The Meteor, if you distill it down to the basics, is very much like a VFDR AMRAAM. The seeker, warhead and guidance will be of similar capabilities and yield. What’s different is that it is a ducted rocket missile (it is technically NOT a RAMJET even though people like to call it that *see note*). In fact, when the meteor was being planned Raytheon offered a VFDR AMRAAM called the FMRAAM as an alternative to the european program. The motor for such an application, was actually funded and developed (circa 2002) by Aerojet alongside other projects such as the MARC-282 (13.5″) and MARC-290 (10″) VFDR motors. However, currrently the US armed services have other priorities and there do not seem to be a lot of immediate interest in mounting a VFDR motor on the AMRAAM to extend its reach beyond the 100~150km bracket of the AIM-120D.

Note: Ramjet vs Ducted Rocket — The biggest difference between the two is that a true Ramjet ignites and burn its fuel using the compressed air from the intakes alone — like a jet engine minus the rotational compressors. A Ducted Rocket burns its fuel using independent oxidizers then introduce the already ignited but fuel rich exhaust gases of the rocket based pre-combustion to the intake air to be burnt completely. The advantage of ducted rockets is that it can easily be made solid fueled (as is the case with the Meteor) and it never needs to be re-ignited should it momentarily flame out due to intake problems. The disadvantage of Ducted Rockets is that the missile is carrying at least part of the oxidizer it uses and hence as a lower energy content than a true RAMJET. FVDR — Variable Flow Ducted Rocket — refers to a Ducted Rocket with the ability to meter its fuel rich combustion exhaust into the main combustor and/or the intake airflow. The Meteor is a VFDR. In the case of the Meteor, the missile burns the solid sustainer grain in a pressure vessel separated from the main combustor by a pintle valve. It works the pintle valve to meter is right amount of fuel rich exhaust to the main combustor depending on the air density (altitude) and thrust desired. To the best of my knowledge its air intakes are fixed.

to sum up from my understanding , if the missiles are at the same size then
Ramjet = long range , high cruise speed , not very maneuver , perform bad at high altitude

Solid fuel =maneuver , not effected by high altitude , short range , low cruise speed

VFDR rocket = maneuver (better than ramjet but not as good as solid fuel ) , perform better at high altitude than ramjet but not as good as solid fuel , longer range and cruise speed than solid fuel but not as good as ramjet

Now it’s much better after this elucidation above.

Maybe someone could inform Aerojet Company to rectify its statement to prevent that some other fool besides myself also misinterpret the meaning of the article because misjudged a single word like: throttleable.

I could mention that it was misled because the beginning of the article as:

After I have been reading two lines such idiot like me could be tired and regardless. I also understand that the article was not meant for someone like me, but as far I known many good projects have been canceled in all fields in reason of conflicts generated by erroneous interpretation, once the fact of someone has been in charge to approval or not some project could not be assurance of …

I believe the intention was to make a comparison with anti radiation missile Kh 31P which were also used in different setup as missile target by the U.S. Navy.

In fact the Kh 31P( AS 17 Krypton) has been equipped with ramjet propulsion of liquid fuel, and it could be throttleable in order to obtain a better range at different altitudes in which it could be released by aircrafts.

However a disadvantage of the liquid fuel from Kh 31 could be that it can not be stored for long, as in the case of solid fuel, so it is only fueled prior to a mission.

here probably the answear

The Meteor, if you distill it down to the basics, is very much like a VFDR AMRAAM. The seeker, warhead and guidance will be of similar capabilities and yield. What’s different is that it is a ducted rocket missile (it is technically NOT a RAMJET even though people like to call it that *see note*). In fact, when the meteor was being planned Raytheon offered a VFDR AMRAAM called the FMRAAM as an alternative to the european program. The motor for such an application, was actually funded and developed (circa 2002) by Aerojet alongside other projects such as the MARC-282 (13.5″) and MARC-290 (10″) VFDR motors. However, currrently the US armed services have other priorities and there do not seem to be a lot of immediate interest in mounting a VFDR motor on the AMRAAM to extend its reach beyond the 100~150km bracket of the AIM-120D.

Note: Ramjet vs Ducted Rocket — The biggest difference between the two is that a true Ramjet ignites and burn its fuel using the compressed air from the intakes alone — like a jet engine minus the rotational compressors. A Ducted Rocket burns its fuel using independent oxidizers then introduce the already ignited but fuel rich exhaust gases of the rocket based pre-combustion to the intake air to be burnt completely. The advantage of ducted rockets is that it can easily be made solid fueled (as is the case with the Meteor) and it never needs to be re-ignited should it momentarily flame out due to intake problems. The disadvantage of Ducted Rockets is that the missile is carrying at least part of the oxidizer it uses and hence as a lower energy content than a true RAMJET. FVDR — Variable Flow Ducted Rocket — refers to a Ducted Rocket with the ability to meter its fuel rich combustion exhaust into the main combustor and/or the intake airflow. The Meteor is a VFDR. In the case of the Meteor, the missile burns the solid sustainer grain in a pressure vessel separated from the main combustor by a pintle valve. It works the pintle valve to meter is right amount of fuel rich exhaust to the main combustor depending on the air density (altitude) and thrust desired. To the best of my knowledge its air intakes are fixed.

