail chase) even if the pilot had a HMD it couldn’t designate the direction of the target to the Mica
– Because french air force doesn’t train on 1vs1 capabilities because it would just be futile. On the other hand they develop network centric tactics that will be relevant in future wars.