yawn thats 14 on an EF
Now for real thats just a picture but an EF can carry 10 Meteor no problem.
Even more with the double rails that are shown in the pic.
Though for now no one has bought them as they are overkill.
About the high-angle off-boresight launch ability i cant say much though i dont really belive what u said.
you also cant fit 10 R-77Ms on an F/A-18 😐
Forgive me then but what is the USA’s “Meteor Equivalent” then
Because it would seem that Meteor outclasses AMRAAM by a significant margin. Especially, if UKDJ, which are reasonably reliable from my experience, are not pulling the 60km NEZ figure out of their ass. That would certainly outclass any C variant AMRAAMs, and probably give 120D a good run for its money. The Meteor Missile - A Guide (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
And if they aren’t to be believed, MBDA themselves claim to have a missile with the largest NEZ, which is generally a good indicator of kinematic performance. Ignoring multipathing for a second, that would hand every advantage to Meteor.
“This ‘ramjet’ motor provides the missile with thrust all the way to target intercept, providing the largest No-Escape Zone of any air-to-air missile.”
METEOR | AIR SUPERIORITY, Air Dominance | MBDA (mbda-systems.com)
And you are probably right - it is not the best close range weapon, and probably wouldn’t be as meta defining as I wish it were. However, guess what else EFT carries in its bag of tricks?
PIRATE IRST (at least on the UK FGR.4), and between the variants, ASRAAM and IRIS-T. While I couldn’t say for Germany, that would, in theory, mean that unless the target had an all aspect MAW system, you could stealth fire an IR missile. And again, ASRAAM and IRIS-T provide a range (theoretical) of 25km, and greater in the case of ASRAAM. (citations: Diehl Defence: IRIS-T, the short-distance missile of the latest generation (archive.org) for IRIS-T and ASRAAM | Air Dominance, AIR SUPERIORITY | MBDA (mbda-systems.com) )
Er… no, AMRAAM will be less useful, as it (provided by example) has less range than the Meteor, and has a smaller NEZ. I mean, if multipathing continues to be a thing they’ll both be equally worthless but you know.
If you’re talking in the situation of close combat, then maybe. Ramjets, if memory serves, take a bit longer to get to maximum power than a rocket burner, on say an AMRAAM. so yes, in theory, at closer range an AMRAAM might have an advantage at the merge. But lets be clear here: that assumes that a) said launching aircraft has not been smacked by a Meteor from further away, and b) that also assumes that both aircraft launch at the same time. At a range where a missile’s initial speed matters more than the range, chances are both missiles will hit because of the hideously short range, and Active Radar seeking does not need the launch aircraft to stay alive in order to track the enemy aircraft.
I don’t think many other aircraft can or would want to carry that many Meteor. The argument was about the missiles, so I suppose isn’t the best place for that discussion. Also, that isn’t a real image and I’d like to see some verification that the loadout is possible irl to keep things more on topic.
The AIM-120C-5 and newer can do high-angle off-boresight launches and the latest models improve on this capability. Raytheon develops over-the-shoulder AMRAAM | News | Flight Global
We do not have one with that purpose in mind. The projects to develop a long range “equivalent” (designed with different requirements in mind regardless) are not yet being produced.
The AIM-260 is simply an AMRAAM replacement, improving on it in most areas.
I didn’t doubt any performance metrics you want to provide. I simply stated that the AMRAAM is not an equivalent to the Meteor. If it was, they simply wouldn’t have developed it. Everyone who has Meteor, has access to AMRAAM. I simply stated that the AMRAAM offers certain advantages. Size, weight, number carried is one. High-angle off-boresight launch capability and high maneuverability in furball-meta games envelopes are other advantages.
I wasn’t discussing the capabilities of the EFT.
R-27ER has larger NEZ and performance than other missiles but isn’t found to be particularly meta-defining. SARH and ARH missiles currently are susceptible to multipathing. Assuming this isn’t fixed, the Meteor will not be particularly troubling to the current meta players skimming the ground and launching FOX-2’s.
The Meteor uses a solid rocket motor to get it to speed and activate the ramjet. The high sustained speed of the Meteor allows for a large NEZ but also poor turn radius’ for attacking targets with high angular velocity in relation to itself. It will not be particularly well suited for furballs at close range and will suffer due to this. A larger number of missiles that can just as easily hit targets while having better turn radius and maneuverability such as AMRAAM or MICA will be better suited for gameplay imo.
I’m not here to debate, just offering my perspective.
Mig_23M is right here, the Meteor and AIM-260/AIM-120 has different purposes and have very different designs.
There’s some obvious disadvantages to having Meteors or using Meteors for medium ranges, namely that the missile is very draggy, heavy, large and awkward to maneuver around with when you need to dodge missiles.
The Meteor has disadvantages at short-medium ranges compared to the more advanced MRAAMs:
This is from MBDA. MRAAMs like AIM-120/260s and MICAs do better at shorter and medium ranges as well as being much lighter. It is why France despite having Meteors as well as participating in the Meteor MLU development, decided to develop the MICA-NG EM set to come into service next year and it will supplement the Meteors and be there for medium range opportunities.
So, long story short, you want to use the Meteors at long ranges and try to dispose of it by the time the fight has gone to the medium ranges, as keeping it on your airframe would prevent you from being maneuverable enough to kinetically evade missiles. The Meteor also would not accelerate quick enough to reach the range needed for the missile to acquire the target before the host aircraft turns away.
Fair enough. You are in fact right, because Meteor is referred to as a BVRAAM and AMRAAM is… well… a MRAAM.
Ehhh… I mean we’ll never know but I rather suspect something like Meteor would’ve been developed… Ramjets do (on paper) seem to provide advantages that Rocket boosted Missiles never will
I suppose we’re getting into doctrine here, it boils down to, broadly speaking, “would you like more missiles or longer ranged missiles?”
