Yes the Gripens did use Meteor but if we were to add it to the C model that would require gaijin to un screw them and actually make them accurate. The current Cs in game are a mix off the different models all of them except the SAAF Gripen should be MS20 which would give them the MK.IV radar which would help them use Meteor better. I doubt people would enjoy playing it but you could make an argument that given the current Gripen Cs have GBU-39 from MS20 and the radar from the Gripen A MS17 that they should receive Meteor. Personally gaijin has stated they have no plans to change the Gripen C since they are exactly what gaijin wants them to be and nothing more.
More specifically, an improved derivative of the MICA-EM seeker (AD4A).
Source: https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fox-3-06.pdf
Spoiler
4 Likes
Thanks
1 Like
Meteor’s seekers should be a vast improvement just because there’s a lot more space in the nose of the missile than compared to a much smaller missile than the MICAs btw, even if they’re derivatives.
3 Likes
Ka band…here’s a model from AIM120 thread, reworked to add Meteor at (arbitrary) 34GHz frequency, since it’s halfway into the bandwidth (27-40GHz).
Tracking Range Tables (Three Missiles, Three Weather Conditions)
Table 1 – ISA Conditions (Standard Dry Air)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 16 km | 7 km | 8 km | 5 km | 1.5 km | 1 km |
| 1 | 17 km | 8 km | 9 km | 5 km | 2 km | 1 km |
| 2 | 18 km | 9 km | 10 km | 6 km | 2 km | 2 km |
| 3 | 19 km | 11 km | 12 km | 6 km | 3 km | 2 km |
| 4 | 19 km | 12 km | 14 km | 6 km | 3.5 km | 3 km |
| 5 | 20 km | 14 km | 16 km | 6 km | 4 km | 4 km |
| 6 | 20 km | 16 km | 19 km | 6 km | 5 km | 5 km |
| 7 | 20 km | 18 km | 22 km | 6 km | 5.5 km | 6 km |
| 8 | 20 km | 20 km | 25 km | 6 km | 6 km | 6 km |
| 9 | 20 km | 22 km | 28 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 23 km | 30 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km |
Table 2 – Cloudy Conditions (Attenuation 2× ISA)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 14 km | 4 km | 5 km | 4 km | 1 km | 0 km |
| 1 | 15 km | 5 km | 6 km | 5 km | 1.5 km | 1 km |
| 2 | 17 km | 7 km | 7 km | 5 km | 2 km | 1 km |
| 3 | 18 km | 8 km | 9 km | 6 km | 2.5 km | 1 km |
| 4 | 19 km | 10 km | 11 km | 6 km | 3 km | 2 km |
| 5 | 19 km | 12 km | 13 km | 6 km | 3.5 km | 3 km |
| 6 | 20 km | 14 km | 16 km | 6 km | 4 km | 4 km |
| 7 | 20 km | 17 km | 19 km | 6 km | 5 km | 5 km |
| 8 | 20 km | 20 km | 23 km | 6 km | 5.5 km | 6 km |
| 9 | 20 km | 22 km | 26 km | 6 km | 6 km | 6 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 23 km | 28 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km |
Table 3 – Rain Conditions (Heavy Rain, Attenuation 10× ISA)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 km | 0 km | 0 km | 2 km | 0 km | 0 km |
| 1 | 8 km | 1 km | 1 km | 2 km | 0 km | 0 km |
| 2 | 9 km | 2 km | 1 km | 3 km | 0 km | 0 km |
| 3 | 11 km | 3 km | 2 km | 3 km | 0.5 km | 0 km |
| 4 | 12 km | 4 km | 3 km | 4 km | 1 km | 0 km |
| 5 | 13 km | 5 km | 5 km | 4 km | 1.5 km | 1 km |
| 6 | 15 km | 7 km | 7 km | 5 km | 2 km | 2 km |
| 7 | 17 km | 10 km | 10 km | 5 km | 3 km | 3 km |
| 8 | 18 km | 13 km | 14 km | 6 km | 4 km | 4 km |
| 9 | 19 km | 16 km | 18 km | 6 km | 5 km | 5 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 20 km | 22 km | 6 km | 5.5 km | 6 km |
As before, GEN4.5 is set to 2m^2, F35 to 0.01^m^2 and 120’s FoV is 12°, unlike 15° in game.
