wildcolonialboyMeteor throttles its ramjet in order to maximise its velocity at the moment of interception. So by the time it arrives at the target, its fuel will have been expended.
Yes, I read that, but that’s not a physical limitation, it’s in the software. It could be that, say the missile has 40% fuel left, it will throttle up to use 20% fuel of fuel left in the terminal phase so it gets extra energy, but if it misses it still has 20% of the fuel left.
In any case, I suppose what I’m getting at is that it has the physical possibility of implementing such a tactic. Whether the engineers at MBDA think this might work is up to them, but it is physically feasible.
wildcolonialboyI’m a little puzzled how you seems not to consider how also a jet can recuperate the energy it lose, using its afterburner and/or diving.
Of course a jet can gain speed, but it is much heavier and already travelling slower than a missile which is flying at Mach 3. A Meteor has much less drag, much greater speed and can pull much higher G’s than a fighter (I know missiles need to pull some multiples of the G a fighter is at to hit it, but even so)
In every case the Meteor advantage lie in its ownterminal manoevrability due to ramjet when compared with a rocket propelled, while the idea it can just backflip and attack again seems me quite difficult to happen in a real combat.
That would be a valid point if that were actually my position. With respect, it seems like you’re strawmanning me. If a fighter is continuously manoeuvring to avoid a missile, it will be losing energy.
The Meteor doesn’t need to backflip, if it misses it simply swings around for another pass at the fighter. The whole point of Meteor’s ramjet propulsion is that it is flying under power, and when it enters the terminal phase and misses, if it still has fuel left, it can turn (missiles can do that) and re-attack. This is one of the major advantages its manufacturers talk about (multi-shot capability)
And it is precisely the fact it is under power that makes it different from a rocket-powered missile; when the rocket-powered missile enters the terminal phase, if it misses then it will not have enough energy to re-attack whereas the Meteor is only limited by whether it has sufficient fuel to keep flying, and whether it can reacquire the target after it has had its “back” to the fighter. If the missile is still receiving guidance over the datalink from the launching aircraft’s radar then this should not be an issue. When you consider the drag effects on a missile, along with its form of propulsion, it is far likelier to be able to retain speed and energy, and make a turn during the time the fighter is still recovering its energy and accelerating or attempting to regain altitude. You say the fighter could dive, but that doesn’t gain it any energy because the missile can follow the dive and obtains the same energy advantage.
I haven’t done any calculations but it seems intuitive to me that even with one missile, with the first “pass” the fighter will have lost energy and speed, the missile will turn (not a hard 50g turn, it might even be a relatively gentle turn to retain energy) and by the time it comes back, the PAK FA will still be in an inferior position in terms of Energy-Manoeuvrability compared to when it first started manoeuvring to avoid a missile. It’s exactly the same concept as a fighter manoeuvring to avoid two conventional rocket-propelled missiles; it uses up lots of energy to avoid the first, and gets hit by the second. If the period of time it takes the Meteor to turn is less than the amount of time between two conventional missile shots that would kill a fighter, then you can say that a Meteor’s ability to re-engage is tactically useful.
When you throw a second Meteor into the mix on top of the first, launched at a specific interval after the first, it means the target PAK FA will be manoeuvring to avoid the first missile (which if it has sufficient fuel is re-engaging with each miss) and so it is at a substantive energy disadvantage already, making it extremely vulnerable to the second shot.
wildcolonialboyI found an interesting addition (I promise my last post for now… sorry for being a bit all over the place in terms of staying on topic); this video from MBDA depicting an F-35 conducting a Spear Cap 3 strike. What I found most interesting was that it depicts each F-35 carrying four Spears in each bay, along with a Meteor in each bay. If the RAF is able to integrate Meteor and Spear onto the F-35, it would be a very potent combination. And I just realised how much Spear looks like the SDB II (the configuration of the body and wings, the multi-mode seeker), the only difference being Spear would have a turbojet.
wildcolonialboyIn fact it’s sound like being a good concept. Pack a punch in a smaller, cheaper, faster platform that you can broadly disseminate.
Add UAV with a high speed recovery mode and you can avoid fragile and capricious VTOL design (wind speed). A sea speed just under 50knts will let you recover something rather heavy able to carry an use full load in challenging weather.
EDIT:
the vessel depicted above seems even to big.
