Meteor to arm the F-35 JSF

European missile manufacturer MBDA plans adjustments to its Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) to make it capable of deployment on Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

With the F-35 set to become as widespread in use as the F-16 multirole fighter, getting the Meteor, Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armour missile and Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM) integrated on the new aircraft is key to MBDA's future prospects.

According to MBDA sales and business development director Jean Pierre Talamoni, it will be critical for MBDA to get its weapon systems integrated on the JSF.

"If we do not achieve this, the JSF will be offered around the world with a largely US weapons package. That means we lose leverage in the export market," Talamoni said.


Jane's source

also check : MBDA Offers Mica, METEOR to India

I wonder how they will solve it, Meteor is larger and more "bulky" than amraam. Maybe 4 of them will fit into the JSF bays, but not six I think.

For Meteor it was either adapt or face possible extinction.

Funny, the piece quoted above mentions this weapons integration as key to exports, as if MBDA has just thought of it, but doesn't seem to realise that this integration was required by the RAF and RN from the day the UK entered the programme and thus was always going to happen anyway, Duh!

I don't see the significance of this post. The F-16 is the most widely exported plane in the world and it carries armaments from all over the world, not just the US. The F-35 will inevitably do the same thing. I don't think that quote has anything to do with US armament inferiority, it's just saying, that to be more marketable, the JSF should carry armaments such as Meteor, Brimstone, ASRAAM, etc.

>>
I wonder how they will solve it, Meteor is larger and more "bulky" than amraam. Maybe 4 of them will fit into the JSF bays, but not six I think.
>>

No, the BVRAAM's chief difficulties lie in it's sidemounted inlet ducts and as these are canted (and the tail fins are of reduced span on the lower sides and midbody wings absent altogether) the volumetrics remain essentially the same (a little deeper I think).

More importantly, the BVRAAM cannot be fitted into the F-35 in more than pairs because the upper outboard, 'heavy weight' munition bay probably has a trapeze, it will be like that of the F-117 in being extendable only sufficient to facilitate loading. Smaller AAMs will not extend into the airstream and the ejector may not have enough oomph to ensure breakout past the boundary layer.

>
The primary air-to-air armament of the JSF, in U.S. service, is a pair of Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs), carried on launchers built intothe inboard weapons bay doors. The details of this installation are significant. Two AMRAAMs constitute a defensive load, not armament for a fighter sweep, and there is no provision to carry more AAMs internally, replacing the bombs. AMRAAM itself, without a short-range AAM to back it up, is mainly a defensive weapon.
>

Bill Sweetman, _Ultimate Fighter, Lockheed Martin F-35 Strike Fighter_

>>
For Meteor it was either adapt or face possible extinction.
>>

Actually, I imagine it was rather the opposite. If you read on the India Defense site's continuation article describing the BVRAAMs options, there are some key elements of functionality described:

>
Born out of the multi-national Project S225X examining the future BVRAAM technologies such as ram-rocket propulsion, two way data-links, dual-band and dual-type seekers, stealth technology and improved resistance to Electronic Counter Measures (ECM), MBDA Meteor sports a stealthy, low drag, lightweight body with two wings mounted centrally on the upper body and four fins mounted at the rear. The missile radome encloses the MBDA/Thales X or Ku-band radar seeker following the “fire-and-forget” Active Radar Homing (ARH) mode.

...

However Meteor is sure to “posses” provisions for the futuristic concept of “Cooperative Fighter Operations” or Mixed Fighter Force Concept (MFFC) that is essential for future BVR engagements and optimum performance and results. Pairs of aircraft will be data-linked; as one illuminates the other launches the missiles against the targets. In such engagements the “striker” fighter will be able to impart the greatest kinetic energy to the Meteor BVRAAM by accelerating up to Mach 2 and then manoeuvring out of the engagement. The illuminator fighter such as the Sukhoi-30MKI with powerful radar capable of performing like a mini-AWACS would remain firmly subsonic keeping a decent distance from the target, and providing either command-guidance updates or illuminating the target. The IAF have absorbed the MFFC well and superbly demonstrated his during Cope India 2004 air exercise with the United States Air Force (USAF).
>

www.indiadefence.com...

The implications are clear. The Meteor (for which I have seen range estimates as high as _250km_ can effectively be used like a wireguided torpedo. The parent aircraft using it's own or another airframes (offboard) sensor data to fire the weapon down a bearing line towards a target which will only become visible when the weapon itself is within Xnm (say 6nm for RF and 10 for IIR).

