hopsalotThis document proves definitively that the AIM-120B was the original baseline point of comparison for the Meteor.
The requirement is for a medium range air-to-air missile for the Typhoon. Initial planning assumptions were based on the ability of the AIM-120B Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) to meet the longer-term threat, but changes in the operational environment led to the issue of a revised Staff Requirement in 1995. It underlined the need for the fighter to achieve a large “no escape zone” against manoeuvring targets during beyond visual range air-to-air combat, and to maximise the number of firing opportunities. The Staff Requirement also employed the principle of “performance objectives” as opposed to “essential criteria”. This was designed to prompt bidders to propose innovative solutions and as wide a range of options as possible.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/694/694we11.htm
This 1996 article likewise uses the AIM-120B as the point of comparison for the 3x NEZ claim:
Grp Capt Graeme Smith, British Aerospace’s military air advisor, says that”-current medium-range weapons suffer from a lack of overall total energy in that they do not have the manoeuvrability required to achieve a kill against a highly agile opponent: that is, they have a relatively small no-escape zone”.
It is believed to have been just such a conclusion that prompted the RAF to look beyond a conventional solid-rocket design (for the EF2000, the AIM-120B) to a more capable missile with a greater energy for the “end-game engagement”. There is no point in a missile reaching the final stage of the engagement if it cannot deal successfully with a target manoeuvring at 9G-plus. As a rule of thumb for a successful BVR engagement, a missile needs to have a minimum of three times the manoeuvre energy of its target. If a target pulls up to 10G in an evasive manoeuvre, then the missile will need to sustain 30G-plus turns at the end of an engagement to record a kill.
Some sources indicate that RAF simulations of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and Flanker Plus derivatives and associated missiles versus the EF2000 with the AIM-120B revealed an unacceptably poor exchange ratio. The focus fell on providing the EF2000 with a missile, which has a far greater no-escape volume at BVR ranges.
As Smith points out, the BVR environment is also expanding, as heralded by the emergence of the Russian Vympel’s long-burn R-27RE (AA-10 Alamo). Traditionally, the BVR engagement has gone out to around 40km (22nm). The next generation of BVRAAMs will push the engagement envelope to around 100km.
As well as providing increased absolute range, the rocket-booster/ramjet-sustainer design, more importantly, offers an increased no-escape zone. A ramjet-sustainer AAM potentially triples the volume of space within which the probability of a kill remains high.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/terminal-velocity-9972/
hopsalotDude seriously, you’re needlessly running a dead argument, pretty much trolling. This article was written in 2014, the RAF ordered C-5s back in 2004. Is it really your position that Key Publishing wrote an article in 2014 portraying 10 years ago as if it were present day? Because that’s how your argument is coming across.
The article says “AMRAAM,” not the C5 specifically. Really, I get your desire to read it in the most favorable possible way but you haven’t provided a source that speaks to the C5 comparison specifically.
Repeating sources that don’t support your argument doesn’t really help you any.
hopsalotIn early testing it did look slow off the rail but in more recent tests it actually looked quite fast although maybe not as fast as an AMRAAM, couldn’t say.
It is a missile… it is going to look reasonably fast.
Look at the slide you yourself posted just recently:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]253138[/ATTACH]
Meteor is slower to accelerate and reaches a slower peak velocity than “Current MRAAMs.” That is an obvious drawback in a relatively short ranged scenario.
What do you mean by HOBS limitations? How do ducts affect seeker FoV?
It has nothing to do with FOV, it has to do with the Meteor’s propulsion system… it uses a small solid rocket booster to accelerate the missile to sufficient speed to transition to ramjet propulsion. This may only be a few seconds, but you aren’t going to want to try light your ramjet in the midst of pulling some crazy maneuver.
The reliable tracking at long range will be provided for by F-35s and other stealthy unmanned assets (space assets?) in the future. I don’t think stealth aircraft surpass Meteor, if anything they complement it. Legacy 4th gen jets will operate alongside 5th gen jets in air combat for at least another 25 years, so come the 2020s the Meteor will allow the few 5th gen jets up front to target aircraft for the larger number of 4th gen jets hanging back carrying vastly more missiles. Equally, Meteor will provide 5th gen jets with the ability to achieve kills without risking IRST-detection or targeting, which could become increasingly sophisticated. It will also enable some of the slower 5th gen jets to have the upper hand against faster, higher altitude, more energetic targets, stealth or otherwise, front or rear hemisphere. In many ways it’s the perfect missile irrespective of some people trying to belittle it.
Meteor itself will remain useful as it will be integrated on the F-35, but I was referring specifically to the Eurofighter/Meteor combination which will be relegated to a supporting role… still useful, but not what was intended when the combination was conceptualized.
hopsalotYou still haven’t provided any actual support for your assertion that they are referring to the AIM-120C5. I get that that is what you would like to believe, but you haven’t supported it. If anything the general language they have used suggests they are speaking about the category of medium ranged weapons generally, not the AIM-120C5 specifically.
hopsalotYes, that was the joke…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]253132[/ATTACH]
hopsalotNo, what I mean is that a ducted rocket is still similar to a ramjet in principle and thus it uses the air in the atmosphere, so for the same amount of propellant a ducted rocket will probably have greater max range. Basically, a solid rocket motor needs to “sacrifice” a part of its fuel for oxidizer, while a ducted rocket can contain all fuel for its propellant and use the atmosphere as oxidizer.
