Personally my freedom to live and work across Europe in my job within a global business hasn’t been a problem and has definitely been a benefit. I’ve found waking up in a sunny and warm Spain in the middle of the European winter most beneficial to my health and wellbeing.

Maybe so, but you are in a minority.

I lived through it and I disagree. Social evolution my ****.

We live in a country where we, ordinary working people, vote for councillors belonging to a party that is ideologically bent on screwing us and our families over. Why? Because the leader of that party shouts at foreigners. How socially evolved is that, exactly?

You think a succession of right-of-centre South-centric Governments since 1979 would have put taxpayer’s money into regenerating our ex-industrial cities like the EU did? Whether or not you agree with it is a different argument. I agree we voted for a series of malevolent sods who would sooner their Eton mates got tax breaks than see yours truly get his first job in a cafe on the Albert Dock funded by Europe – which is what happened.

You really think we are capable of any kind of spontaneous reform with this ever-decreasing level of sophistication? I despair – many do.

Nonsense. The Conservatives are good if you have a job and bad if you haven’t, or perhaps have disabilities. The problem in the case of the latter is various people scamming the system, difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. But their income tax policies have benefited the lowest income working people.

Nobody shouts at foreigners except for a teeny-weeny minority. Most people recognise the benefits of controlled immigration but also see the problems of a free-for-all.

What you have to understand is that tax is a funny thing, when you increase certain rates, the actual total amount of tax collected can go down or up with subsequent economic effects. As regards malevolent sods, are you referring to Communist-infiltrated 1970s trade unions, which were successfully smashed during the 1980s but only after they’d destroyed the British automotive sector?

What decreasing level of sophistication are you referring to? On social evolution, it was actually the Conservatives who legalised gay marriage and the current not so Liberal Democrat leader refuses to confirm that gay sex isn’t a sin. So when presented with the choice between a Marxist, a homophobe and the Tories, which is the most socially evolved?

Common sense and reading.

Rmax quite simply is maximum distance that the missile can reach it’s target. The missile’s energy is altitude+speed. Take two theoretical missiles with the exact same amount of propellant, same drag and lift coefficients, weigh etc. They are identical except, one has a throttle-able rocket the other a single pulse motor. They are going to have the exact same Rmax 1 (reaching a non-maneuvering target at maximum possible distance), the difference is how they get there. The single pulse rocket motor will have greater kinetic energy initially, the throttleable motor will have greater potential energy throughout most of the flight given the same profile and altitude.(should say “could have” assuming missile is conserving propellant)

The difference is in Rmax 2 (a target with a changing velocity vector), the single pulse motor may not be able to catch up with the target, or a change in target aspect will force the missile to change direction losing energy and therefore max range. The missile with a throttle-able motor can conserve energy allowing it change velocity.

In the context of the Meteor and the Aim-120, the larger NEZ speaks to it’s ability to remain powered for a longer duration. That does not translate to longer range. MBDA is careful in their claim “AGAINST AN AGILE, EVADING TARGET, METEOR’S NO-ESCAPE ZONE—THE AREA WITHIN WHICH, IF A MISSILE IS LAUNCHED, THE TARGET CANNOT KINEMATICALLY AVOID BEING HIT”, they specifically mention it’s performance against a maneuvering target as this highlights the great advantage the Meteor has over contemporary single pulse motor AAM’s.

It is a bit academic, but yes, an Aim-120D could have a longer maximum range flying a ballistic trajectory against a non-maneuvering target. The WEZ would be always changing on a maneuvering target (NEZ as well). The Meteor’s biggest advantage is the WEZ will be greater in a variety of target aspects and speeds, and the NEZ as well.

There is literally no commonsense here at all. By extending this claim, you could say that a cruise missile with the same amount of propellant as a rocket will go the same distance. It won’t. The difference is the propellant and the propulsion type. The Meteor VFDR uses atmospheric oxygen, the solid rocket has to contain its oxidiser in the propellant, hence less in a given weight of propellant, there is less fuel.

In this particular case, you have two fairly similar 180mm dia airframes, not exactly the same, but fairly. They are both going to reach a similar Vmax to within 10%, though the SR may get there sooner. After Vmax is reached, the SR immediately decelerates, its speed decaying over Xkm until its fundamentally dead. Now the VFDR reaches Vmax later and sustains it for a period Y, only after than period does it begin to undergo roughly the same deceleration profile as the SR. So you have the same deceleration occuring at a later time and a further distance from launch point.

