AMRAAM vs MICA capabilities

[Midav]

Greetings all!

I have been looking all over the net, but can't find any good links that show the perspectives of both during aerial training (red flag etc)
what the kill ratio of each is during training and the like.

Was curious if anyone could help out.

Would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[DLodge]

I'll tell you right now that almost all information useful for comparing AAMs is classified, and that includes range, speed, etc. (don't believe the published figures). Sorry.

[Sayeret]

I might be wrong but MICA is a short range IR guided missile and the AMRAAM is a medium range radar guided missile.

[AFACadet]

D is correct. You're not going to find that info anywhere.



Training shows little of what the missile will do in combat. The Aim-7s of Vietnam era had very high PKs during training and testing but about 20% PK during most of the time in Vietnam (although most of this was due to ROEs and lack of pilot training).

The operational PK of the AMRAAMs is not published, but it is very good.

The MICA has not been used in combat (its a pretty new missile with service entery in 1996)

Sayeret,

No the MICA is a medium range missile just like the AMRAAM. The differences is that the MICA can either have IR or radar guidence.

[Midav]

I'll tell you right now that almost all information useful for comparing AAMs is classified, and that includes range, speed, etc. (don't believe the published figures). Sorry.


I realize that most things would be classified, but am sure some good comparisons have been openly published.


I might be wrong but MICA is a short range IR guided missile and the AMRAAM is a medium range radar guided missile.

The Magic is the short range missile. Believe it has a range of 8km's.

MICA is in the AMRAAM and AA-12 class =)

EDIT: changed img to quote...

[DLodge]

I realize that most things would be classified, but am sure some good comparisons have been openly published.
Well good luck searching. I'd take any comparison you find with a grain of salt; the kind of information you're looking for is just not released to the public.

[Midav]

Why? because I'd like to see it.


Mar 30th 2:29 AM
"In November-December, 2000, at during a recent exercise at Florennes, Belgium, airbase, a group of NATO fighters conducted exercises. Two French Mirage 2000-5s from the 1/2 Cigognes (Storks) squadron won 40 virtual air to air victories to one loss against a group of Belgian and Dutch F-16s(with Amraam) and German F-4s. In one air battle, 2 Mirage 2000-5s engaged 8 F-16s and F-4s and shot down all 8 with MICAs before the pilots knew what hit them. Throughout 12 missions, 2 Mirage 2000-5s won 40 virtual victories for the loss of 1 of its own. The MICA hit its target 75% of the time, according to the participants.

The French pilots attributed the excellent results to the MICA missile and RDY radar combination. This was done against the MLU upgraded F-16s of the Dutch and Belgians and the ICE upgraded German F-4s.

The French Mirage 2000 and Rafale are intended to be advanced tactical fighter aircraft in the same league as the F-22. The French have a highly developed technology base in military electronics, and most of their planes have superior integration between weapons and flight components. French planes are capable of tracking as many as 24 separate targets, for example, while the U.S. capability is much lower. "
Note from F.S: the guy stated well for normal M2000C. But M2000-5 can track and automatically priorize more than 100 targets.

I would like to know how true this article is.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/427/427lect04.htm

[Midav]

Btw, yes, I realize air-air missiles are not used in actual training.

I'd like to know how either side got its info for hit %....

[DLodge]

That entire article is a joke. Don't believe anything in it.

[mustamato]

The French Mirage 2000 and Rafale are intended to be advanced tactical fighter aircraft in the same league as the F-22. The French have a highly developed technology base in military electronics, and most of their planes have superior integration between weapons and flight components. French planes are capable of tracking as many as 24 separate targets, for example, while the U.S. capability is much lower. "
Based on the above statement, I'd have to say that the entire article is a joke. I hope the author doesn't seriously believe the fiction he's writing...

:roll:

Frenchies suck etc etc?

[DLodge]

Frenchies suck etc etc?
No, his facts are just plain wrong.

[Midav]

Before this gets out of hand, this has nothing to do about "Frenchies sucking".

The missiles spoken about in the article is what I am curious about.

[ronin2172]

i am no expert but i do know that his statement on the mirage 2000 being in the class as the f 22 is bogus. The mirage 2000 was developed in the late 70's early 80's as an answer to the f 15 (the A model of the f 15 at that). The rafale is a top notch fighter but i am not so sure it is in the class of the f 22. I also seem to remember that the f 14 when it first came out could track at least twenty four targets and that was in 1972! So that article might be full of it

[DLodge]

Allow me to quote from the article you provided a link to...

