but for amraam being higher is straight up better.
so, comparsion could be just on low alt, to get more attention “wow look meteor is kinda cool!”
Straight up better, but you are still going to be firing at a max of like 100km really.
1 Like
So it’s 3-6x better at low altitude in this theory. Fine, why is that a bad thing?? That’s a huge capability improvement. Even if it drops to say 1.5-2x at higher altitudes(worst case), that’s >>200km.
or could be similar-ish, but that’s ramjet and cool thing about it that you can change speed.
cruising meteor… sounds cool
The Gripen E might just be the best equipped Meteor carrier since it can carry 7 of them
Not sure if I missed any, but this does look like some good news for future Swedish air
1 Like
And Japan air once Thailand receives their first JAS39E hehe
1 Like
how, does it get 2 way datalink
I got a feeling you start putting current LRAAM and upcoming MRAAM on there it starts to look a little dated…
Yep
I don’t see that being the case, by modern MRAAM I assume you mean something like AIM-260. I don’t see it making up such a massive kinetic energy deficit as demonstrated by the rear aspect difference.
i dont see that happening.
PL-15, AIM-260, and R-77M.
No one said it would beat it outright in every category, only that it makes it look like very dated information with the laughably small MRAAM circle.
I mean yeah that’s fair, it is like getting on 10 years old that PowerPoint iirc.
i can see aim260 exceeding it as a overall package, i dont see r77m doing the same tho. i assume you mean pl16 and maybe but we’ll see
I can’t see 260 exceeding it other than head on ultra long range engagements, meteor just has a much greater energy store. Oh and obviously shorter range engagements due to its length and body lift/tail control.
i wager the aim260 will exceed the meteor by a decent amount in head on scenario, dual pulse allows for extreme lofts and aim260 will likely have funky propulsion.
Also a lot of suspicion that MBDA undersold the performance of the Meteor iirc
Someone already stated that Meteor has a standard booster like other traditional missiles, but I think you’d be shocked at the performance of the booster.
1 Like
Because it’s such a short burn, I expect MBDA have gone for an ultra high ISP propellant, disregarding smoke emissions.
Nvm I lie, they claim it’s minimum smoke, no need for ultra high ISP because there is so much space in the combustion chamber.
1 Like
I posted a comparison to likely amraam c-5 earlier which is already one of the worst accelerating missiles, so meteor gonna be even worse than one for the worst accelerating fox 3s in game . I don’t see why mbda won’t include the booster on the speed vs range/time graph