It is also simply more efficient to fly at a slower albeit sustained speed than to accelerate to very high speed and coast. Even if we limited ourselves to a discussion of solid rocket motors, a very long burning low thrust motor would be more optimal for a very long-range shot than a shorter burning motor of identical impulse.
Essentially all modern air to air missiles expend their propellant in around 10 seconds because if you are forced to choose how to optimize your missile you can’t justify optimizing for long range shots at the cost of poor short to medium range performance.
Meteor doesn’t have to make that choice because it is throttleable. The same missile can fly slower (and keep the motor burning longer) for a long range shot and in a medium range scenario can fly faster. The only thing it doesn’t do well are relatively short ranged shots because it is relatively slow off the rail, can’t reach as high a top speed, and almost certainly faces HOBS limitations because of its air breathing propulsion.
For what it is designed to do it is pretty obviously the best missile in the world. A Eurofighter with Meteor and the fancy gimballed AESA will likely be the ultimate 4th generation fighter for BVR combat… excellent speed and altitude performance, an excellent radar that can look over the aircraft’s shoulder, and the fastest missile available for long-range shots. The only problem with all this is that while it is technologically awesome, it will also only become operational right around the time it is being surpassed by something else… (stealth aircraft)
All that kinematic performance, on the part of the Eurofighter itself and the Meteor missile, doesn’t help much if you can’t reliably track your opponent at long range.
hopsalot‘Current MRAAMs’, ‘current air-to-air missiles of its type’. Plural in all cases. ‘Of its type’ would also imply missiles of similar size, which would exclude a MICA, which is barely an MRAAM by modern standards. An AA-12 has similar range to an AIM-120C-5 and a Derby is simply far to obscure to be likely but the latest version of that also has a range of 100km as regards MBDA inc’s current statement. Specific mention of AMRAAM in Combat Aircraft in 2013 in conjunction with specific mention of AMRAAM Meteor is ‘replacing’. The RAF AMRAAM in 2013 was (and still is) the AIM-120C-5 and the missile Meteor will replace is the AIM-120C-5, not the A or the B, which had already been replaced at time of press.
Mica is most certainly a medium range missile, and it is one of the missiles the Meteor will be replacing. (not completely, but Rafales will certainly be replacing some of their Mica EM missiles with Meteor)
The point is that the statement is referring to medium range missiles generally, not specifically to the AIM-120C5. You haven’t provided one shred of evidence to support your argument.
hopsalotOn a more serious note, does the F-35 pilots fly regular with that helmet?
Or is it slated for later block upgrade. Think i read somewhere there is several different helmets being used with F-35.
Yes, all pilots fly with the helmet all of the time. Unlike earlier fighters the F-35 doesn’t have a HUD and all that information is projected directly inside the helmet. I am sure it is technically possible to fly the aircraft without the helmet but this would never be done.
The helmet has undergone several revisions to fix a variety of issues including jittering symbology, light leaking around the edges when operating at night, poor resolution in night mode, latency, etc. The current version appears to have finally hammered the glitches out.
hopsalotGuess a map and compass is handy when your system crashes down
I suppose they could just glue a Garmin to the dashboard…
hopsalotNo but I can circle the word ‘current’ and the MBDA graphic on the slide and tell you that that company only began in Dec 2001 and that AIM-120C-5 deliveries began in July 2000. And I can also highlight the word ‘current’ in the defense-update article dated March 2008. Now you may still choose to interpret the word ‘current’ to mean ‘not current’ and it is that which is dragging out this debate.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0308/news/news2103_meteor.htm
That could be a Mica, or an AA-12, or a Derby, or other missiles… all of those are current medium range missiles. You are insisting on picking the longest ranged version of the longest ranged missile operable at that time. Knowing how marketers work, it is more likely they picked one of the shorter ranged missiles to make their new product sound better.
hopsalotWhy don’t you remind us what brilliant insight you think you have provided us that you received “first hand” no less.
hopsalotJust ignore him and don’t quote his ramblings so the rest of us don’t have to see him.
He isn’t a “different, not entirely illogical perspective,” he is just yet another Russia Stronk keyboard warrior who can’t be bothered to operate in the real world.
hopsalotI had some first hand info a few moths ago too. They said you made things up.
hopsalotErrrrrrrrr…. hopsalot… next to the original poster you got two other guys wasting their time and explaining you how he meant it.. me in #6269 and Austin in #6270.. it would be advisable for you to quit that stupid you-got-no-clue-attitude and finally think about what his real point was.. looks like the issue is pretty much understandable for anyone who is not mentally limited..
Oh look, the guy who is proud that he doesn’t know the first thing about the US media is interested in sharing his strong opinions about… the US media.
:stupid:
hopsalotNice job thinking inside the box hopsalot. Next time I need to feel smart I’ll write something that makes you reply.
You seem to have strong opinions about things you know very little about. Kind of a bad combination in my opinion.
Sign In