so basically Ramjet missiles are less maneuver and easier to flame out thus replace by solid fuel , ducted rocket are impossible to flame out , better sustain er than solid fuel and not restricted in maneuver like pure ramjet , but it can not sustain long range as good as ramjet

I’d never heard anything restricting it to subsonic release either, and it would specifically defeat its purpose and mission aims.

i cant exactly remember where i read it , i will try to find it now , probably not subsonic but not much faster than mach 1 , probably mach 1.2 or sth

Makes you wonder how no one has come up with a solution to the problem.

i dont really think you could come up with a solution for that problem , it just physics , missiles are affected significantly by the air density

Where did you get the idea AIM-54 required subsonic release? Its predecessors were launched in tests up to Mach 2.8 and suffered not. And AIM-54 prototypes were tested in F-111B using supersonic speeds.

i dont remember where i read it , but was something like AIM-54 launched at speed > 800 knots will have percentage to fly up ward and hit the aircraft thus it never launched at speed faster than that

Do all missiles suffer from this problem?

yes , all supersonic missiles does
doesnt really make different for the subsonic missiles i think

According to MBDA, Meteor has solid propellant…

http://www.bayern-chemie.com/ramjet.htm

And they tested succesfully gel propellants (in flight) in 2009…

http://www.bayern-chemie.com/gel.htm

So hardly a world first…

no i mean world first ramjet AAM , in production , solid propellant is for the booster

Theoratically possible, but imagine; a Su-35 flying at 12000 m @ M1.5+ will need so little AOA that it will be flying closer to its Cd0 (at given mach number). With the zoom climb and associated speed loss, its likely to come down stalled. Such action would waste great amounts of energy, and would not be practical.

I don’t have exact data for Su-27 for various payloads, but I can examplify how ceiling of F-15/16 changes with varying weight/drag. What matters is, such ceiling with missiles will certainly happen subsonic speeds, at supersonic at M1.3+ with 10 missiles, level flight altitudes will be much lower, around 12000m.

i dont quite get it , even the F-35 have flow to 50,000 ft level fly and it basically a snail compared to su-27

On November 14, during setup for a 45,000 ft test point, AF-4 flew to 50,000 ft, the design altitude limit. This is the first time F-35 has flown to 50K.

about zoom climb many aircraft can zoom to very high altitude
F-4 zoom to almost 100 k feets

During the proving phase of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II, on December 6, 1959, an early version of the aircraft (the XF4H-1) performed a zoom climb to a world record 98,557 feet (30,040 m) as part of Operation `Top Flight’.

sukhoi T-43 ( basically a mig-21 ) zoom to 90 k feets

Soviet Sukhoi T-43-1 prototype. Commander Lawrence E. Flint Jr. accelerated his aircraft to Mach 2.5 at 47,000 feet (14,330 m) and climbed to 90,000 feet (27,430 m) at a 45-degree angle.

i dont get it why it so hard for su-35 to zoom to 60k feet , launch it’s missiles then come down , it have much more power (T/W ) and less drag than most aircraft listed above

Not related to weapons, but should be related to airframe weight. I don’t have data, but logical estimate is at 50% fuel, it should be able to pull whatever Gs its capable of pulling. Speaking of performance, MiG-31 can achieve M2.83 with 4xR-33 + 2xR-40 thats I all know.

Assuming MiG-31’s level flight envelope behaves similarly to MiG-25 (which I have data); MiG-25 achieves its ceiling around M2.5; ~23000m at 24tons, 21500m at 28 tons with 4xFAB-500s. At 35 tons, its ceiling is approx. 15000 meters, achieved at ~M1.5.

So with full fuel and weapons load, MiG-31 should reach around 15000m, with decrased fuel to 50%, it should easily exceed both 20000m and M2.5 marks with full missile load.

what make the mig-25/31 able to fly at much higher altitude than other aircraft ? i know they are much faster but they also have much higher wing loading compared to su-27 ? arent that kind of compensate for the other

It depends on how negative SEP aircraft has at its maximal instantenius turn. For example, MiG-31 takes 65 seconds to complete an 360 turn at M1.4. This data means it has 5,53 deg/s turn rate, requiring it to sustain 4,2Gs. With maximum 5Gs, its instantenious turn drag is not that different than what is sustaining. With different speed/altitude combinations it may, or it may not lose speed/altiude. On an extreme example, a MiG-31 sustaining 5Gs at a certain speed will also be pulling its max. instantenius turn.

but at high speed , high altitude instantenius turn have significant effect on speed and altitude isnt it ?

Assuming both types will be able to carry it? BVR Advantage still belongs to MiG-31, IMHO.

assume su-35 carry ramjet R-77 and Mig-31 carry R-37
then which one will have advantage if the launch distance are : 200 km – 160 km -100 km – 70 km ? , assume both aircraft zoom to about 50-60k feets before launching their missiles too

vs

btw

Aim-54 cannot be release at speed > mach 1 because the missiles will flow upward and hit the aircraft , is there similar restriction on R-33/37 ? cause they seem to have similar aerodynamic design