Exact opposite is true? Please tell us how you reached that conclusion, please.

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.

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’.

Your making assumptions, one can’t simply cherry pick quotes and information out of context. Here’s the actual quote:

“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—IS THREE TIMES LARGER THAN THAT OF A CONVENTIONAL SINGLE-PULSE ROCKET WEAPON IN A HEAD-ON ENGAGEMENT, AND FIVE TIMES LARGER IN A TAIL-CHASE

.

https://mbdainc.com/farnborough-air-show-preview-mbdas-meteor-cruise-missiles/

And when it says ‘3 to 6’, you would assume ‘6’ applies to less capable MRAAMs and exactly what MRAAM could it be talking about in 2008 that had a range of significantly under 50km?

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.

hmm, must be very inefficient, indeed.. that is probably why the NEZ of Meteor is almost larger than the kinetic range of the AMRAAM..

Hmm, are we speaking in the usual hyperbole again? Or are you privy to the highly classified missile envelopes to both the Aim-120D and the Meteor? Come on, do you even know what NEZ is?

The published ranges are actually similar, the NEZ of the Meteor is much larger according to MBDA claims, but as per former discussions, there is no consensus which Aim-120 model MBDA was using to compare. Safe to say a missile which is powered in the endgame is going to be more effective at the edges of it’s range and in a tail chase (tail aspect shot) but…..

ime will tell , but I have definitivelly not heard or seen anything that would suggest METEOR allows third party guiding and control . The ” can be operated using third party data …” applies already to several AAM outthere , as demonstrated amongst other with a MICA ER via Link 16.

The point of TWDL and the so called “net enabled weapons” are: retargeting, better data on weapons position vis a vis target, and guidance by third party. As the below links show, the “shooter” does not have to provide the guidance. It can be off-board.
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-weapons-revolution-continues-mbda-shapes-a-way-ahead-for-strike-platforms-in-the-kill-web/

MBDA is currently making significant progress with two such weapons, the Meteor air-to-air weapon and the SPEAR 3 air-to-ground weapon. Both of these weapons have interactive data links and the capability to shift from a particular weapons platform, which launched it to another platform able to direct the target path.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/net-enabled-weapons-drive-sea-warfare-change