One role I thought might be quite suitable for them is fighting through a moderate sea denial scenario, like a closure of the Straits of Hormuz. You could send in five or six of these little guys at high speed, popping off shots at opposing vessels and coastal targets, and shooting down any aircraft or missiles that turn up to oppose them. They could dart back and forth into the Strait, covering each other and attriting the enemy forces, while being able to go back to a supply ship outside the battle area for reloads (I know that’s far easier said than done)
The main thing is that if they cost $150 million or so and had 30 crew on board, you would not be risking as much as you are sending in a $2 billion destroyer. Naval vessels now are so expensive that you can’t really afford to lose even one. And I think adversary nations know that.
wildcolonialboyI just thought I’d post this picture from MBDA of the Spear Cap 3 Brimstones quad-packed into a Mark 41. It’s expected to have a range of about 120km with its little turbojet, a multimode seeker (MMW + SALH or SALH + IR?) + INS/GPS + datalink. It looks pretty capable and only weighs 80kg; perfect to provide very broad capabilities to a small vessel
wildcolonialboyI will be nothing but astounded if we discover that the CAAM(A) AAM uses the same seeker that the land/naval SAM, i am expecting an IR seeker, more precisely the exact same used by the AIM-9X BII.
Cheers
Ah, I’ve probably got my wires crossed then. A friend with some knowledge of these kinds of things mentioned that it was going to be RF across the board, but he’s not working on the programme so he must have been confused (and thus my confusion).
wildcolonialboyIn fact it’s sound like being a good concept. Pack a punch in a smaller, cheaper, faster platform that you can broadly disseminate.
Add UAV with a high speed recovery mode and you can avoid fragile and capricious VTOL design (wind speed). A sea speed just under 50knts will let you recover something rather heavy able to carry an use full load in challenging weather.
EDIT:
the vessel depicted above seems even to big.
Thanks! If only I could patent it 😉 I do think MBDA is going to get a lot of orders with CAMM because of the excellent synergy of quad-packing, active RF and being able to cue from a radar that is not top of the line or bleeding edge. The New Zealand Navy has opted to upgrade their ANZAC class frigates with CAMM.
The UK has some excellent equipment coming through right now with CAMM and multi-mode Brimstone / Spear Cap 3. The question is whether Britain can take advantage of such an opportunity, and I think usually that would mean buying a couple of vessels themselves before others will want them. Historically the UK has tended to trip themselves up at this point and allowed these kinds of opportunities to get away from them.
But I think the technology has advanced to the point where you can have a large corvette that has armed to the teeth with weapons that are very capable but within a more limited range envelope than an SM-2 or a Tomahawk. You get your air defence, naval strike and land strike, but in a more reasonable package and with equipment that is not too complex and doesn’t have too many moving parts (proverbially speaking)
And I think you’re right about the above vessel even being too large. I don’t think you necessarily need helicopters (obviously a deck for deliveries), if you stick with smaller UAVs you could pack it all into a very compact, well-armed vessel. Stick a few torpedo decoys on board rather than top of the line ASW.
wildcolonialboyField of view?
An IR Seeker field of view depends on the optics that are in the front of the sensor, the norm today, with gimbaled optics, is a full 180º frontal arc (the radar seeker has other advantages, detection range and precision), on a boat or on a SAM battery a smaller FOV on the weapon itself is not a particular problem, they have sensors covering 360º above them, they can point the trisonic explosive thingy in the general correct direction before shooting it. The aircraft on the other hand has a radar coverage of (roughly) 1/4 of the frontal arc, using the IR seeker of the missile at WVR means that the weapon can be shot outside of the FOV of the main sensor (the aircraft radar).
Cheers, thanks for the info! I assumed there must be some reason for maintaining the IR/Radar division of labour even after smaller active RF seekers became plausible. It will be interesting to see whether the RAF going all RF for their air-to-air missiles will be the right move.
wildcolonialboyNote that MMI is going just to purchase the extender range version of it for our new “faster than Destroyer, armed like a cruiser” OPV and they would fit the role you have in mind even better.
Obviously, no Brimstones in our case, but Vulcano guided artillery projectiles.
Interesting, do you think the Italians are moving away from joint acquisition with the French on naval vessels or is it a one-off? And what kind of guidance does Vulcano have? I couldn’t work it out from the website. If OTO Melara has managed to perfect the Vulcano shell it would be very interesting indeed, it seems almost like a bit of a holy grail in terms of artillery/gunfire weapons (iirc, the Americans tried and failed to develop one for the Zumwalts)
Edit: Awesome pic btw. It looks like a fierce little vessel
wildcolonialboyMica VL is a shortish range SAM with active radar guidance. RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a short-range SAM with semi-active radar guidance.
Are you replying to my second comment? I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say, but I’ll have a go anyway
The RIM-7 Sea Sparrow (leaving aside the fact it s hopelessly obsolete now and is being replaced by ESSM) is precisely the kind of system that wouldn’t really fit into the design philosophy I mentioned above. It’s semi-active radar guidance means you need complex and expensive equipment to illuminate all the way to the target, so in all the ways that matter it’s completely unlike CAMM which can rely on a general surveillance radar to cue it to targets and then fire. No specialised fire control radars, no target illumination; just a general air surveillance radar like Giraffe or Artisan, and your VL tubes.
