Do we have nothing to compete with the MBDA METEOR?

I was working on my computer today and the thought just hit me.

The MBDA meteor is a long range air to air missile capable of hitting airborne targets a hundred miles away. The scenario played out in my mind like clockwork. A bunch of F-22s with an AWACS are closing on some eurofighters. One of the eurofighters launches a METEOR, awacs gets atomized, the F-22s immediately lose the advantage (the f-22 and eurofighter are just the two that I picked). I thought to myself that we didnt have a single long range air to air missile in our arsenal except the aim-54, that can only be carried by the now retired F-14 TOMCAT! Am I missing something or do we need to go back to the drawing board when it comes to long range AAMs?

Yes, you are missing the fact that the AWACs will never allow itself to get in range of the Meteor. They will retrograde as soon as they realise that the Typhoons are approaching shot range. At the altitude the AWACs fly at, and moving away from the Meteor, they will kinematically beat the missile easily, all while still providing updates to the supercruising 22s, which probably already have shots in the air.

Well really the awacs scenario was just an example.

What I really want to know is where out long range air to air missile is.

AIM-120D has improved range, which when coupled with a VLO stealth platform, AWAC support, stand-off jamming and other NCW support mechanisms, means that the longest range kinematically is not always the best missile. You need to consider the whole package, not just the figures on the glossies that the gun-runners put out. Meteor is a great missile, but I don't think the US is overly worried about it.

The F-22 will not be in any sort of disadvantage when it come to BVR, AWACS or not. In fact the Raptor is a mini AWACS in itself, it's radar may not have the same range or 360 degree coverage but it offers a greater level of fidelity and instantaneous update.

And as Willard said, AWAC's see much farther out then fighters, as such they have time to adjust their position and vector friendly assets to intercept hostile aircraft before the get into kill range.

Also, the AIM-120D will be coming online within the next two years (08) it will have an improved seeker, two way data link (among other electronic upgrades), as well as a 50% increase in range over the current AMRAAM. Not to mention the fact that the F-22 super-cruises at Mach ~1.7 and at 50,000+ feet. What than means is that your average AMRAAM gets an additional 30-50% increase in range over enemies cruising at lower altitudes, you do the math. And finally a missile may be long range but if the aircraft radar can't detect an F-22 until it's very close it means squat.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Ok, no more hinting at it, I'll just let it out.
This was never intended to be a Raptor vs Typhoon thread, so lets stop it before it starts.

Does anyone know the exact specs on the AIM-120D? Can it be carried on the raptor? Internally or externally?

Internal carriage on F-22

F-22 carries AIM-120D

You aren't going to find too many specific details on the system as it is highly classified. Best range details you'll find on the web is that the missile has a 50% range increase on the AIM-120C.

As for the Typhoon thing, it really doesn't matter which adversary aircraft you are talking. Until a genuine 5th generation threat comes along (manned or UCAV), or someone comes up with a way of countering the NCW support that the Raptor gets, then the USAF has little to worry about from Meteor.

Originally posted by Willard856
Until a genuine 5th generation threat comes along (manned or UCAV), or someone comes up with a way of countering the NCW support that the Raptor gets, then the USAF has little to worry about from Meteor.

Not true, not true at all.

While the F-22 may be safe, everything else is not.


An EF (or Rafale or Gripen or whatever - the aircraft is not the issue - the extended striking range is) can cream a package of F-15Es and be gone before the F-22s in the area respond.



Also, for the AWACS 'running away'.... the Meteor travels at Mach 4+, the AWACs at Mach 0.8... 'tis going to have to run quicker than that I'm afraid.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by kilcoo316]

Yes, true. I was talking from the context of F-22s, not anything else, so my statement stands. F-22 against anything else at the moment wins unless the conditions I mentioned are met. But even with other airframes, Meteor ain't that much of a threat from a whole of package point of view.

As for the F-22s not getting there, you won't have a strike package of Beagles going in without a properly positioned CAP. If you don't have air supremacy, then you use your strategic strike assets to blind the adversary, cut his comms links, and force him to move his strategic SAMs. You use standoff (whether air launched or surface launched) to shape the battlespace to how you want to fight. If you can't do that, then you don't fight. The advantage that the US has at the moment is it can shape the environment. Will it always be able to? Probably not. But for the forseeable future it can.

