The price varies strongly across project partners of the Meteor missile, ordered numbers and date of purchase:
Germany: ~900.000 € (520 missiles)
Italy: ~975.000 € (400 missiles)
UK: ~1.000.000 £ (400 missiles)
So, for project partners with missile orders in the hundreds, the Meteor is cheaper than the AIM-120D.
For non-project partners (like Brazil) it’s much more expensive (~2.000.000 €) per missile (100 ordered).
Like this?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/K6UV3Y1s6GAk
There was another report on this that was later marked as fixed, but seems that the underlying issue is still there and this bug comes back up sometimes.
yep, like this
a contract was signed for 34.9mln euros to explore improvements to the seeker, datalink, propulsion and warhead
thats what the german MoD states.
Isnt it said to be half the Radius of an R73 so about 80-100G
I’m not sure. I’m just going by the modern IR missiles thread. But I do know it has a very tight turning radius off the rails because it’s actually quite a slow missile of the rails and due to TVC, starts turning almost immediately.
So both might be true statements. But it’s not really a missile I’ve looked into that deeply
That would be difficult going off the size difference. AIM-9X is 127 mm diameter, while ASRAAM is 166 mm. That means per unit of length ASRAAM has 70% more volume than AIM-9X, so likely has a lot more propellant.
Difficult but not impossible, isn’t even the block 2 running the same motor as 9m? Which iirc has the same performance as 9L motor?
Since 70’s a lot has improved
9X block 3 was canned…
As I said earlier, the improved motor is still being developed
No they have moved on to a new missile
You mean peregrine missile? It may use a version of the possible block 3 motor. It looks like it’s going to be better than any current 5th gen IR
AIM-9L motor is the same as the AIM-9D motor, AIM-9M motor matches ISP but has reduced smoke properties and longer shelf life.
The AIM-9X motor is a new designation, block 1 is roughly identical to the Mk36 mod 11 whereas the block 2 uses an updated motor designation with seemingly no physical changes - likely using a newer propellant with higher energy density already.
The AIM-9X block 3 proposal was not just for a newer propellant but an entirely new motor section and would have re-vamped the missile entirely. It may as well have been a new missile.
Missiles in development;
Lockheed Martin’s JATM (AIM-260) - AMRAAM replacement in AMRAAM form factor.
Raytheon’s LREW (Long range engagement weapon) - Larger missile, very long range.
Boeing’s MAM (Modular advanced missile) - stackable propulsion units, potential replacement for AIM-9X
Raytheon’s Peregrine - AMRAAM performance, half the size.
Lockheed Martin’s CUDA - Small form factor missile, gas powered steering
The only thing anyone has shown me that has relevance to the Eurofighter are enhancements being made to ASRAAM and Meteor.
9X also had large improvements to its aerodynamics allowing improved range.
Not really, both are loaded with un-aerodynamic parts that stick out.
I assume the answer will be this:
Thank you, I don’t recall seeing this.
They have decreased the drag of the missile pushing the 9X to limited bvr capabilities. Regrettably preformance is classified.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-28/pdf/2013-12563.pdf
Show me how the AIM-9X is lower drag compared to the AIM-9M
The only change is slightly smaller fins, they no longer move at the front. The rest of the missile has rings, parts that stick out more than AIM-9M, and it uses TVC for the enhanced agility. There are no visible improvements to drag over the AIM-9M except for smaller fins.
Compared to the ASRAAM which has a very smooth overall exterior and no forward fins.
Does anyone know if those two circles near the front are the target detection device? I thought ASRAAM had an RF based TDD and not an IR based one but a second look seems to indicate it has one or two sets of IR windows on the side… which may indicate the missile needs roll stabilization to ensure those are facing the target. This would not bode well for multi-plane maneuverability.
Those fins especially when maneuvering will have a lot more drag. So you have already shown it yourself. If there is anything beyond that with nose difference i won’t be able to measure it cause I don’t have 1.
