Assuming that is accurate.
0.9 is nothing for something that can supercruise at Mach 1.5.
Let alone use reheat.
Typhoon can go from breaks off to 30k ft and mach 1+ in 2 minutes. Getting the bare minimum launch conditions would be nothing.
250km range after 2 minutes according to that source. So again. Meteor is simply too good to come now without map sizes doubling at least.
and everyone will be able to launch before you with their long range missiles
for example Pl-15/Pl-17 or R-37
again the EF will not be as viable without an airspawn
Or they give it the f14 treatment and nerf the radar and missile till it’s “balanced”
so again… and as Ive said multiple times now.
Which is why Gen 5 IRs are likely come BEFORE the next generation of ARH missiles as they would be impossible to balance and be god aweful on the micro maps we already have
Hu? It can outclimb most other aircraft?
and i told you that the meteor will not be as great as you make it out to be ingame due to its limitations
Flying telephone pole > silly ramjet stick
and most other aircraft dont need to get to 0.9 mach and 3000m to launch their missiles
Then in that case, add Meteors next major update. Would be nice upgrade over C5s and give us something on par with MICA EM and R-77-1s
you seriously lost the plot
You are the one arguing that Meteors owuld be bad. So lets just add them sooner rather than later if they are so terrible.
you are changing my argument
i told you that it will be worse in WT due to its limitations COMPARED to other long range radar missiles that gaijin might add
and that it will be less viable COMPARED to other long range radar missiles UNLESS you have an airspawn, which you cant gurantee and is purely luck based
ontop of that if you reach the middle of the map the meteor will just be dead weight if you slow down becasue you were defending against other missiles
Yes, a source which:
The Magazine they cite says:
At the time of launch (at Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 3000 m), the missile reaches a speed of Mach 2.3 after 2.3 seconds of booster burn and a flight distance of 1200 metres. The missile then accelerates to a high supersonic speed.
Somehow they have managed to mis-interpret that as the minimum launch speed.
It will be no different to Aim-120A vs Derby or R-77.
Range is not everything.
Except the Typhoon has no issue with climbing and gaining speed. Also assuming R-37 and Aim-260 are added at the same time. Far more likely Meteor would come with something like Aim-120D and its equivalents.
Again… Typhoon doesnt struggle with maintain high speed or regaining it.
It feels like you are looking solely at a single potential weakness of a missile system as a basis for it being significantly worse than everyone elses options.
And again. Nothing you have said changes my original preface, Gen 5 IRs are likely to come before Aim-120D and Meteor
I didnt think such a min launch speed sounded right
Unfortunately for British players, Gaijin will not read that far into it.
a missile the Meteor is based on and probably one of the only existing sources on it
True, but Meteor is non-the-less different.
But that’s irrelevant anyway, because as I showed in the rest of my reply (which you ignored) Mach 0.9 is not even the minimum launch speed for A3M
from this the delta v can be calculated for the booster, which would give you the minimum lauch speed
which you will still have regardless, due to it being a ramjet
If you want some rough maths:
The booster accelerates the missile from Mach 0.9 to Mach 2.3, meaning it accelerates it by 1.4 Mach.
So even if the missile was fired from stationary you can expect the booster to accelerate it to about Mach 1.4, which is fast enough for your typical ramjet to operate. So that would suggest the minimum launch speed of A3M / Meteor is not going to be a problem in game, as even from stationary the booster will get it fast enough for the ramjet to take over (obviously a faster launch speed is better, but that goes for all missiles).