The Russian MiG-29 (closest U.S. equivalent: the F-16) is widely considered the best tactical combat fighter in the world. MiGs (Mikoyan-Gurevich) are quite nimble, and can outmaneuver anything any other country has. The Russians love to show off their latest aircraft at air shows. The MiG-series has been around since the Korean War, and they are always equipped with the latest gadgets (like infrared detection and laser weapons guidance). Each one is customized during manufacturing, and they are piloted using a helmet-mounted display (by contrast, U.S. fighters use a windshield, heads-up display). Weapon accuracy is near 100%.

Not only the Air Force, but the U.S. Navy possesses some good bomber aircraft. The A-6 Intruder all-weather bomber, for instance, can carry over eight tons of conventional bombs and hit anything in any kind of weather. The U.S. possesses about 600 of them, and most are equipped with the Navy’s electronic warfare (Wild Weasel) technology (such modified aircraft are called EA-6s). The Marine Corps also possesses some modified F-18s (such modified aircraft are called "fighter-bombers").

The B-2 Spirit and SR-72 spyplane are the most stealthy planes in the American arsenal. They possess about a ton of paint that is radar-absorbing, their W-shaped front breaks up radar returns, and specially-designed baffles eliminate contrails as well as noise. Other modern technology involves voice recognition, eye-trackers, and datagloves.
Read the above statements and then tell me if you believe anything this idiot has written!

[Midav]

Ok, you got me.

The 100% was good.

The A-6 part was cute.

But, B-2 "spy plane" and "SR-72" was funny as hell.

[DLodge]

The scary thing is this guy bills himself as a college professor...I hope he's not teaching this crap to his students!

[AFACadet]

That article is worthless as an information source.


EDIT: ugh, I can't write tonight :P

[Midav]

Yeah, not good if he teaches that to his students heh

Btw, I like Tom Clancy, but as a reference I wouldn't know....

[AFACadet]

Sorry, just go to pick this guy apart a little :P


The Wright Brothers intended the airplane for photo reconnaissance use,

No they didn't, not for quite a while after they flew



Some famous spyplanes were the British de Havillands and the American Curtis Jenny biplanes.

These were not 'spy' planes in the common use of the word--they were recon aircraft


America experimented with sending balloons aloft -- outfitted with cameras -- but generally abandoned the whole approach until 1982 when the Israelis shared their technology for unmanned Scout drones.

We sent balloons over the USSR in the 50s--they really work that well though (note, this is in his WWII section)


The SR-71 Blackbird was America's premiere spyplane from 1960 to 1990, replacing the U-2s which America graciously donated to Taiwan. W.T.F.? ummmm.... no, the SR-71 NEVER repaced the U-2/TR-1s.


The Blackbird spyplane was touted as the fastest plane on the planet. It could go as fast as Mach 2
Try mach 3.3 +


The U.S. avoids using nuclear-powered satellites because there's already enough radioactive debris in orbit,
W.T.F.? Who cares how radioactive they are--its in space. Ya think its because they don't want one to blow up during launch and spread that radioactivity on the planet itself?


The Global Hawk drone, or UAV, is considered inferior to the manned U-2 but may eventually subsume the high-altitude role following some sensor upgrades.

according to who?


The American pattern is essentially the same except that U.S. military academies more closely resemble liberal arts colleges

I guess that's why we all get B.S. degrees regardless of our major...


B-52s are normally stationed at every air base around the world.

Like Barksdale, and Minot, and ummmm... did I say Barksdale?



Wing-loading is the area of the wing divided by the weight of the aircraft. The lower the figure, the faster the plane.

So I guess a Cessna 152 flies faster than the blackbird because it has a MUCH lower wing loading...



[in reference to the Raptor] The heads-up display is replaced by a helmet-mounted display.

Ummmm... no, I'm pretty sure it still has a heads up display...


The U.S. trains 4,000-5,000 new pilots each year.

I wish


Pilots are obliged to stay in the service for eight years.

10


Another 400 smaller, tilt-wing B-1 and much smaller number of B-2 bombers are deployed on carriers or at secret base locations.

Wow, a B-2 on a carrier!!!! That must be a rush to land...



During development of the B-2 bomber, the U.S. discovered quite by accident, via some tweaking of the computer-controlled manufacturing system, that aircraft could be shaped to defeat radar detection.

The effect was first demonstrated during WWII and the US knew exactly what it was doing when they designed the F-117 based on some Soviet scientist's papers.


The stealth B-2 is the most expensive piece of military equipment in history ($2 billion each).

So, is that why an Aircraft carrier or sub costs a good deal more?


