Why is that even an argument when the eurofighter specialy got asraam and iris-t for those situation
Use the right tools for the right circumstances , that makes the world easier for you
Dont be narrow minded, works great
3 Likes
but how else is he supposed to deal with his Eurofighter hate boner?
9 Likes
Meteor rocket plume: (2016)
AIM120 Rocket Plume
The length of the plume on the AIM120 is ~1.5 times the length and 2x the width of the missile.
The Meteor is much more obscured due to the smoke in the motor, but we can see that the plume is more than twice the length length and more than 3 times the width of the missile.
From this we can conclude that the boost motor on the meteor likely has a much higher impluse with shorter burn time than the 8 second burn motor on the AIM-120. What we don’t know is how long that boost motor burns for Its difficult to tell when the ramjet takes over. It may be that the ramjet and boost motor start at the same time, its impossible to tell from the videos alone.
We know that the operating peramiters of a solid fueled ducted ramjet is anywhere from mach 0.5, where the motor is effectively dead weight and cannot produce any thrust due to insufficent ram air in the intakes, to anywhere up to mach 4.5. because such jamjets do not operate effectively in hypersonic flow. The specific design of the meteor is an unkown, but we can use studies of the Indian SFDR to make probable comparisons.
p.s.
You cant make well intentioned assumptions about the meteor not being able to perform well in off boresight scenarios with no source to back it up and then refute any similar claim i or anyone else makes which also fails to use any legimate source material…
We are all just gessuing here based off the things we do know, and being hypocritical when things dont suit your narative is really poor form on your end.
7 Likes
Above I explained that meteor is not the be-all-end-all and Eurofighter maintains AMRAAM / ASRAAM to fill the remaining gaps. People hail the Meteor as the best but I fear it will be similarly as capable against peers as the current R-27ER was due to multipath, where short range IR missiles still dominated in the presence of a sheer powerhouse of a radar missile.
I don’t have a narrative, it is logical. If there isn’t good logic you’d have been able to make a counter point. You don’t have one.
Long story short, Russian planes continue to carry the R-73 even though the R-77 has +/- 90° off-boresight capacity. The turn radius of the R-73 is far superior and slower acceleration beneficial for dogfights. Similarly, the Eurofighter will carry a variety of short and long range ordnance. It isn’t that deep.
What is bank while turning supposed to be exactly? Skid to turn with simultaneous banking to optimal angle?
It can only pitch in one direction, thus it has to first roll and then pitch when the pitch vector is aligned with target vector. This introduces oscillations and sideslip which complicates the guidance if roll + pitch are used on an asymmetrical missile at the same time.
You seem to be going in circles and compare missiles of different class with each other regularly.
My understanding is it performs STT while rolling until it’s eventually performing a BTT. So there isn’t as much of a delay between roll to pitch as with traditional BTT.
3 Likes
5 Likes
Current gameplay shows quite the opposite.
Short range IR missiles have become completely secondary to ARH missiles.
Very few engagements are surviving to the merge and the furball meta is completely dead.
One day into the community learning how to dodge radar missiles with reduced multipathing is not sufficient to decide the meta.
In fact I think the F-14’s AIM-54 pre buffs was just as useful until people learned how to watch for them.
1 Like
It took them over 2 years to learn about multipathing and that flying around the deck made you immune to radar missiles. I give the ambitious speculation of 3 years. Maybe by then they will learn
id guesstimate maybe 4 seconds or so from this video
Meteor Missile Launch From Rafale Jet Fighter (youtube.com)
you can also roughly estimate the thrust of the motor from this video (ignoring drag) to be 35kN or so
You cannot estimate the thrust in that manner.
Fuel type unknown, nozzle size unknown, altitude unknown.
1 Like
Acceleration = Resultant force ÷ Mass
Resultant force = Thrust - Weight
Assuming a thrust of 35kn would give an acceleration of 175m/s (not accounting for drag)
If you can work out the acceleration using the video, you can use the above calculation in reverse to calculate the thrust.
If you know the acceleration and the burn time of the motor you can calculate the minimum Delta-V of the misisle.
It’s more of a guesstimate as we don’t know the speed, altitude, enpty weight and drag index at the time of launch, but it’s extrapolation using basic physics which will get us to within 10% of the true performance of the missile.
nozzle is known. It doesnt exist
you dont have to subtract weight from the thrust as the missile is not going against gravity.
it travels its own length in about .2 seconds or faster (counting frames) which is 3.65m giving an acceleration of 182m/s² and with a weight of 190kg thats just under 35kN
but this is a lot of guessing (the framerate of the video is not very high, not accounting for weight loss due to fuel burn and ofc drag)
1 Like
Assuming the video isn’t sped up, slowed down, or altered as well. We have a ballpark but it’s not sufficient on its own as a source. As I said earlier, we don’t know the altitude or other factors either. Thrust can vary quite a bit depending on altitude.
Which has already been clarified/covered.
We are inferring what the likely performance of the booster is based on the evidence we have, while clearly stating this is not accurate and has a large error % due to signficant unknowns. But its close enough to prove or disprove wild assumptions that have been made about the misisle in the past.
1 Like