Also, MICA’s power has been reduced to half 120’s power, instead of 2/3 of the 120’s like in 120’s thread.
I would assume the key takeaway is that Meteor was designed to fight the ECM, not stealth.
To fight stealth you’d need something like a Gunslinger with its huge 0.3+m diameter antenna with a large gain at lower op. freq. to pick up LO and VLO targets through the weather, more easily.
Why is the mica/meteor unable to lock onto a 4.5 gen aircraft in under heavy rain conditions on the deck while the amraam is perfectly fine?
Like this seems ridiculously bad for mica/meteor
Because of bandwidth. Higher frequencies have horrible attenuations in the atmosphere and lower scatter which is particularly troublesome vs LO/VLO targets. Note that it’s superior above weather.
The Meteor seeker works in the Ku band (12 - 18 GHz), not the Ka band. Also I personally expect that MICA and Meteor operate around 14GHz, based on the known characteristics of other Ku / J-Band ARH seekers developed by Thomson-CSF in the 80s / 90s.
Perhaps.
I’ve been basing on the opening post where it reads Ka band.
From a gameplay standpoint, 14GHz would be much more acceptable, but considering GJ insists on 19GHz…well, here it is, high frequencies in all of their (dubious) glory.
Do they? As far as I know Gaijin don’t model the frequency as anything other than a band.
Yeah, since you can’t get FoV 7° otherwise on the MICA sized missile, but that’s the problem. They half-a$$ something and just leave it at that which then produces tragicomic results in the game. Just remember what did they do with the CAPTOR-M, MICA, etc.
This is how would it look like in lower Jband (14Ghz) and added Gunslinger…
| Parameter | AIM-120 | MICA (14 GHz) | Meteor (14 GHz) | AIM-174B (10 GHz) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | 10 GHz | 14 GHz | 14 GHz | 10 GHz |
| Antenna Diameter | 178 mm | 160 mm | 178 mm | 340 mm |
| Antenna Gain (linear) | ~243 | ~590 | ~730 | ~3,600 |
| Transmit Power (relative) | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Gain × Power (relative) | 243 | 295 | 730 | 18,000 |
| Beamwidth | 11.8° | 9.4° | 8.4° | 6.2° |
Tracking Range Tables (14 GHz MICA, 14 GHz Meteor, 10 GHz AIM-120 Including AIM-174B)
Table 1 – ISA Conditions (Standard Dry Air)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-174B (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) | AIM-174B (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 16 km | 13 km | 18 km | 32 km | 5 km | 4 km | 6 km | 14 km |
| 1 | 17 km | 14 km | 19 km | 35 km | 5 km | 4 km | 6 km | 16 km |
| 2 | 18 km | 15 km | 20 km | 38 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 18 km |
| 3 | 19 km | 16 km | 21 km | 41 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 19 km |
| 4 | 19 km | 17 km | 22 km | 44 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 21 km |
| 5 | 20 km | 18 km | 23 km | 47 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 23 km |
| 6 | 20 km | 19 km | 24 km | 50 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km | 25 km |
| 7 | 20 km | 20 km | 25 km | 53 km | 6 km | 6 km | 8 km | 27 km |
| 8 | 20 km | 21 km | 26 km | 56 km | 6 km | 6 km | 8 km | 29 km |
| 9 | 20 km | 22 km | 27 km | 59 km | 6 km | 6 km | 8 km | 31 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 22 km | 28 km | 62 km | 6 km | 6 km | 8 km | 33 km |
Table 2 – Cloudy Conditions (Attenuation 2× ISA)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-174B (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) | AIM-174B (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 14 km | 10 km | 15 km | 28 km | 4 km | 3 km | 5 km | 12 km |
| 1 | 15 km | 11 km | 16 km | 31 km | 5 km | 3 km | 5 km | 13 km |
