UK Missile investment - most advanced BVRAAM yet?

Well I just saw this:

www.gov.uk...

Secretary of State, Sir Michael Fallon, has today announced three new missile contracts worth a combined £539 million for state-of-the-art Meteor, Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) and Sea Viper missile systems at MBDA Stevenage.

Meteor is meant to be FOC on Typhoon in 2018 and F-35B in 2024 and is currently in IOC on Gripen.

It is a step change in missile performance having a throttle and more fuel requiring no on board oxygen. Coupled with a dual mode seeker it is reckoned to have 3 x more chance of a kill than the AIM120 it is replacing on the Tiffy.

I bet it never gets used in anger before I die (aged 40, non smoker)......

I am interested in missile tech and am pleased with these developments. CAMM is particularly interesting. However, you are probably right that these items will probably never be fired in anger by the Brits, but could be used by others.

All this while Foodbank usage grow (mainly from those in work), Homelessness up 50%, Child Poverty increasing by the day.

Gotta get dem bombs though. Almost as if some members of Parliament have shares in "Defense" companies.

a reply to: Taggart

Spot on assessment, all that money is a con anyway as all they really need to do is upgrade the sensor suite and software including guidance on the pre-existing missile class in order to cope with stealth derivative technology's etc but noooo an entire new missile system when it is actually not needed all so money can change hand's under the table, typical Tory's eh.

originally posted by: Taggart
All this while Foodbank usage grow (mainly from those in work), Homelessness up 50%, Child Poverty increasing by the day.

Gotta get dem bombs though. Almost as if some members of Parliament have shares in "Defense" companies.

Its a weapons forum, there are hundreds of other forums and websites where you can spread your love of world peace and leftist principles, this forum is to discuss the missile and the technology within, not the rights and wrongs of building it.

I personally do not visit those forums who talk about world peace, religion and charity and spam my interest in missiles and cutting edge technology, I dont own a gun either.

It says so much about you, that you have to visit a weapons forum and spout about homelessness and child poverty.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Taggart

Spot on assessment, all that money is a con anyway as all they really need to do is upgrade the sensor suite and software including guidance on the pre-existing missile class in order to cope with stealth derivative technology's etc but noooo an entire new missile system when it is actually not needed all so money can change hand's under the table, typical Tory's eh.

What he posted was not an assessment of anything, it was an off-topic opinion on this board.

As for what you posted:
I don't think you understand how missiles work. Does "upgrading the sensor suite" enhance the physical characteristics of the radar? Does that mean we can simply upgrade an APG-77 to an APG-81? Are the AN/SPY-2 and 6 similar, gallium nitride be damned? Clearly you know far more than every single arms manufacturer and world leader in this business - otherwise why bother with Meteor and AMRAAM! We could've stuck with AIM-4 Falcon this whole time. Clearly just a means to an end of pocketing money.

a reply to: Forensick

There's been talk of teaming with Japan and putting their AESA seeker from the AAM-4B on Meteor, which would radically improve its performance.

a reply to: Victrix

Hmm solid state or liquid fueled, as you know nearly all modern missile's are solid state as despite being more reactive in general and therefore having a far higher potential thrust to weight ratio the liquid fuels are more volatile.

Guidance system's and targeting system's, on board computer system's are all growing exponentially more complex.

To fit a specific type of mount the missile usually has to fit a specific package shape and weight depending upon class, the small the more they can usually carry but generally all the work on the aerodynamics's of a missile that has to be done has been done already and done so decades ago.
Only stealth design's which are inherently slower, compromised by the propulsion system of a missile and therefore only really suitable for tactical rather than combat roles are an area of valid research.

An acquaintance of mine, a dual New Zealand and British Passport holder whom worked for the MOD had some very interesting tale's about his experience analyzing Test missiles fired not in anger but as an opportune action (there were many in that campaign, ask the yank's about EMP device testing) to field test there effectiveness upon the retreating Iraqi's as they fled Kuwait after the first gulf war including an old idea but one that has been seldom field tested in condition's were the researchers could be sent in so soon after the event of dense material tipped (not a plasma explosive) hull penetrating missile with a hardened tip and a very small mercury plasma warhead which was designed to liquefy the occupant's of the vehicle, the missile would act like a rocket powered steel punch and pass through several inches of steel and even chobham armor (Which obviously the Iraqi's did not have, there tank's were mainly mild steel hulled soviet export models), then a small but extremely powerful explosive would detonate inside a ball of mercury which would then be thrown outward in a plasma form and literally liquefy the occupant's of the tank, the idea was to create a cheap and cost effective vehicle depopulation tool.

To examine the tank' afterward's they simply hosed it down, there was very little left of the Iraqi crew and his appraisal was that all you really had to do was replace a few soft component's, some glass dial's and the tank was then completely re-usable.


As for the comment that is my tax money the Tory's are passing under the table.

wow interesting