SR-72 spyplane

SR-71


There are now at least six different types of Stinger missile systems (Hawk, Redeye, Chapparal, etc.).

huh, those are all completly different and unrelated systems


Russia’s system and the SAM-based system they have sold to many third-world countries always goes off automatically whenever an aircraft, even a commercial aircraft, wanders into their airspace. That’s why so many commercial aircraft disasters happen.

Did this guy finish kindergarden?



My, that was fun ;)

[YankeeDeVallecas]

My god what an idiot. The B-2 stealth was an accidental discovery while they were making it???? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.....

[Uncle Chô]

That entire article is a joke. Don't believe anything in it. :cantbeli: :bash:


Mar 30th 2:29 AM
"In November-December, 2000, at during a recent exercise at Florennes, Belgium, airbase, a group of NATO fighters conducted exercises. Two French Mirage 2000-5s from the 1/2 Cigognes (Storks) squadron won 40 virtual air to air victories to one loss against a group of Belgian and Dutch F-16s(with Amraam) and German F-4s. In one air battle, 2 Mirage 2000-5s engaged 8 F-16s and F-4s and shot down all 8 with MICAs before the pilots knew what hit them. Throughout 12 missions, 2 Mirage 2000-5s won 40 virtual victories for the loss of 1 of its own. The MICA hit its target 75% of the time, according to the participants.

The French pilots attributed the excellent results to the MICA missile and RDY radar combination. This was done against the MLU upgraded F-16s of the Dutch and Belgians and the ICE upgraded German F-4s.

That part of the article is 100% true.

But there is one important fact missing. That ACMI exercice was the first time that the Mirage 2000-5 (new upgraded version of the Mirage 2000C with RDY radar and MICA missile) went into action against NATO aircrafts. At that times, our NATO partners had no clue of the new Mirage / RDY / MICA trio performances. They dealed with the Mirage 2000-5 as they used to for 20 years with the "old" Mirage 2000C. They have been for a BIG surprise during that exercise but they soon learned how to deal with the trio capabilities.

The kill ratio was only that high for a few days. Since, it has been reduced because of better knowledge.

Even the French pilots admited they took their buddies by surprise.

But yes, the Mirage 2000-5 / RDY / MICA is an excellent weapon system and the pilots are very pleased with them. So pleased that the early air to air version of the Rafale (entry level standart) could be postponed and more 2000-5 put into service instead...

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/mediatheque/phototeque/img26.jpg

[HELEX]

The new METEOR beats the **** out of AMRAAM and MICA :P

The range is nearly doubled because of its Ramjet!

http://www.global-defence.com/2000/images/meteor3.jpg

[cold0]

Mar 30th 2:29 AM
"In November-December, 2000, at during a recent exercise at Florennes, Belgium, airbase, a group of NATO fighters conducted exercises. Two French Mirage 2000-5s from the 1/2 Cigognes (Storks) squadron won 40 virtual air to air victories to one loss against a group of Belgian and Dutch F-16s(with Amraam) and German F-4s. In one air battle, 2 Mirage 2000-5s engaged 8 F-16s and F-4s and shot down all 8 with MICAs before the pilots knew what hit them. Throughout 12 missions, 2 Mirage 2000-5s won 40 virtual victories for the loss of 1 of its own. The MICA hit its target 75% of the time, according to the participants.

The French pilots attributed the excellent results to the MICA missile and RDY radar combination. This was done against the MLU upgraded F-16s of the Dutch and Belgians and the ICE upgraded German F-4s.

Uncle Chô is right the results of this exercise are published on

Air Force Montly and on the AFM Forum; but I'm no sure that the F-16AMs or F-4s used the AMRAAMs. For example, during OIP the US NAVY fighters made some Dissimilar Air Combat against the French Rafales (13th Flotille if I remember) but only in WVR mode, refusing to simulate BVR engagements. The reason is that US NAVY doesn't give any informations about the capacities of AMRAAMs to French Navy.
The same happens against the Indians in exercise COPE INDIA.




The French Mirage 2000 and Rafale are intended to be advanced tactical fighter aircraft in the same league as the F-22. French planes are capable of tracking as many as 24 separate targets, for example, while the U.S. capability is much lower. "
Note from F.S: the guy stated well for normal M2000C. But M2000-5 can track and automatically priorize more than 100 targets.

Pure BS!!!!! But who is this idiot that publish this crap on internet?

[Uncle Chô]

The French Mirage 2000 and Rafale are intended to be advanced tactical fighter aircraft in the same league as the F-22. French planes are capable of tracking as many as 24 separate targets, for example, while the U.S. capability is much lower. "
Note from F.S: the guy stated well for normal M2000C. But M2000-5 can track and automatically priorize more than 100 targets.