If you believe what is being qouted for detectables on some of the late generation European IRST (EUROFIRST/Pirate=60km, IR-OTIS= 'more than the PS-05 at high altitudes' etc. etc.) then the question becomes one of absolute F-pole range versus NEZ and APole handoff variables.

In this, the JSF with a military thrust to weight ratio of about .5:1 (a real slug compared to the F/A-22) _cannot_ afford to play sprint games on the wrong end of a 500-700nm or greater combat radius. Most especially if the tankers if not AEW&C assets themselves are pushed back these newer weapons.

Hence the JSF with all of two shot per airframe cannot _afford_ to engage in what the magazine article calls 'striker/illuminator' games because every jet had better be online and firing when that DIVISION (flight of four or more) comes across the nose.

And since, for both ingress/recovery fuel (a mission kill is still a kill), signature bloom (AB -quadruples- even nose one detection distances) and enemy feint-tactics reasons (you shoot, I see the shot as an IR bloom, I run away, you lose your missiles, I come back. like a shark no longer afraid of a swimmer beating the water), the F-35 cannot do what is illustrated as a principle Su-30MKI tactical method.

Which is where the radar VLO, wideband IFDL and and offboard or potentially EOTS cue comes to the for. Because if the JSF is front-sector safe to say 40nm off the Flanker's nose, and the Flanker (even to the small APG-81) is visible at 80; _even if_ the ADGE or threat AEW is providing high power/rear quarter tracking of the F-35's the JSF should be able to get first shot off and running, from a subsonic start.

'Mach 2' supersprint games take time and distance. And if the enemy has superior pole dominance vs. your more limited (Q-factors vs. Inertial G) maneuvering ability on your fighter, the result is what I call a 'boar spear' engagement in which the very speed you close at, acts to increase my firing range while impaling you for geometry setup and (chainsaw or similar) recovery time windows.

I also fully believe that the Meteor almost certainly has an upper end limit on how much ram the VFDR inlets can stand before plateau chemistry efficiency flattens out or the nozzle simply doesn't give any more 'thumb over garden hose' improvements. It may well also be that the nose ceramics on the radome and certainly on any IIR seeker have absolute material or plasma wash limits. Which means that expecting a Mach 2 initial boost state (parent airframe) to grant a Mach 4 'class' missile a totalized speed of Mach 5-6 is probably unrealistic.

Again, especially if you are not entirely sure where the enemy is but because of the rangepoint efficiencies of RF, he knows _exactly_ where your hulking 4-5m2 frontals Sukhoi is located.

AIM-120C7 and D probably won't give the JSF enough total envelope dominance if the enemy (even random=tac turn) complicates the engagement geometry. But the Meteor offers the potential of firing at say 40nm and having the weapon run the enemy down as he goes oblique and extends out to 60-65. Because the Ramjet (even at a lower average Mach of say 3.5) gives you that constant impulse right through the terminal endgame.

>>
Funny, the piece quoted above mentions this weapons integration as key to exports, as if MBDA has just thought of it, but doesn't seem to realise that this integration was required by the RAF and RN from the day the UK entered the programme and thus was always going to happen anyway, Duh!
>>

The RAF and RN are fools. The F-35B is little more than a toy. And no desire to replace the 'fighters at sea must always be!' SHAR with another AAW platform will change the fact that the STOVL penalty (about 300nm) on gas, added to the lack of an adequate internal carriage munition (right now they are looking at GBU-22 as a 'Paveway IV' with GPS improvement) set means they cannot bomb worth a darn either. The USMC is in similar straits, not being able to keep up with the conventional strike packages for either pace or distance out. Except that their move to go for an 'All STOVL Air Force' is going to hurt the USN which depends on them for Reserve Air Group generation of additional F-18A/C aircraft so that we never hit another post-9/11 slump in coverage some 30 days long.

>>
I don't see the significance of this post. The F-16 is the most widely exported plane in the world and it carries armaments from all over the world, not just the US. The F-35 will inevitably do the same thing. I don't think that quote has anything to do with US armament inferiority, it's just saying, that to be more marketable, the JSF should carry armaments such as Meteor, Brimstone, ASRAAM, etc.
>>

With a few exceptions, there are a lot of foreign weapons /envelope cleared/ on the F-16 (MBD DWS-39 export variant, ASRAAM and Magic all come to mind) simply because it is a high energy platform and a native of the Eglin/Tyndal AFWC. Yet actually _very few_ that are integrated with the jet. Almost entirely due to proprietary source code commercialism.

The ROCAF wanted to qualify MICA and despite the non-NATO standardized bus system it would have been relatively simple. But the U.S. said no. Officially because such compatibility would mean that other customers could demand an equivalent configuration and that could destabilize a lot of areas where 'no first ARH' was a mandate. Not-so-officially it is purely because spares and munitions (see Polish list of F-16C.50+ addons) almost double the official sales values for the jet.

