Marine Nationale (French Navy)
- Thread starter Spacearrow99
- Start date
To my knowledge the only navy that has bought VL Mica is Oman. The MN isn't even considering it.
As for comparison to Aster 15, there is none. VL Mica has an official range of around 10 km and is tested out to 12 km. It at best functions as a Crotale replacement (or for land-based applications also as a Roland replacement), but doesn't remotely compare to Aster 15 or other, similar missiles such as ESSM.
As for comparison to Aster 15, there is none. VL Mica has an official range of around 10 km and is tested out to 12 km. It at best functions as a Crotale replacement (or for land-based applications also as a Roland replacement), but doesn't remotely compare to Aster 15 or other, similar missiles such as ESSM.
Well yes and no, as Aster 15 can't be quad packed and that restricts the available missiles. I understood the RF seeker was the same as Aster, yes more in the RAM, CAMM, Crotale space regarding size/range, but I assumed the NM would replace Crotale (and some if not all Aster 15) with VL MICA.To my knowledge the only navy that has bought VL Mica is Oman. The MN isn't even considering it.
As for comparison to Aster 15, there is none. VL Mica has an official range of around 10 km and is tested out to 12 km. It at best functions as a Crotale replacement (or for land-based applications also as a Roland replacement), but doesn't remotely compare to Aster 15 or other, similar missiles such as ESSM.
For small ships and CIWS the NM seems to prefer Mistral (which I do like particularly for very small craft). But I think there is a place for a c100kg missile.
VL Mica would require redesign to quad pack into Sylver silos, either smaller or folding fins. There is no plan to make such modifications, AFAIK.
The VT1 (Crotale) missile does quad-pack in Sylver silos. It's also cheaper than VL Mica. But AFAIK there are no customers for such a fit. It would, of course, need guidance all the way to the target, unlike Mica.
The VT1 (Crotale) missile does quad-pack in Sylver silos. It's also cheaper than VL Mica. But AFAIK there are no customers for such a fit. It would, of course, need guidance all the way to the target, unlike Mica.
A number of sources seem to say VT1 & MICA will quad pack into various Sylver silos up to and including A50. but I don't think any have been yet, so maybe just the potential. I can't see anything about the NM adopting VT1 either, so maybe the long term plan is just: Aster 30, 15 & Mistral?VL Mica would require redesign to quad pack into Sylver silos, either smaller or folding fins. There is no plan to make such modifications, AFAIK.
The VT1 (Crotale) missile does quad-pack in Sylver silos. It's also cheaper than VL Mica. But AFAIK there are no customers for such a fit. It would, of course, need guidance all the way to the target, unlike Mica.
VT1 has been quad-packed. Thales & DCNS press releases say so, & DCNS shows VT1 quad-packed in Sylver A35 in drawings of weapons loads for Sylver.
I've never found anything from either MBDA or DCNS to suggest that the same has been done with VL-Mica. I don't know what sources say it's been done with Mica, but I don't believe them. Just look at a picture of a Mica in a Sylver A35. No chance of fitting any more than one in there!
I've never found anything from either MBDA or DCNS to suggest that the same has been done with VL-Mica. I don't know what sources say it's been done with Mica, but I don't believe them. Just look at a picture of a Mica in a Sylver A35. No chance of fitting any more than one in there!
I think I have seen it on another site, but Wiki link is attached. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylver_Vertical_Launching_System"]Sylver Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]VT1 has been quad-packed. Thales & DCNS press releases say so, & DCNS shows VT1 quad-packed in Sylver A35 in drawings of weapons loads for Sylver.
I've never found anything from either MBDA or DCNS to suggest that the same has been done with VL-Mica. I don't know what sources say it's been done with Mica, but I don't believe them. Just look at a picture of a Mica in a Sylver A35. No chance of fitting any more than one in there!
