Wonder how long are the battery life of PL-15, Meteor and AIM-174B, given how kinematics arent the main problem according to this doc
In a presentation a while back, MBDA said that Meteor had to withstand aerodynamic heating for “a few minutes” while cruising to the target. So I guess the battery life of Meteor is 180s at an absolute minimum, likely more.
Edit Saab say Meteor flew for “several” minutes. So flight time is very likely more than three minutes.
4 Likes
Either its cover-up talk to conceal actual motor improvements, or Congress grade wording to justify spending on new missile.
My guess it would be interception of non-evading target, while missile is given glorious launch conditions. Does this fit into rather vague “effective range”? Well yes, because missile does its job when target cooperates.
As for document, maybe @Gunjob could shed a light?
Wasn’t one somewhat confirmed info about Meteor being able to cover 100km in 90s, which would be SUSTAINED 4000km/h TAS at very least? I doubt Meteor has enough fuel to sustain burn this long, so missile would have to achieve quite bit higher speed during burn to meet this “100km in 90s” claim. At the same time, ramjet don’t need oxidizer in their propellant, just “fuel proper” while taking oxygen from ambient air… so who knows.
It’s most likely that the Battery life extension theoretically allows for the High altitude coast phase of flight to be significantly extended, so can prosecute the standard; 80kft, non-maneuvering closing at Mach 2 target. able to be engaged at a much longer range since the loft maneuver can be made to be much more aggressive since there is more time for the missile to fly.
And an extension for example from 120 ~180 seconds is quite a long time to add especially to only get a 50% extension to range.
80kft/24km, mach 2 is the US benchmark for missile performance? Is it ballistic missile interception or what, as 24km alt is quite a stretch for usual combat aircraft.
Not specifically, but its not unknown from working backwards from previous ranges.
To be at least based off known missiles to be quoted for very high altitude non-maneuvering targets.
So basically it’s for a MiG-25 / -31 or Tu-22 / Tu-160 especially if only one absurd value is given since it’s of no real use in finding out what the NEZ, or A- / -F Pole ranges might look like for dealing with a high performance fighter near Sea level.
Remember, it can throttle down to increase range and then throttle back up in the terminal phase to increase the PK.
The officially stated range is “in excess of 100 nm”
But there are instances or murmurings of it being able to reach 150nm.
100km is just 53 nauticle miles, so it stands to reason that for a target at that distance, the missile can just go full ham all the way…
But the time to target value seems to be more interpreted as launching at a target traveling towards you at, saynfor example, mach 0.9, so a missle travel distance of around 70km which gives a much more reasonable average speed of 2800km/h
From the dev stream it seems like the Aim-120D is currently just a C-5 with more battery life again…
Sigh maybe i should just stop caring at this point…
1 Like
Wrong. It has 0° or m/s of drift on the IOG mode
Might i point you to a further message in this thread that explains how zero IOG drift isnt a meaningful improvement?
6 Likes
I don’t want to see RU mains crying about muh drag on the R-77 ever again
7 Likes
How does it feel to be in the same situation as a RU main?
1 Like
So according to the dev stream. The only difference is guidance and battery life. The guidance is set for the aim120 to make less maneuvers overall until its active. So instead of always adjusting to intercept target it will fly high towards the general direction and making slight course adjustments if the target begins to turn away or gets low. The idea is to allow it to keep more energy in the end game compared to the C-5 And since it has GPS +DL guidance it knows where it is in relation to the target allowing it to adjust its flight path further and keep more energy compared to standard IOG +DL where C-5 may begin to nose down and hit a mountain the D may keep itself a bit higher and avoid the mountain or the idea behind it and of course the mentioned above. So essentially a C-5 with no upgraded seeker and potentially better energy in the endgame
2 Likes
here is captain victim complex here to cry because he only has tied best plane in the game instead of effortlessly crushing everything
luckily I am not stupid enough to “main” any single nation
7 Likes
I am not crying, stop projecting brother :)
and yet there is one particular nation that you love complain about more than others, quite curious.
you are desperate
Wha? Brother is high or something?
Gaijin would have to code GPS guidance to bring more than 0 IOG drift, which in turn would be buff to 9X and IRIS-T SL missiles, as those also have GPS in their guidance package.
i dont get how missiles get 0 iog drift just by having gnss.
Considering ground weapons still have a CEP when having gnss, imo missiles with gnss should still have some level of drift
Isn’t it just a placeholder at the moment? Considering that we are getting dev only on monday gaijin definitely didn’t finish a lot of stuff in time.