Backward logic by hopsalot.. so typical.. no, but it does mean that a decision made by a brain surgeon regd. brain surgery is not automatically correct..
Besides that, the decision for long range AAMs like Meteor instead of the Cuda vaporware, too, was made by “brain surgeons”…
Swing and a miss again MSphere…
No, it doesn’t mean every decision made by a brain surgeon is automatically correct… but if you have a team of brain surgeons working on something and have identified approach XYZ as the most likely to succeed, I would take their word over a random guy on the internet.
Moving to Meteor and Cuda, those are two completely different designs optimized for completely different sets of assumptions. Meteor is a medium to long range weapon designed to offer excellent speed and end-game lethality for an aircraft that wasn’t expected to be able to get close to its targets without being engaged itself. On a 4th generation fighter and in a fight against a 4th or earlier generation fighter Meteor will likely be be awfully effective.
Cuda is looking at the problem totally differently. Cuda is a short to medium range weapon intended to offer stellar maneuverability close in, but sufficient range to reach out well into medium ranges. It would be a good match for an aircraft that expects to be able to approach relatively close to its targets and that needs a smaller weapon to maximize its internal carriage capacity. (5th generation fighters)
The two approaches aren’t actually mutually exclusive in that an aircraft like the F-35 could carry both at the same time. (Imagine two Meteors, one on each door station, and 8 Cudas, four on each air to ground station.) That would give an F-35 10 missiles, including two Meteors. You could also potentially carry three Meteors and 4 Cudas, which at 7 missiles is still a good load for an air to air mission.
Sign In