You’ll have to forgive me, this is an EFT thread. Mind you, it would seem, to me at least, that Meteor and Typhoon seem to be all anyone (at least within Europe) raves about. Even the French, so I understand, have gotten in on the act.
You are quite right to do so. In war thunder the points you make are perfectly valid. Meteor is not suited to close quarters engagements. And as such probably won’t be as meta defining as something like AIM-9M or R-73 might be, or maybe even AMRAAM as you say. I do feel Meteor has a place in WT, and to be fair the G Overloads these missiles pull, it’ll come down more to whether the missile fired has the kinetic energy remaining to manouevre to hit the target rather than any G Forces the pilot might pull. I understand what you’re saying, AMRAAM possibly, and MICA almost definitely has a place in, broadly speaking, within visual range.
(In my sweet sweet European heart though I will always go “muh ASRAAM + Meteor unbeatable”)
High off-boresight isn’t necessary for BVR to begin with so not sure why that was mentioned.
Especially since Meteor has a quoted 60km no-escape range against standard fighters.
It’s necessary because it indicates the maneuverability of the missile in regards to turn radius off the rail is very high. The Meteor has a larger turn radius, has a harder time following fighters at lower altitudes and high angular speeds. It will have longer time to target for war thunder furball ranges but will be more useful at the beginning of a match to deny enemies positional advantages. The 60km NEZ is just 60km where you have to maintain a high quality track for the missile to find a target. An enemy notching at 90 degrees or using terrain from afar is going to nullify your ability to guide the missile to that target. War Thunders’ meta dictates that the medium range missiles will still be more useful / dominant.
It’s a good thing the Eurofighter boasts the capabilities to properly track and move in on opponents within visual range by utilizing electronic warfare and IRST + powerful radar. It may not be very good in real life but it will be put with equivalent peers when it comes to the game.
SAAB Arexis for EFT EK
One of the best 4.5 gens IRL
Mig23 “not be very good in real life”
Interesting
Why BAAINBw did not buying Hensoldt’s system?
A smaller turn radius would mean better manoeuvrability.
Can you clarify what you mean by this? The data link comes from the launching plane using whatever sensors it has - the meteor itself doesn’t need to maintain a track. I’ve not heard of “high quality track” needed to guide the meteor either.
You often talk about others not arguing in good faith, and then respond with something like this.
Typo, we know the radius is quite a bit larger than AMRAAM for given speed and pitches in only one direction - requiring large rolling moments that can’t be done with excess AoA as on the AMRAAM design.
If you do not have a high quality track from the radar (good number of returns and TWS track data)… the missile will not maintain a good inertial course to target at long ranges. The seeker is still limited in range like other FOX-3’s and needs to get close before you can stop supporting it. Once it goes active of course you can turn around… but the time to get there will leave you vulnerable to… other long range missiles. I’m sure Meteors will be only on one team at a time right?
I’m not arguing, I am making statements. I am not trying to persuade the audience by any means, either. What I said was true. The Eurofighter isn’t very good in real life. It came into service with a mechanically scanned array and little to no stealth features when 5th gen fighters were already in production in three major countries and used by quite a few neighboring nations. The peers it will be put into the game with were all produced as early as two decades earlier than it.
Wrong
This very statement shows that you can’t be trusted on talking about most European aircraft
Its one of the best 4.5 gen aircraft that if add into the game its flight performance alone would blow anything in the game out the water
Are you saying that the Eurofighter is superior to 5th gens?
It’s an opinion… it can’t be wrong. You didn’t even care to ask what context in which I assessed it?
What makes you think anyone here is unqualified to talk about something from which we are referencing solely public sources?
Flight performance its on par (F22)
But you only said the aircraft is bad
EFT wasn’t the only fighter in the world with a MSA radar at that time, and it’s an outright lie to state it has “little to no stealth features”;
Your claim that it’s bad is very laughable honestly.
when 5th gen fighters were already in production in three major countries and used by quite a few neighboring nations.
Which were? Russia’s still yet to begin serial production of the Su-57, not mentioning the Su-75. China’s J-20 entered service properly in 2017; there’s a 12 year gap between it and the EFT.
F-35 didn’t properly enter service with any nation until 2015 (USAF), and others only began to accept them in 2020s. The only stealth AS fighter in proper service at the time was the F-22, and it was (still is) only in USAF’s use.
I disagree, the Eurofighter cannot supercruise and the engine is vastly inferior to that of the F-22’s. There is no TVC either.
These S-shaped ducts?
The Su-57’s ducts are not straight, in fact include quite a lot of geometry and RAM. The ramps are covered in RAM, the radar blockers and such all angled appropriately to reduce RCS to “VLO” levels.
The addition of RAM is minimal on the Eurofighter airframe, and the claim that the composites have baked in RAM is nonsense. The radar absorbent paint is on leading edges only and appears to be primarily an afterthought.
The semi-recessed belly missiles is something done since the F-4 Phantom existed. The Eurofighter has an estimated RCS above 1m2 whereas something like the Rafale (built prior) had PESA and proper Stealth features for quite some time at the point when Eurofighter entered service.
Allow me to correct myself… the Eurofighter with true 4.5 gen qualities was not in service until three other nations had proper 5th generation fighter jets. MS array, basic air to air capabilities was delivered until '08. Not a true multirole at this point in time, still getting out of the teething phase.
iirc Britain was finally contracting for Tranche 3 only in… 2018… why were they still buying fighter jets with mechanically scanned arrays in 2018???
And then Germany finally orders something with an AESA only in 2020??? Just to buy the F-35 anyway?
Even Wikipedia