As for MICA, it’s about 20 years old now and the French are in the process of gearing up to replace it, whereas the CAMM is just coming into service now. Perhaps most importantly, the CAMM is quad-packed and can be deployed in either Sylver or Mk 41, while MICA VL does not quad-pack and only fits Sylver. Thus it seems CAMM is very much the superior system in terms of arming a large corvette or small frigate. I’m also unaware of anything the French have in the pipeline that would be comparable to a VL Spear Cap 3. With only 16 vertical launch tubes, a small frigate could carry 32 CAMM(M)s and 32 VL Spear Cap 3s that would provide superb air defence coverage, naval strike, land target strike (of fixed targets by GPS guidance) and naval gunfire support (from the Spear Cap 3’s laser guided function on the triple-seeker). They’re also far cheaper than MICA, which is astonishingly expensive (the Indian deal suggests over $2 million a round. But at the least you’d be looking at a million euros per missile, whereas CAMM would probably be half that given a generous markup over ASRAAM).
In any case, I probably should have focused on my first question; are there any physical or design considerations that favour infrared over radar for use in short/medium range air-to-air missiles, and whether there is any reason infrared should be continued to be used in future for air-to-air missiles. Is there any particular reason to maintain a mix of seeker types, and if so by infrared should be on the short/medium range missiles and radar on the long-range, other than for the historical reasons I mentioned above (i.e. you could develop an infrared seeker for a small Sidewinder-sized missile, whereas at that time in the 1950s you would not be able to develop an active RF seeker for that sized missile.. or even a SARH seeker for a small missile)
Edit: Got it. You were referring to the exceptions to the rule. Sure, there are exceptions. What I’m interested in is the general rule for air-to-air you see in Russia, the US, the UK, Japan etc (short/medium range infrared, long-range radar guided). Specifically, is there any reason to continue the infrared/radar division of labour
wildcolonialboyLong missile range requires large rocket or ram-jet motors and these heavy weapons lack the agility to pull high terminal G. Consequently, it won’t be difficult for the PAK-FA to dodge these missiles.
The MBDA Meteor does have a ramjet motor but I’m not sure it could be considered exceptionally heavy (it’s 80 kilograms lighter than the R-27). Also, isn’t it far easier to dodge in theory than in practice? You really need to start your manoeuvre at just the right time; too early and the missile will simply track you as you move and lose energy. Too late and it will obviously hit you. Wouldn’t you need a pretty advanced MWS/RWR that tells you precisely when to jump? I thought the whole point of having a missile flying under power all the way to the target is that the old considerations of how easy (or otherwise) it is to dodge an air-to-air missile really go out the window?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)
The Brits are also working with the Japanese to use the AESA radar from the AAM-4B on the Meteor which I expect will increase its resistance to countermeasures significantly.
I think probably the most difficult aspect is that if the Meteor misses it can simply turn around and re-engage the target, after which the PAK FA will have expended significant energy manoeuvring out of the way the first time and thus much more vulnerable when the Meteor comes around for a second go. If two were fired, you dodge the first, lose energy and get hit by the second. Even if the PAK FA has an advantage in being able to manoeuvre out of the way, going up against a missile that has the capability to re-engage would be deadly to the pilot’s situational awareness as they keep having to manoeuvre again and again until the Meteor runs out of fuel (with their attention focused on this throughout). If the Western aircraft could light up the PAK FA with its radar at a reasonable distance (big if) then I wonder how realistic PAK FA survival would be against two Meteors fired with an interval between them so that the second missile is cruising into the terminal phase just as the PAK FA pilot is caught up and focused on trying to avoid the first one.
wildcolonialboyHow far along is the PAK FA with its avionics fit? It seems like the Russians were quite ambitious particularly with that L-band radar (was it supposed to be in the leading edge slats?); I would think it would be a real achievement to put together the all the electronics in terms of getting the primary and L-band radars to work together, to fuse the data and operate in a way that is seamless with the EW kit etc
wildcolonialboyI would just add, I think the CAMM maritime version is a superb idea. As it does not rely on complex and expensive illumination from a shipboard radar, and can be quad-packed, I think you could put together a really effective maritime patrol craft with 8 CAMM VL tubes (x 4 quad packed, for 32) and 8 Sea Brimstone tubes (x 4 quad packed). You’d have 32 CAMMs and 32 Sea Brimstones, with a very simple radar up top (maybe Sea Giraffe or Artisan 3D).
Such a ship would be both capable, and quite cost effective. It would have good protection for air defence, and the Sea Brimstones (if they are updated to essentially be a naval VL-launched Spear Cap 3) could even provide for an indirect naval gunfire support capability for troops inland, to strike using its laser guided mode illuminated by troops on the ground (or even a strike capability using the GPS for fixed targets). This is, of course, in addition to the Brimstone’s capacity to engage naval targets (and particularly swarming boats) in MMW mode. The UK could open up a whole new market niche for corvettes or small frigates which would be highly capable but within the price range of many smaller nations, and which do not require complex logistics, expensive radars and the like.
Sign In
