so they dont have aim120d in active service ? i thought they ordered aim120d in 2025 based on a news articles Germany Pays More for AIM-120 Than Its Own Meteor But There’s No Other Option | Defense Express
ig its not true then
they may have been ordered between september and now,…
but no contracts are final until they got delivered.
In september 2025, Germany only recieved a favorable information from the US Governement DSCA approval, to the LOA, notifying the US Congress to vote over this intended command of 400 AIM-120D-3.
but i don’t see any US Congress approval for Germany, so process is still incomplete,… and it’s still an “Intent to buy”
So germany still not have AIM-120D-3 in service today. (only the AIM-120C-8 they’ve got previously)
more about the Process:
I had seen a paper at some point, although I can’t find it. Maybe I misremembered or it could be dependent on the geometry of the engine…
Since I can’t find it (and it wasn’t related to missiles per say), it’s probably better to assume Mach 3.5 cruise indeed for the Meteor, especially since @naruto24k is also right in point out it’s closer to Mach 3-3.5 (if it’s compared to Aim120. If compared to MICA, which is also produced by MBDA, so this could be argued, it’d probably be in the upper Mach 3.5 area)
Damn, the 120D are costing them more than meteors despite meteors economy of scale being abysmal ? That’s insane
Yeah. The interesting question is the variable throttle and how that affects speed.
If the target is close enough that it doesnt need to throttle back to maximise effeciency… its then an interesting question as to how fast it can be. Given ranges in WT. That would probably be the most common (and as a result I can see them just setting it to the max throttle all the time as a result)
i also heard people saying that meteor production rate is very low or something like that is it true or is it just a rumor ? if its real then is it because of the cost ?
You can look above there was a conversation on the amount of meteor bought by the different countries, and its overall not a lot at all. I’m not certain there has been more than 1000-1500 built in like 15 years ?
maybe even slower than that
Maybe, but I though RAMJETs had a massive drop in effeciency below M2.5/3 ish
I dont really see why they would? because this is per fuel burned not maximum thrust
it makes sense that the most efficient point would be the lowest possible speed it can sustain due to the drag exponentially increasing with speed due to having to decelerate the air to subsonic velocity
In a turbojet, perhaps, but Ramjets work differently though. They have to be moving forward to scoop up the air. If they arent traveling fast enough, they’ll actually loose thrust, but not necessarily burn any less fuel
?
I know that, but ramjets still decelerate the air and the airflow through the combustion chamber needs to be subsonic
and if you have the control to do so there isnt a point in burning more fuel than can fully combust
And that’s what it shows on the graph? At the same speed, the lower the thrust specific fuel consumption, the better the fuel efficiency. The graph shows ramjet fuel efficiency only matches turbojets at around mach 4, and it’s 2 times worse below mach 2.
I wonder how the OSF integration could be implemented in game
??
Its been a while, but it was either from DGA people or Marketing material. But the OSF was said to be possibly used to target/detect low visibility aircraft. And could be used to spot targets at long range through IR frequencies. And i was wondering if more advanced versions of irist were planned additions in the game ?
No ? You graph shows that the faster it goes from Mach 1.5 to Mach 3.5, the less it consumes, and then a slight increase up to Mach 4
Rafale c also get talios ?