You guys do realize that MBDA’s chart on the top is completely nonsensical right?
The chart shows that Generic MRAAM has a higher speed and acceleration than Meteor, and it also loses speed quicker than the Meteor, showing that the X-axis denotes Time. However, they also denote Range on the X-axis, which is completely incorrect as you cannot have an independent (Time) and dependent (Range) variable share an axis.
If we had any sort of numbers on the axis, we would be able to figure out range through (Speed x Time = Distance), but we can’t because there are no reference points in the chart to compare either.
TLDR: MDBA is trying to get people to conflate the charting of Time with Range. This is quite literally:
Leaving aside the fact that this is a chart for marketing types rather than actual technical people - we aren’t going to see precise numbers and figures for an in-service round any more than we’re going to see a nice neat chart showing F-35’s RCS…
The published figures we DO have are of a very long-ranged, relatively fast missile with a consequently large no-escape-zone. The chart illustrates it - even if it is intentionally fuzzy.
The USA also has a history of using a Ramjet powered naval SAM (with nuclear warhead option) from around the sixties with RIM-8 Talos.
Most likely the reason the USA isn’t going for a ramjet powered A2A missile is not production cost but cost of redoing production lines.
There’s also just the possibility that it’s the US MIC lobbying to keep solid rockets as the primary high speed weapon propulsion method because they spent private funds developing the tech and don’t want those funds ‘wasted’ by someone picking a different technology.
As pointed out earlier with the US choice of AIM-9X over AIM-132, they do also just cheap out on things. Just because they have a huge budget doesn’t make them that bright, nor does it make them immune to bureaucracy…
It was ever thus. Ever since the great Supercruise and Sensor Fusion War of …whenever it was.
Some US Mains look upon the Euro-Canards with envy and also bewilderment. How are these triangular thingies able to run around F-15s and F-16s? What are these mysterious concepts such as ‘canards’ and ‘weapons that actually work without spending the GDP of an entire country’?
So mysterious and also terrifying…
(To be fair the above is best rendered in a Brian Blessed voice)
They are also both absolutely massive, so it’s easier and simpler to get long range through the “brute force” approach. The main benefit of Meteor is getting exceptional performance out of an AMRAAM sized missile.
It is also worth considering the different use cases. As you say those missiles are designed to hit high value assets at extremely long range in the Pacific theatre. For that use case it makes sense to use a large missile which can fly a highly lofted trajectory into the upper atmosphere and maintain near hypersonic speed due to lack of air resistance, and the brute force of a massive rocket motor.
Meteor is designed to target fighter aircraft in the European theatre so is optimised for maximum NEZ against manoeuvring targets, and a more modest cruising speed of Mach 3.5 - 4.0. To get that kind of performance into an AMRAAM sized missile ramjets make a lot more sense.
Well the US does have a bit of a reputation for developing really advanced missiles, then deciding that actually they don’t need it and the money can be better spent elsewhere.
Off the top of my head:
AIM-95 (kinematically better than AIM-9X despite being built in the '70s)
The horizontal axis isn’t trying to show two independent variables on the same axis, the horizontal axis represents the general progression of the missile’s flight, which can be described in terms of flight time or flyout range.
Time and downrange distance increase together: as time progresses the down range distance of the missile increases. Labelling the axis ‘Range / Time’ is just a shorthand to show how speed evolves over the course of the missile’s flight down range.
