They did look at replacing this with a more modern missile in partnership with the UK. So i’d suggest they are aware of its range deficiencies compared to PL-15 and PL-21 even if they find the seeker tech on both dubious.
JNAAM essentially was supposed to be an AAM-4B seeker strapped to a Meteor missile. The programme was cancelled, supposedly France (who do the seeker portion of Meteor as its essentially a better MICA seeker) VETO’d it as it conflicts with their economic interests in the programme and their contribution to Meteor MLU which will have an AESA seeker.
No, they are looking at simply placing a Japanese designed AESA seeker on the Meteor.
As we acknowledged earlier, it was a missile designed in the 90s. It obviously will not have parity with one from 2015. Even America is building and designing new missiles, there is no need to emphasize the deficiencies of a decades older ordnance.
Is it my problem or is the targeting pod of J11B locked on the right side of the intake and can’t be placed on the left? (be it of no practical use)
Just to make the timeframe more clear AAM4 - 1999 AAM4B - 2010.
You seem to have your sources? Can u show it.
I need to prove your unsourced statement wrong by sourcing JNAAM articles?
What statement? I just asked for ur sources, I never made a statement.
Rather, @Rileyy3437-live statement.
Just look up JNAAM on google, it was not some hidden PDF or document. It is a well covered issue.
@MiG_23M is right about the programme just being replacing the Meteor seeker with an AAM-4B one, we agree even if his response starts with ‘no’ haha.
It does surprise me just how far behind all of the west is when it comes to AESA seekers on missiles?
Though it makes me wonder is it worth having lower numbers of T/R modules like Pl-15 or using proven seeker tech until higher T/R count missiles are availible
Again, no. You said this ^ which is flagrantly false. The Meteor with AESA seeker is not replacing anything in their inventory, it is only a collaboration started by Europe to rapidly fit the Meteor with a modern seeker.
Read the second half of the message where I elaborate? Also it’s not started by Europe (if we are going to be needlessly pedantic and argumentative here which was not my intention), its started by the UK and Japan, important distinction as another European nation VETO’d it. You could use the word supplementary if you’d prefer rather than replacing.
But they wouldn’t be ordering any more AAM-4B’s once JNAAM was finished. And no, Meteor MLU was always planned, in the UK framework it was hoped to retrofit existing stocks with the AAM-4B seeker. Meteor MLU does not just provide an AESA seeker, so would be an upgrade over JNAAM, but MLU is delayed long past when the UK wanted to look at lifetime improvements.
It didn’t, you just made a bunch of contradicting statements and this paragraph doesn’t really warrant further reading than what I have quoted.
I’ve two new suggestions pending;
5 Likes