| 2 | 17 km | 12 km | 17 km | 34 km | 5 km | 4 km | 6 km | 15 km |
| 3 | 18 km | 13 km | 18 km | 37 km | 6 km | 4 km | 6 km | 17 km |
| 4 | 19 km | 14 km | 19 km | 40 km | 6 km | 4 km | 6 km | 18 km |
| 5 | 19 km | 15 km | 20 km | 43 km | 6 km | 5 km | 6 km | 20 km |
| 6 | 20 km | 16 km | 21 km | 46 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 22 km |
| 7 | 20 km | 17 km | 22 km | 49 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 24 km |
| 8 | 20 km | 18 km | 23 km | 51 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km | 26 km |
| 9 | 20 km | 19 km | 24 km | 54 km | 6 km | 6 km | 7 km | 28 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 20 km | 25 km | 57 km | 6 km | 6 km | 8 km | 30 km |
Table 3 – Rain Conditions (Heavy Rain, Attenuation 10× ISA)
| Alt (km) | AIM-120 (4.5) | MICA (4.5) | Meteor (4.5) | AIM-174B (4.5) | AIM-120 (F-35) | MICA (F-35) | Meteor (F-35) | AIM-174B (F-35) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7 km | 4 km | 5 km | 12 km | 2 km | 1 km | 1 km | 5 km |
| 1 | 8 km | 5 km | 6 km | 14 km | 2 km | 1 km | 2 km | 6 km |
| 2 | 9 km | 6 km | 7 km | 16 km | 3 km | 2 km | 2 km | 7 km |
| 3 | 11 km | 7 km | 9 km | 18 km | 3 km | 2 km | 3 km | 8 km |
| 4 | 12 km | 8 km | 10 km | 20 km | 4 km | 2 km | 3 km | 10 km |
| 5 | 13 km | 9 km | 12 km | 23 km | 4 km | 3 km | 4 km | 11 km |
| 6 | 15 km | 11 km | 14 km | 26 km | 5 km | 3 km | 4 km | 13 km |
| 7 | 17 km | 13 km | 16 km | 29 km | 5 km | 4 km | 5 km | 15 km |
| 8 | 18 km | 15 km | 18 km | 33 km | 6 km | 4 km | 6 km | 17 km |
| 9 | 19 km | 17 km | 20 km | 37 km | 6 km | 5 km | 6 km | 19 km |
| 10 | 20 km | 19 km | 22 km | 41 km | 6 km | 5 km | 7 km | 21 km |
Now, Gunslinger would be one ugly MOFO and would probably disbalance the game, heavily, but unlike MICA, it has the grounds to stand on.
1 Like
I understand nothing but does this mean AIM-174B would be good?
Ok, I understand that
Oh yeah. The only problem is it’s a Mk84 class weapon, so you wouldn’t be “dogfighting” with them still on, but, at range, it would delete.
1 Like
You’re heavily using half-truths mixed with some outright false information (so like 75% made-up) in order to arrive to a faulty conclusion.
1 Like
Feel free to correct, then.
Meteor, 174B, AIM260, PL-15…
In game they’ll all be notched the same if nothing changes.
In that sense having a lower hard lock range would actually not be too bad : less reaction time for target to notch
As for MICA and soon Meteor, the anti stealth part has already been identified as an issue, which is why MICA NG EM is currently being produced with a new AESA seeker, which Meteor MLU will, in turn, most likely inherit the same way it was done with AD4A and its derivative on MICA and Meteor base versions.
2 Likes
Yeah, but the chaff rejection via angle gating would be different.
True, but if you have a longer tracking range, you can track at closer ranges with less power, which can put you under the RWR threshold, aka LPI. That’s the thing with AESA seekers. Ask Indians how SPECTRA fared against PL15.
I’m betting that will probably be part of a next generation of AESA equipped AAMs. Not coming in game anytime soon anyway
If you know how to notch, 7.5°, 9°, 12°, 15°, it all doesn’t make that much difference.
What makes MICA particularly dangerous in game is the TVC and the raw acceleration. To come back to meteor, i don’t think we will have the same issue tbh
It’s not that simple. In RB you have missile markers and you immediately see whether the missile bit the chaff, or didn’t and act accordingly. SB, however, is an entirely different ball game and a successful notching without chaffing the missile, where MICA is particularly problematic, is a few levels more difficult.
1 Like