Depends on the amount of hot gas being expelled, typically rocket motor will do that more intensely than ramjet of the same size.
Where does that come from
DRA paper on the missile similar to Meteor. Fuel flow does not reduce to 0 until over 90 seconds if it throttle down to maintain Mach 3 cruising speed.
Spoiler
Cover:
Edit: Not sure why anyone would flag me for answering a question?
5 Likes
what makes you think the Meteor doesn’t have a nozzle?
I am reading this spanish paper on the differences between Meteor and AMRAAM. for the most part these calculations show that the Meteor has less drag but I am not entirely certain that is the case since I feel like the author uses the total wing area for parasite drag but I am not sure they are using the sides of the air intake for this. still the total drag of both are pretty similar.
I am currently about halfway done but I will link it here for you all to read too.
I am only referring to the booster, it literally says nozzle less booster on that image
the booster is a very small part of the total system just made to get it up to speed. no real need for efficiency as that is more than made up for it with the ramjet which does have a nozzle as you can see… it needs to be small and powerfull to not take up unneccesary space while quickly accelerating the missile so that it can ignite the ramjet.
I must also say that take just about everything of this picture with a grain of salt as the missile is higly classified and I am not sure as to how accurate this picture is.
i know, i was just using it as an example of how solid rocket motors on missiles vary a lot, even on the same size missile.
considering it talks about a Mitsubishi seeker its for JNAAM.
i think we can pretty safely disregard this paper
besides what flame already sent, you could also safely assume the meteor can burn for a very long time by what was said in this MBDA presentation
Spoiler
“Meteor > 500°C for a few minutes”, these temperatures are equivalent to mach 3.5+ speeds at altitude which should be around the cruise speed of the meteor
1 Like
that is incredibly vague and could be 2-3 minutes. you also have to consider that it isnt instantly going to be cooling down, even after burnout it will still be going fast for a bit. the heat of the motor itself is also going to affect it
I implore for you to find a better paper comparing these missiles. as I stated not counting the drag of the intakes is a significant downside in this paper. most of everything else is pretty in depth for what can be found in non-restricted documents.
May I also ask why you are so anti-meteor? everything you write about it compared to other missiles makes it seem as you think it is the worst thing to enter service the last decade…
3 Likes
it has glaring errors that can be corrected with surface level public information. these errors go both ways. I wouldnt use this for good performance estimates for the AIM-120 or Meteor, the conclusion is mostly true though.
i dont buy that despite the US, China, and Russia all having extensive experience with ramjets and a desire for very high performance missiles, none of them have fielded a ramjet powered air to air missile that supposedly is better than anything else.
So you are in a general discussion for the Gripen which is the sucessor of the Viggen which was the first fighter with canards which can be found on a lot of new aircraft making it good proof that even without a lot of proven experience a group of people can make a major discovery and you’re here saying you doubt the meteor is good cause they do not have a lot of proven experience.
Keep in mind the conglomerate of companies behind the meteor have a decent amount of experience in aviation and missiles which while not directly ramjets does mean they probably wouldn’t continue if it did not have some kind of success
I think you may be in the wrong area of the war thunder forums
5 Likes
This is the Meteor technology and discussion thread lol
1 Like
That’s not at all what I’m saying, I’m saying i doubt it’s as dominant as some make it out to be because despite being more than capable of doing it, the US, China, and Russia have either never made one or dropped the concepts, choosing to pursue solid rocket motors for even the most high end AAM like AIM-424 or PL-17
Tbf, Meteor was something SAAB and the Flygvapnet wanted back in the 90s and such. Not too surprising that they decided to go with the finished model of their own research given the beginning that SAAB had with Ramjet missiles for the west.
Gibson, Chris; Buttler, Tony (2007). British Secret Projects: Hypersonics, Ramjets and Missiles. Midland Publishing.
3 Likes
It could be a cost factor, as i’d assume a ramjet engine right now is more expensive for a missile, than more traditional propulsion methods. I could also argue that some of these missiles are specifically not too different to make them interoperable with existing systems, and component stockpiles
but they use solid rockets for the largest, highest end missiles for taking out the most valuable targets. so it cannot be that.
PL-17 and AIM-424 are clean sheet designs
Ramjet missiles are typically bigger in size and harder to fit in bays than missiles with conventional or dual pulse motors. Obviously China, US, and Russia will have some concerns with that.
When will Gaijin allow us to Fence in game?
3 Likes
Fun fact, there is a clipped wing version of the Meteor for the F-35B:
( F-35B Has Flown With Meteor Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile )
7 Likes
I think that has to do with doctrine and cost more than anything else.
One option is to make medium range missiles better and bank on the fact that your stealth and EW capabilities will get you close enough to use it effectively. The other option is to bank on the fact that you will be able to detect the adversary really early, increase range of your missiles and not let the adversary get close enough to even fire theirs.
Meteor is likely going to be more complex and expensive to make compared to the AIM-174 and equivalents.