Although it states both VT1 & MICA, I can't see that the NM or anyone else has quad packed either in Sylver VLS. I was really tryng to find out if anyone had seen anything on NM intentions. MICA does make more sense (the strategy seems almost the same as CAMM minus the MN). I can't see anyone that has brought VT1, and not sure that the VL MICA is currently fitted in on the Oman OPVs.
There's already a US Navy thread. Use that. And please put posts like this in the suggestions/feedback section of the forums rather than on random threads. Cheers mate.I dont think i am able to create new threads because im new or i can not find it for the life of me but i was looking to start a thread on the US Navy Combat ships, development, production, contracts, etc....
Your link says VL Mica - but not quad-packed. As I said, look at the published photos showing a single VL Mica in a Sylver. Quad-packing is not possible unless the missile is modified.I think I have seen it on another site, but Wiki link is attached. Sylver Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although it states both VT1 & MICA, I can't see that the NM or anyone else has quad packed either in Sylver VLS. I was really tryng to find out if anyone had seen anything on NM intentions. MICA does make more sense (the strategy seems almost the same as CAMM minus the MN). I can't see anyone that has brought VT1, and not sure that the VL MICA is currently fitted in on the Oman OPVs.
VT1 has been test fired from Sylver A35 (2008, IIRC), & a quad pack has been developed. The missile has been bought by a few countries - but AFAIK nobody has bought the Sylver quad pack system. I think the French may have VT1 missiles in the Crotale systems on their La Fayette, F67 & F70 frigates/destroyers.
Opps your right I had misread that. I can't find any pictures. but looking again there are post on other sites raising the question and as you said, only if the fins can be made foldable...Your link says VL Mica - but not quad-packed. As I said, look at the published photos showing a single VL Mica in a Sylver. Quad-packing is not possible unless the missile is modified.
VT1 has been test fired from Sylver A35 (2008, IIRC), & a quad pack has been developed. The missile has been bought by a few countries - but AFAIK nobody has bought the Sylver quad pack system. I think the French may have VT1 missiles in the Crotale systems on their La Fayette, F67 & F70 frigates/destroyers.
afaik the moroccan navy uses vl-mica on the sigma corvettes.To my knowledge the only navy that has bought VL Mica is Oman. The MN isn't even considering it.
As for comparison to Aster 15, there is none. VL Mica has an official range of around 10 km and is tested out to 12 km. It at best functions as a Crotale replacement (or for land-based applications also as a Roland replacement), but doesn't remotely compare to Aster 15 or other, similar missiles such as ESSM.
imho vl-mica can be compared to sea ceptor (camm). mbda quotes a range of 1 to 20 km for vl-mica.
It can't be to far adrift on range though as they are very similar in size, in fact MICA being about c12% bigger. They do look very similar in concept.i.e. significantly less than CAMM. "Up to 20km" for VL Mica, "More than 25km" for CAMM. Both figures from MBDA..
Yes off course, but unless there is some radical innovation or something else is heavier it is more dfficult to achieve a significant performance difference.Similar size doesn't necessarily equal similar range. Isn't that rather obvious?
I am not saying CAMM does not have a longer range, but it is probably in a very similar class.
How about the quality and type of the seeker? The targeting systems used to cue the missile? The type and size of motor used? The size of other components in the missile? The intended target profile (is it optimised for anti-ship missiles as opposed to aircraft, is it a dual role missile like IDAS, etc)? The missile's airframe (MICA looks like it'd have more drag than CAMM, not necessarily enough to make a huge difference, but something to consider). Off the top of my head these could all be factors in effective range. None of which necessarily have to do with missile size. Note that I say "effective" range - anything beyond that is essentially academic.Yes off course, but unless there is some radical innovation or something else is heavier it is more dfficult to achieve a significant performance difference.
I am not saying CAMM does not have a longer range, but it is probably in a very similar class.
And let's not rule out radical innovations, as you mentioned - they do come up, and it doesn't have to be in the motor to make a difference.
I just think that assuming a missile, because it's of the same class and of a similar size, will have comparable performance in certain areas compared to another missile, isn't necessarily going to give you the full story, because it lacks context.