It’s difficult to image how it doesn’t translate to longer range. If it goes further before the burn runs out and reaches a similar speed, how can it not go further? NEZ depends on manoeuvrability, manoeuvrability is based on lift, which is largely determined by velocity for a missile. If the Meteor has more than 3 times the NEZ and NEZ limit equates to say Mach 3, then the meteor is still at Mach 3 after 3 times the distance at which the C-5 falls below it. So if that happens at 80km for a C-5 at 60,000ft, then it happens at 240km for the Meteor. A C-5 decelerating through Mach 3 at 80km is not going to go further than a Meteor decelerating through Mach 3 at 240km and neither is a D decelerating through Mach 3 at 110-120km.

Read it, was very careful NOT to use ramjet but throttleable rocket motor.

But it’s a throttleable ducted rocket, hence it still uses atmospheric oxygen, the propellant only contains a minimal amount of oxidiser to produce the throttleable plasma.

But TBH I don’t know why we’re debating this except for Top trumps purposes, since only the NEZ is really relevant anyway, hence why MBDA only talk in terms of NEZ, rather than saying, “yeah, our missile will do 300km, but you won’t hit anything except a hot air balloon at that range.”

Well actually it does cut it. And the original paragraph is hopelessly Europhillic. ‘Funding to areas hit by industrial decline.’ Funding using our own money. A recycling culture? Does this not exist in North America and Australia also? Removal of commission on currency exchanges. Last I looked, summer last year, you still had to pay more than 20 Euros in £s for 20 Euros. Smoke free workplaces? Again this exist in North America too, without intervention from the EU. It’s just a whole list of stuff that naturally happened due to social evolution that he’s deciding to credit to the EU. Perhaps if these things hadn’t happen outside the EU around the same time or earlier, then the argument might have a leg to stand on.

Freedom to live across Europe? That’s one of the problems, not the benefits. Free access to EU health services? All paid for by taxpayers and we pay £700m more net for UK citizens abroad than we get for taking care of EU citizens here, even though there’s 3 times as many. Is the bloc negotiating really beneficial? 28 different interests. 29-way conversation vs 2-way conversation. Vastly different economies that the other party has to take into account.

But if the Meteor can indeed “trottle down” in the mid section of its flight profile, then not just does it save fuel as of it, but if it has to adjust its vector/heading during this mid-section flight time, it would save(or said in another way, not spend as much) energy as the full burn missile would.

Written in 2013
http://s25.postimg.org/4qw3vyzov/going_digital_pg_3.jpg

Is not “Ryan”

All I’ve done is provide sources and offer the most logical interpretation of them. The problem comes when some try to downplay the advantages stated due to national commercial interests. What anti-Rafale stuff?

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0308/news/news2103_meteor.htm
https://s32.postimg.org/q9sfbcrph/Screen_Shot_2016_07_13_at_6_02_26_AM.png

No, in the literature the “3 to 6 times the NEZ” refers to a head-on vs rear aspect engagement. The biggest advantage for the ramjet meteor is that it maintains it’s speed for a longer duration. That’s why I said the WEZ for the Meteor probably looks significantly different than for the AMRAAM.

In the ideal engagement scenario ( target heading 180* -head on, positive shooter pitch, high altitude, high shooter velocity, low target velocity, 0* off boresight) I wouldn’t expect much difference in NEZ between the two (and the -120D actually claims a longer Rmax). Once target aspect, altitude, velocity, and boresight angles become less than ideal, the Meteor would be far superior.

So why does it say ‘compared to missiles of its type’ plural? And we are again talking about an article in March 2008 that say ‘kinematic performance’. Deliveries of AIM-120C-5 started in July 2000, C-7 in January 2006.

AIM-120D longer Rmax than what?

I think you’re also making some bad assumptions as regards tail chase vs head on and high altitude. You also forget that Meteor can throttle down to extend its range, if we’re talking about a dumb object coming in head-on. Head-on at high altitude, the drag is greatly reduced, so the missile that burns longer may well reach a higher speed, even if the shorter burning one reaches a higher speed at lower altitudes.

:confused:

It’s the owner of debt who gets paid in interest.

The spec likely wouldn’t have mentioned AMRAAM at all, it would only have stated a goal in km for the NEZ. The comparison probably arrived later for purposes of marketing. That said the AIM-120C has been around donkey’s years, before the formal statement of intent was signed for Meteor and currently we see the statement is ‘greater than 3x’ and even ‘3-6 times’. This was written in 2008.

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0308/news/news2103_meteor.htm

News – March 2008
Meteor will be operated on Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen aircraft, with the air forces of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK. According to MBDA, Meteor has three to six times the kinematic performance of current air/air missiles of its type.