Yeah it’s an indication only graph, not something I would rely on as a source, but the implication is clear - same impulse time but lower DV which results in a slightly slower acceleration and lower top speed.
You can see from videos alone that the boost motor of the meteor has flame, and exhaust plume several times larger than the AMRAAM, and it accelerates significantly faster in first few seconds after launch… but there’s no videos that i can find rhat show the missile switching to the ramjet stage while also showing the launch.
I was hoping to see more videos of the Meteor launching from the KF-21, they show the missile being dropped but not the motor igniting.
I saw the chat about ramjets losing efficiency when turning due to the ducts, but given the LSZ’s MBDA published this appears to be of minimal impact, as a manoeuvring target in those LSZ’s is still getting clapped at much much much larger ranges than “current MRAAM”.
Also the missile uses bank to turn but also bank while turning;
My thinking behind this, while traditional BTT is roll then pitch, BWT (at least from my understanding) performs skid to turn while also rolling into a BTT, might be hitting the pipe too hard on that one, but that would be my read.
That just isn’t true, the Meteor will be good in a wide range of scenarios because most of which are just… BVR… But at closer ranges it is at a disadvantage. An AMRAAM can be fired from the notch and still hit closing targets for example.
Thanks, acceleration looks on par for the initial booster of the R-27ER
You have no way of guessing this… Meteor cruises at mach ~3, so whatever it is peaks at just above that. The altitude and other conditions are unknown.
Any such maneuvers will introduce higher dome error slope and sideslip
You are right, there is no way of knowing, it is an assumption based of a graph that is purely for reference and has no actual basis on reality because we know the meteor boost motor is far more powerful than indicated.
The misisle can cruise at anywhere from mach 1.5 to mach 4+ to extend the range and then increase the speed as required for the final stage of intercept.
Maximum speed of traditional ramjets is governed below hypersonic region and minimum required speed for sustained burn is unknown. You don’t have sufficient basis for these assumptions.
As I said, the Eurofighter in war thunder will be thrust into situations that involve low speed and off-boresight launches which are naturally a weak point for the Meteor.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