Pure BS!!!!! But who is this idiot that publish this crap on internet?
I agree. This is just fantasy not facts.

[DLodge]

That part of the article is 100% true.

But there is one important fact missing. That ACMI exercice was the first time that the Mirage 2000-5 (new upgraded version of the Mirage 2000C with RDY radar and MICA missile) went into action against NATO aircrafts. At that times, our NATO partners had no clue of the new Mirage / RDY / MICA trio performances. They dealed with the Mirage 2000-5 as they used to for 20 years with the "old" Mirage 2000C. They have been for a BIG surprise during that exercise but they soon learned how to deal with the trio capabilities.

The kill ratio was only that high for a few days. Since, it has been reduced because of better knowledge.

Even the French pilots admited they took their buddies by surprise.

Uncle Cho, my point was that kill ratios in an air-to-air exercise are not a good way to compare two airplanes. The Mirage 2000-5s may have kicked the crap out of the other side because the other side was flying with severly restrictive ROEs that allowed it to maneuver max-4Gs and take shots only inside of 3 miles! I'm not saying that's what happened, but unless you have more info kill ratios are about as worthless as that article.
Here is a quote from a Tyndall F-15 driver commenting on a different exercise that nonetheless illustrates my point...

For the record, talked on the phone to some of the Eagle Drivers who were involved in Cope India yesterday. Quote:

"It was excellent training for pilots on BOTH sides, with the objectives tailored to whichever nation had the blue air hammer at the time. The great thing was, we'd set up that particular engagement for whatever particular skill set the lead pilot wanted to work on...so every day was very specifically set up to challenge a particular set of objectives. In the end, we all came away smarter, having learned a lot about each other's capabilities and limitations."

In other words, like EVERY training mission ever flown in a tactical environment, you were working on a particular skill set every time you flew. There is no bare-knuckles, bleeding teeth, throw down in training: you use a building block approach to work on a portion of your combat skills...and hope you never have to use them in the real world."

As I mentioned in another string, and as I'm sure you know from your experience, keeping track of "scores" in exercises is like keeping track of scores in a preseason football game, who cares? The professional organizations go into the event to maximize the training they get out of it, then they worry about the "score" when the season opens and the matches are for real. At Red/Green/Maple Flags, or any other exercise, we didn't bother keeping track of the score. Rather we concentrated on doing the basics correctly, or on working on a particular skill we wanted to test or improve on, and the rest took care of itself. The IAF may very well have had a four to one kill ratio, and they may also have told the F-15's they couldn't take a shot outside of 5 miles, while they were employing "full up." The last is facetious, but is there to prove the point that unless they publicize what restrictions they flew under (which isn't going to happen in an unclassified format) kill ratios are meaningless. The F-15 community seems to have done well in real combat using that philosophy, if that counts for anything.

And for the record I have much respect for the Mirage 2000/MICA combo.

[HELEX]

The reason is that US NAVY doesn't give any informations about the capacities of AMRAAMs to French Navy.

That is not really true, Germany uses the AMRAAM on its old F-4s and they do training with the french.

[cold0]

That is not really true, Germany uses the AMRAAM on its old F-4s and they do training with the french.

[cold0]

Sorry, my error:


That is not really true, Germany uses the AMRAAM on its old F-4s and they do training with the french.

Yes, but no one of US allies (even Isreal) have the complete datas about the AMRAAM; the US are very secretice about the true capacities of their active radar missile. They haven't give the source codes to none (and this very comprensive, with the software source codes one can repregram or, even better, try to find a jam for the missile), but even the complete specifications of the systems.
For example some israel firms that produce ACMI systems are incapable to simulate the AIM-120 because the americans refuse to give the system specification, so they have create a "software clone" of the missile.

Another difference is the performance of the radar/AMRAAM combo; a thing is missile launched by the US NAVY F-18 with radar derivate by APG-73 radar and one the same missile launched by the F-15/APG-63(V)1 .

So the US are trying to keep thier weapon system as more classified that possible.

[big_les]

Is it possible that since this course is supposed to be 'Intelligence Gathering', that the information is deliberately wrong with a view to having students note the errors? A long shot, but it's so blatantly BS that I felt it must be deliberate!

B-2s from carriers??? Does anyone feel like drawing up a critique of this and emailing the guy?

[bison]

wow, that author must be a smacktard... we used uavs with cameras in veitnam (preprogramed flightpaths) so how did the military not show interest in uavs?

[Midav]

Ty! Appreciate the info :D