MULTI-ROLE METEOR

Take a look at the Future US AAMs thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30316

For the longer term, the USAF and USN are already looking at an all-new missile that could eventually replace the AMRAAM. The Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) would be a single design suitable for air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. Intended for use on the F/A-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike fighter, legacy fighters, and unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), it is expected to offer enhanced propulsion, agility, and lethality, allowing engagements at longer stand-off ranges. The project is still at a very early stage. Studies of potential capabilities and platform integration have already begun, and work is underway on the development analysis process.

sounds familiar!

If the ship can only do 30 knots and the missile is doing mach 3 it won’t get that far out of the targeted area. Also, I would launch proper anti-ship missiles at the same time, so switching off radar to counter a Armiger would leave it vulnerable to sea skimmers.

quit far if launched from 200 km, in 3 or 4 minute window a vessel any were in area of 50 sq km considering the range of IIR seeker wont exactly be easy to search.

Indian1973

I think the original Meteor design only had a single ramjet intake just below the nose cone and the dual intake improved performance and still allowed for conformal carriage.

I read somewhere the dual-intake design of Meteor as opposed to the more conventional 4-intake design seen in Ru ramjet missiles was driven by need for conformal carriage in Typhoon below the fuselage.

This apparently led to a more complex flight profile because some moves tend to stop the airflow into the ramjet .

was it worth the effort ?

Typhoon if it carries addl missiles below wings will lose the advantage
and its not a greatly stealthy platform to start with.

I doubt Typhoon on a long range sweep would go out with just 4 Meteors…most likely it will carry 6-8.

JonS

If the ship can only do 30 knots and the missile is doing mach 3 it won’t get that far out of the targeted area. Also, I would launch proper anti-ship missiles at the same time, so switching off radar to counter a Armiger would leave it vulnerable to sea skimmers.

JonS

I was suggesting that a IR seeker could be combined with the active radar seeker of a Meteor like missile.
Anyway, if a defending ship turned off its radar to defeat a Armiger it would have to rely on decoys, EW and passive guided weapons to defeat other types of threat further reducing its survival chances.

or the vessel could just try to get out of the location were it was targeted by armiger with IIR the pilot has to search for the vessel if the vessel happened 5 or 6 km away it would impossible to find it. As for IR + active seeking is little too much since if u have one u dont need other only missile that has such configuration is russians Styx variants.

missiles

yeah i mean i think it would be possible but i dont know the real technical details. i never heard of the asraam being a brimstone competitor, now that is well interesting and its quite a big missile compared to the hellfire size brimstone. the details would be interesting to see, just how they do it. cheers then.

junipergoth

Sounds like a good idea to me, I think giving your infra red and radar guided air-air missiles a secondary air-surface capability would be a very useful back up in emergency situations or when a target of opportunity presents its self.

Just remembered that a anti-armour variant of ASRAAM was a competitor to the UK’s BRIMSTONE anti-armour missile. I wonder how it differed from the air-air variant?

missiles

i was just thinking this morning, you know the off boresight russian missiles that use a helmet mounted site and are infra red guided? could this be possible. say a frogfoot attack plane had two of these, it had used all of its bombs and rockets, it saw a tank in a field with the engine running, the crew stopped to take their bearings. could the helmet mounted site in the pilots helmet pick the tank up on the seeker of the missile and could the missile launch and take out the tank? i think the engine on the tank will give out heat and the missile picks up heat. so a launch from ahead would be ok, not like 70 degrees off boresight or whatever their capability is. what do you think?

Harry

I think ARAMIS/ARMIGER was a Italian/German joint program, different names for the same missile.

Was’nt it previously called the ARAMIS?

JonS

I was suggesting that a IR seeker could be combined with the active radar seeker of a Meteor like missile.
Anyway, if a defending ship turned off its radar to defeat a Armiger it would have to rely on decoys, EW and passive guided weapons to defeat other types of threat further reducing its survival chances.

Perfect anti-radiation missile.

havent heard bout Armiger in a while its limbo due to lack of $$, the missile uses RIF homing and IIR/GPS when used against a vessel it will quite hard to search for moving vessel if the vessel to turn off its radar once it detects the missile.

Trident/JonS

How about a seeker head like the German Armiger anti-radar missile?
Radar guidance and IR combined, maybe inertial and GPS too.

JonS

Good points, but as long as the missile is heading in the right direction the ship has to use it’s self defence systems against it.

The more missiles launched against a target, the bigger the problem for it’s defences, the lower the chances for survival.

True, a saturation attack even by several lighter but very fast missiles would warrant alarm and problems. You might even be lucky and get an Arizona style magazine strike. 😉

JonS

Good points, but as long as the missile is heading in the right direction the ship has to use it’s self defence systems against it.

The more missiles launched against a target, the bigger the problem for it’s defences, the lower the chances for survival.

Another Falklands example…….

It was not the Exocet Warhead that took out HMS Sheffield, infact it failed to detonate. What did the damage was the rocket motor, which causes extensive fires.

fire fighting capability of modern vessels are far better than vessels in falkland era (automated sprinklers etc). The Speed of meteor could cause structural damage. As for meteor Asuw capabilities the seekers on AAM arent that potent or smart compared to ashm counterpart they can easily get jammed or decoyed away not to mention their hi and predictable flight path will make them pretty easy to intercept by most CIWS.

Trident

Your right a 30kg warhead won’t take out a ship, but it will cause damage and disable its systems, and a missile body travelling at mach 3 will at least put a big dent in the superstructure.
I think I read that Argentine 30mm cannon fire knocked out ship systems in the Falklands war.
Point taken on seeker heads, but have you heard of the American Joint Common Missile? This has a seeker head which has radar, laser and infra red guidance all in one package. I think this arrangement could be possible in other types of missile.

Another Falklands example…….

It was not the Exocet Warhead that took out HMS Sheffield, infact it failed to detonate. What did the damage was the rocket motor, which causes extensive fires.

Srbin

100km+