About the only weapons that I can think of which don't apply are the Israeli's (who are forbidden to sell to U.S. F-16 users most of their AAM/PGM systems and have to use U.S./German intermediaries even for the LITENING targeting pod). And the Pakistani's who integrated ATLIS II and AS-30L (as well as GBU-10) back in the early 80's to counter Indian TBM silos I believe. Oh, I think the F-16E also has IRIS-T and maybe PGM-500 on it. But that is effectively another one-off (nobody else can buy them, nobody can /afford to/) 'local arrangement'.

The only reason that MBD (Euromissile) is likely being allowed to do this is because the U.S. had effectively dropped all their AAAM and ACIMD research work back in 1990 and so were caught flat footed when their 'wonder weapon' AIM-120 proved to be a lot less perfect than advertised. Raytheon was authorized to practically offer to pay for the British FMRAAM program through 'cooperative development funding' (the whole MOU thing again) if the Brits would agree to a staged improvement effort via an interim ERAAM (11" motor extension) process that /led to/ the FMRAAM (U.S. Meteor equivalent with AMRAAM frontend) around 2015 or so. The Brits laughed in our faces, as well they might after AMRAAM/ASRAAM went south. And the U.S. capitulated by allowing Euromissile to both build and sell the latest AIM-120C5 to 'whomever they wished' as an element of Eurofighter sanctionless marketing. We in turn got access to the French ramjet technology and 2-way datalink stuff.

All this being done to ensure that nothing competed with the F/A-22 for 'air dominance justification'. Now that the Raptor is a dead duck, we are starting to see what commiting to effectively an F-117 with radar and afterburner is going to do to our conventional force enablement capabilties. And there is nothing left in the U.S. technology base (look at the AMSC HSAD and tell me that's not 'scaled Meteor technology') after the Clintonian Sell Off to make up the difference as we go overseas for weapons purchases ourselves.

Given the F/A-18E/F is our only other conventional platform in multiyear procurement, we are in a truly sad way if things heat up in SWA.


KPl.

Alright? I'd rather take a weapon that's already been used in combat, and is continously updated, the AIM-120C and soon to be AIM-120D, over a weapon that has never even been built yet.

The F-35 will be able to carry the Brimstone and the ASRAAM.

This makes sense countries who buy the JSF may want to are them with something other than American Missiles, but the name of the topic makes it seem as if all the JSF’s produced will be armed with meteors.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This makes sense countries who buy the JSF may want to are them with something other than American Missiles, but the name of the topic makes it seem as if all the JSF’s produced will be armed with meteors.

Not really if you know what the Meteor is.

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This makes sense countries who buy the JSF may want to are them with something other than American Missiles, but the name of the topic makes it seem as if all the JSF’s produced will be armed with meteors.

Not really if you know what the Meteor is.

Oh, i'm very well aware of what it is, I would just prefer (as would most people) the AMRAAM series, a combat proven missile that is always updated, or a missile that has never been fired, let alone built.

Besides the Meteor's range is about 100km, and the AIM-120D's is about 120-140km. I know what i'm talking about kid.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This makes sense countries who buy the JSF may want to are them with something other than American Missiles, but the name of the topic makes it seem as if all the JSF’s produced will be armed with meteors.

Not really if you know what the Meteor is.

Oh, i'm very well aware of what it is, I would just prefer (as would most people) the AMRAAM series, a combat proven missile that is always updated, or a missile that has never been fired, let alone built.

Besides the Meteor's range is about 100km, and the AIM-120D's is about 120-140km. I know what i'm talking about kid.

Greetings,

This Would Depend Hockeyguy, for one when was the last time the military of any government released real range data for their latest strike missiles, for seconds like you said, the meteor is for the most part still on the drawing board, that means that any new advancements in the mean while can be included into the core design. Finally, merely because it has US made stamped on the side, doesn't mean that it is the best, some countries still prefer to build some thing of their own.

- Phil

[edit on 10-6-2005 by gooseuk]

Hockeyguy, everything's not all about range. Infact several russian missiles have a greater range than the aim-120D.

Its about effectiveness and that's where the ramjet propelled ~mach5 meteor smokes the competetion.

Infact the USAF too is working on such technologies.

I suggest you take a look at this thread :

US Air Force eyes flight of ramjet missile

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Hockeyguy, everything's not all about range. Infact several russian missiles have a greater range than the aim-120D.

Its about effectiveness and that's where the ramjet propelled ~mach5 meteor smokes the competetion.

