You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!
And mostly I doubt about the Mica's range you have talken about : until so far I've always read (in french forums or in "Air § Cosmos" magazine) that the Mica eficiency radius is about 55 km for the EM variant, and 13km for the IR variant, and no more.
First i will comment on Air&Cosmos:
I have read some stuff in this magazine which makes me think that their experts still have yet to progress in both their information and analysis skills, when a guy like me can correct them effortlessly it becomes an issue for them and their readers.
Then: Several aspect are to be taken into account on the issue of range.
Seeker's range and missile range, we had squadron noises about MICA seeker being capable of locking on targets at 70 km in optimum conditions, i don't know in this context then, what this artcile from Flight-International i worth.
Then again the missile range is splited into several different sectors:
Let's take the Maximum range at which an AAM can expect to hit an unmaneuvring target flying in a straight line = the MaxAerodynamic range.
If not classified (sandbaged), it was given by the MinDef at > 80 km and this is confirmed by the Armament Portal of MinDef: Ixarm.
Note the > indicating the clear possibility that the AAM is actualy capable of MORE than 80 km.
Quote:
All in all we can say it's a nice performance for a 112kg missile, no ? (The AIM120 weights about 190kg)
They are totaly incomparible, the AIM-120 is far from being as advanced designwise being derivated from the AIM-7 Sparrow, both aerodynamicaly and structuraly it is in a lower league than MICA.
AIM-120 body have to be thicker to be as rigid; on the MICA the inovation comes from the beams running from the wing roots and very long wing chord which allow for a much less rigid body, allowing more internal space for the properlant.
Then there is the little issue of wing surfaces:
The AIM-120 delta wings doesn't provide the slightest advantage over the design of that of MICA in terms of drag at 0* AoA, so Aerodynamic range at 0* is comparatively lower simply because the lift induced by the MICA wing design is way higher for a near-insignificant drag penalty, this is further helped by the combination of control surfaces/TVC which reduces Induced frag at high AoA/g.
AIM-120 motor allows it for a longer propeled sequency, but it drags more, and is less maneuvrable for an equivalent kinetic energy.
Just a reminder, drag is a function of wingsweep, determined by the resultant which is Critical Mach.
Last edited by Wingman on Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's particularly funny US claim that AMRAAM "D" model will have 100nm range and that would put it in ahead of an air-breather, the Meteor. Even more funny is US idea of missile's "a la Phoenix" trajectory, for a ~150kg projectile, not to mention solving radar ground clutter, which will almost always pose problem in such attack profiles. However, the main trouble with AMRAAM is that it uses same aeroconfiguration and high aspect winglets, as Sparrow did 40 years ago and so, the missile is pretty primitive in aerodynamic sense. Minimal wing lift (large winglet's loading) and relaying mainly on body lift, is particularly tricky in terminal phases of attack when low on energy, so "D" could easily remain in PK 0.6 class. Not because of electronics (PK 0.6 was never such due jamming), but physical limits. On the other hand, MICA's aerodynamic layout is much more suitable for terminal phase when the energy is low, due larger lift surfaces and as claimed is in the league of its own in comparison to AMRAAM. Anyway, that's my opinion.
Just joined forum and this is my first post. Good thread all over, but didn't expect F18 would last 4 pages against Rafale?!
Well, I can't tell real MICA's range and I red lower than 50 km range, too. However, I don't think this is actually the point. What matters is the ability to score a hit. With it's high lift (for a missile) configuration, it certainly has better chances than AMRAAM to score, even after energy has been depleted. Fantastic >100km ranges for AMRAAM are generally translated into 20-30km in the real combat situations. Just check actual firing ranges for NATO pilots in both GWs and ex-Yu.
Just one thing, I think is true for MICA as well and I saw ppl claiming it incorrectly. 50 g loading sticked to the missile's performance isn't the maneuver capability, but longitudinal acceleration, one. AIM-9L, had maneuver loading rated at ~20+g, while Magic, being the most agile of all, had ~30g and all of this, in spite of the fact that both developed over 35g in longitudinal direction, while sprinting to top speed. It makes sense, if you take a look at the missile. AIM-9 is 2.5x0.12m (~100kg weight) large and let's assume it hasn't circular profile, but is actually supercritical wing of the same size (producing lift all over the surface). Then, you can say it has about 250kg/m^2 provisional wing loading. This value is bettered by all eurocanards and it's hard to imagine that such "flying wing" can pull turn rates in range of 60 g, since aircraft of the same wing loading are limited to much lower g. True, such long wing will have much higher alpha limit, but it will also have much lower spanwise lift efficiency and therefore higher drag. In reality, missiles aren't flying wings, but have cylindrical shape, actually enabling much lower loading.
Maybe the next generation of missiles will actually have pancake profile instead of cylindrical (thus enabling large maneuver loadings), but we'll have to wait for some time to see that.
Now, how does one even compare F18 to Rafale? In which terms? Performance, avionics, weapons?? I'd like to join discussion, but don't know where to begin.
Well, Ixarm mentions a greater Manoeuvring load factor than 50 g.
Cola wrote:
Now, how does one even compare F18 to Rafale? In which terms? Performance, avionics, weapons?? I'd like to join discussion, but don't know where to begin.
Requirement and design would be a good start, have a look at the previous pages of the topic.
Requirements roughly the same as Rafale M, design - LOL and that's about it. So much about that. Next topic please. It would be interesting to have someone here who actually thinks that these two are competitive...
I think it's erronous to think that missile'lift is usefull at terminal velocity. Think that you've got to catch an increasingly manoeuvring target that will out-fly your classical aero induced moves (it's a fighter). Just like thinking man can win a 500cc mortorbike race with a 50cc Tuned Solex
Hence the big fins are hepfull for the range and the structural integrity of the missile as are the external beams. But when it comes to the kill, a missile will better rely on vortex lift and "directional jet ". Moreover Drag being the hardest force to fight in high G moves, big strakes are to be prohibited
If you get a look with attention on missile geo, pay attention that most Short range missile have short fins with dents like double sweep whose size increase with the range of the weapon (look at the Phoenix). Interstingly : - the Python hve very large fin in the for front of the body only to take full advantage of the mometum of the force generated with negative impact on the lif factor - The R-73 use grid and not flat surfaces to keep the noise pointed on the trajectory
Don't forget that the Mica is designed around a missile with very long and smooth cruise at very high speed with agressive terminal deception in mind using Kinetic E
Comparing the new Am and the Mic is like comparing an Alpine Renault with a TransAM !
I'm not saying that one is better than the other. The design philosophy is entirely different and depends on the "savoir faire" of their respective manufacturer (see above).
What I'm pointing out is that both are certainly in the same range of perf considering terminal maneuverability : the more bang for one, the less weight for the other reducing the need of lateral acceleration to offset the trajectory.
Raytheon use to build rocket motors since the last days of WWII. They might hve reach an industrial "know How" easing modification of motor regarding body lift as a natural choice.
Remarks : - the IRST is way out of the design of the Mic - The Meteor has short strakes - thx to CFD design the 9X loose it's front strakes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
