Until some official pronouncement is made on AIM-120D range, I remain highly suspicious of all figures appearing on the internet.

So would I.
But we have some physical limitations and from that we can extrapolate a reasonable performance span.

The reason i put them as plausible is because I need to compare the test results with my own input to see whether or not it is likely or not. If the actual tests would have been inplausible by using my numbers it would have been clear that there is a mistake somewhere.

And with a throttlable output and chosen cruise speed on the Meteor a lot changes.

Just look at the drag force difference @40kft. Mach 5 = 4,4KN, mach 4 = 2,8 KN and mach 3 = 1,6KN…

When it comes to the AIM120D it wont be able to fit a lot more fuel than the Aim120C and I believe we will see a burn time cap at around 10-12 seconds. It is possible that there might be a special BVR-high alt edition that has a lower burn speed in the sustainer part and lower ΔV in the beginning. That will make it better in high alt BVR-engagements but lower the performance at lower altitudes where the enemy is more likely to be operating.

And as displayed earlier. Kinematic performance of the launch platform, air density and maneuvering does make huge differences. Not to mention target direction. Against the same target, at the same altitude at the same subsonic speed (only different vector) the Aim120A/B;s effective range is in the 15-55km span (as seen in the chart).

This is why Viggen is a must have on the Swedish list.

Aggressive short stop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJo7aqOfRww (turnaround <60 seconds from wheels touching the ground, turn around and be airborne again)
Look at how well it handles corners on tight roads 😉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLPrnc8GNPU&t=1m30s

It was the uggly Betty among defensive fighters and ahead of its time. (Adopted in 1971)

Given that the video sequence you linked to does not show the entire flight, and there are no clues as to whether the video is in real time, I am not sure how you obtained that burn time. But is correct for that particular trial, but perhaps not for Meteor in general. There has been only a single test Meteor test shot from a Typhoon, and this was a separation trial in which the powerplant burned for 15 seconds. I have not seen a figure for the maximum burn time in ramjet mode, but in practice, Meteor has flown at more than Mach 3 for several minutes during a test conducted at more than 40,000 ft.

At an altitude of 10,000 m, Mach 1 corresponds to 300 m/sec, so 1,200 k/s is Mach 4. This sounds a bit high for an average cruise speed for Meteor. It is more likely to be representative of the missile�s peak velocity.

In a long-range lofted shot (GF5 from a Tornado F3 at the Hebrides range), a Meteor missile engaged a target flying at 48,000 ft at a range of more than 100 km.

The release of the missile was in slow motion, the rest wasnt. If we estimate that the cutscene at 2:38 is about 5 sec after launch (i miscounted in my first post) because of the distance to the missile and contrail. That gives us roughly 20 seconds (24km) of powered flight (maybe even 25 seconds if we use Obligatorys measurement ->30km).

If we take your example of a launch @40k ft we get 24-30km of powered range @ mach 4 and another 25 seconds (29km) before it reaches mach 3. That is some 55-60 km in mach 3 or more.

If we assume a high speed launch that adds 25% to the V(max) we get 30-37,5km + 1325m/s*25s + 1075m/s*20s = 30-37,5 + 33 + 35,5km = 98-106
km at mach 3 or higher with a total flight time of 65-70 seconds in that speed.

But I know this is a bit of a stretch.

Just look at totoros/obligatorys post earlier. @60kft it takes 75 seconds for it to lose 25% of its velocity. Assuming V(max) of mach 5 (1500m/s) and 25 sec burn time gives us 100 seconds over 1’125m/s and another 60-70 seconds over 900m/s.

So what you are saying is quite plausible.

EDIT: V(max) is a statement related to the speed of the launch platform. IE, if the Meteor has a maximum speed around mach 4 when launched in mach 0,8 or 0,9 it is likely that it will have a top speed around mach 5 when launched at mach 1,8-1,9. Thus V(max) is increased from m4 to m5 simply by the carriers speed. (just to make it clear what terms i use and how i use them)

Future ramjet missiles should be able to be designed around the 5th generation bays..I think Meteor can be modified to fit the F-35 if funded (Dont know exactly but i think i read somewhere) the Aim-120 could also be advanced, but i think beyond perhaps one solid upgrade beyond D the USAF/USN would probably want something new.

You can always make it longer to fit more fuel (if you go for solid fuel rocket engines)… Unless, of course, the bays wont fit that upgrade…

Anyhow… Found some good info on how the engagement ranges for SAMs change depending on altitude and movement of the target.
The interesting part is how large the difference is between normal engagements and the ones where the target performs a Yo-yo maneuver.

The difference for S-200 between max effective range against ew-aircraft and a maneuvering target goes down to 30% or about half the range against a supersonic target. Obviously maneuvering has a very large impact on the missiles effective range.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/vympel-launches-r-77-ramjet-from-su-27-21749/

1995. That is an awful long time from test for there to have been no advancement down the line. Might be wishful thinking to assume that there is no R-77M1 which may be comparable to Meteor in range (if maybe not in guidance and ECCM).

Maybe there has been no need for it until the Meteor enters service?

If you really want to counter extended range for the potential missiles carried by an adversary (like the Aim120D) then adding a booster is a quick and dirty solution. Of course this is based on the assumption that the pylons and missiles can cope with the weight and weight distribution, that the missiles is adaptable enough (and that internal bays can fit it).

It can look like this:

I think the biggest strengths of the Pak FA is the ability to engage AWACS at long range and its sick kinematic performance.

Where?

When you want the thread to move up again you bump it.

Explaination: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump

It is ok to read more than the title when someone gives you an example. In Obligatorys case it was post #7.

Right?

About what?

Yes, with more fuel it travels longer.
Yes, with more fuel it weighs more.

You mention a weight at 47k lb or just over 21 tonnes… With that it basically can carry 2 Amraams + 2 Sidewinders for up to 3000km (just 10% less than ferry range which is max range clean + drop tanks, or 3300km).

Its not impressive nor economical since the SH consumes more fuel than both the Gripen E and Su27 while still having shorter range, not to mention the Rafale. All of these have a couple of hundred km longer range with same amount of, or more, missiles.