Infact the USAF too is working on such technologies.

I suggest you take a look at this thread :

US Air Force eyes flight of ramjet missile

Yes, i know russian missiles have greater range than the AIM-120C, but AIM-120D? The Adder's max range is about 90km, but it's effective range according to Jane's and AvWeekly, is about 40km, far less than the AMRAAM, which has actually seen combat. And I know it's more about range, the AIM-120D will not only have greater range, but also greater accuracy, more advanced ECCM, and a 2 way data-link, something no other missile offers.

Originally posted by gooseuk

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by jetsetter

Originally posted by WestPoint23
This makes sense countries who buy the JSF may want to are them with something other than American Missiles, but the name of the topic makes it seem as if all the JSF’s produced will be armed with meteors.

Not really if you know what the Meteor is.

Oh, i'm very well aware of what it is, I would just prefer (as would most people) the AMRAAM series, a combat proven missile that is always updated, or a missile that has never been fired, let alone built.

Besides the Meteor's range is about 100km, and the AIM-120D's is about 120-140km. I know what i'm talking about kid.

Greetings,

This Would Depend Hockeyguy, for one when was the last time the military of any government released real range data for their latest strike missiles, for seconds like you said, the meteor is for the most part still on the drawing board, that means that any new advancements in the mean while can be included into the core design. Finally, merely because it has US made stamped on the side, doesn't mean that it is the best, some countries still prefer to build some thing of their own.

- Phil

[edit on 10-6-2005 by gooseuk]

Yes, i'm well aware of that, but the AMRAAM is the best BVR missile in the world, and I don't think there are too many people that would debate that. Some countries prefer to make their own missile for jobs or because other missiles are too expensive.

Well I would, enter the R-77! (Not that I will painstakingly debate this to the death, but they are more or less comparable, with the R-77 having superior range and manoverabiliy aerodynamically wise).

The USAF should seriously develope their own 5th gen BVRAAM instead of using European AAMs or using newer AAMRAAMs. I'm just saying this pride wise, they will need to have a new missle thats better than the Meteor or matching it.

According to Janes? I know Janes is a credible source, but have any western source tried firing one? Lets not just believe what we are told, as that leads to ignorance.

The R-77's ramjet version goes at about Mach 4. Some people put the max range of the R-77 as 170km, from reliable sources. The AAMRAAM probably has better guidance systems and such, but later versions of the R-77 family will match that of the AIM-120D at least. BTW, the 120-140km range is the biggest estimation that I found, while the 100km estimation for the Meteor was among the lower end of the estimations.

The R-77's ramjet version goes at about Mach 4. Some people put the max range of the R-77 as 170km, from reliable sources. The AAMRAAM probably has better guidance systems and such, but later versions of the R-77 family will match that of the AIM-120D at least. BTW, the 120-140km range is the biggest estimation that I found, while the 100km estimation for the Meteor was among the lower end of the estimations.

Well I hate to put it this way, but you are wrong in this paragraph. The R-77, any of its variants, does NOT have a max EFFECTIVE range of anything over 100km, that is ridiculous, none have been used in combat, it's max effective range is about 40km. I have seen different ranges for the newer series of AMRAAM, the lowest I have seen is 100km, all the way up to 140km, so it is unclear at this time. But I have heard from a number of sources that the Meteor's max effective range is about 80-100kms, I have never seen anything more than that.

None have ever been used in combat? Thats true, but neither has 90% of today's modern missles. In fact, no R-33/R-27/R-73/R-77 has been fired by a western source or been fired at a western source. A Ethiopian Su-27 achieved the first flanker kill against a MiG-29 with a R-27, but thats all. How would you know the maximum effective range of the R-77 to be 40km? AMRAAM kills have never been over 40km too, so I can also say the max effective range of the AMRAAM is 40km, right?

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
None have ever been used in combat? Thats true, but neither has 90% of today's modern missles. In fact, no R-33/R-27/R-73/R-77 has been fired by a western source or been fired at a western source. A Ethiopian Su-27 achieved the first flanker kill against a MiG-29 with a R-27, but thats all. How would you know the maximum effective range of the R-77 to be 40km? AMRAAM kills have never been over 40km too, so I can also say the max effective range of the AMRAAM is 40km, right?

No, I'm going by test results, in tests, AMRAAM has hit targets at ranges of 60-65km, while in tests (very limited) with the R-77 they had said to hit targets as far as 40 km (some say 31km, but it's debatable).

Umm...wait, they tested the R-77? You sure? Or was it a simulation? As far as I know no R-77 has ever been acquired by western sources.