Meteor can go Mach 4 until it runs out of juice. Then it bleeds until it drops out of the sky. If an AWACs retrogrades, even at beak to beak Rmax, then the shot will be trashed. Hell, it might not even need to retrograde, though I don't know an AWACs driver that would let it get to that stage anyway. And while this is going on, the 22s will be driving like bees to the honey pot to get the opportunity to paint a jet under the canopy.

Edit: and throw in an ABL or two, and some hunter-killer UCAVs, and the gap just got bigger. Meteor or no Meteor.

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Willard856]

While the F-22 may be safe, everything else is not.

You forgot the F-35, it's avionics/sensors, VLO features and AMRAAM D will keep it safe.

So basically the AIM-120D is our competition to the meteor?

The ABL would actually be great at shooting down things like the meteor, especially from above. But thats not really what its designed for. Its designed for ICBMs in the upcoming war with china (joke). On top of that its even more expensive than a B-2. It can strike from over 100km away, but if the fighters its supporting go down its basically toast. Personally I think that the ATL on the F-35 is a better choice. Does anyone know that the ATL has any use in air to air?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

While the F-22 may be safe, everything else is not.

You forgot the F-35, it's avionics/sensors, VLO features and AMRAAM D will keep it safe.

Nah, I'm not so sure about it.


The F-35 is the grounder pounder, so it'll be going after a target - obviously the defending force will have a fair idea of what targets the JSFs would be going after - whereas the escorting F-22s won't really know what 'play' the defending is going to make on the strike.


The defending aircraft may not have to use their own active sensors to get enough information for a launch. Unless the F-35/F-22s want to advertise their positions [I don't believe for 1 second LPI radars will work against an integrated modern advanced RWR/passive detection system like PIRATE or OSF/Spectra]. Indeed, the eurofighter site almost admits as much:

The CAPTOR is an active system, it operates by transmitting radio waves. Whenever the radar is operational the power it outputs can be detected by an enemy using a Radar Warning Receiver (RWR). Even Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radar's such as the American APG-77 or European AMSAR risk detection.

and

One the benefits to using a solid-state radar is the ability to control the energy emitted by the array, so called energy or signature management. For example by hopping between a number of frequencies in quick succession (so called Fast Frequency Hoping, FFH) the Power Spectral Density (PSD) is lowered. By lowering the PSD it becomes possible to (nearly) hide the emissions in background noise making it extremely difficult (but not impossible) to detect.

www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk...



Again, since the F-35 is on a strike mission [my assumption, it is the Joint Strike Fighter after all], it will be limited to, what, 2 A2A missiles in addition to its A2G (assuming 2 JDAM) loadout?


Even against broken non-combat worthy MiG-29s, A2A missiles only had a 60% kill ratio over Kosovo... at best - it could well be much less than that. I'd rather have 8 than 2 any day.

That's your prerogative Kilcoo, I on the other had will indeed believe that it will not be detected especially if the Raptors and F-35's play in data link mode, one spotter for up to four shooters. The LPI characteristics of the APF-77 have been proven against US fighters so I have no reason to doubt it, all those million had to count for something.

Just to add, the ABL has a range more like 200NM, if they can link it's laser with a radar image from other assets you have an untouchable platform with dozens of "shots". It wont have to kill any missiles, it will take the launching platform out before it even knows what hit it (laser = speed of light). But this is all highly speculative, though perhaps not totally unrealistic.



[edit on 1-12-2006 by WestPoint23]

I wonder why they don't just sling a couple of Patriots or Navy SM block-latest/greatest under the wings of an AWACS... just in case.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's your prerogative Kilcoo, I on the other had will indeed believe that it will not be detected especially if the Raptors and F-35's play in data link mode, one spotter for up to four shooters. The LPI characteristics of the APF-77 have been proven against US fighters so I have no reason to doubt it, []ball those million had to count for something.

By the exact same barometer - your assuming the millions pumped into passive detection systems are worth diddly squat!


It has been proven against US fighters, fair enough, with all respect to the F-16s and F-15s, neither possess an avionics suite comparable to the F-22 [which the Rafale's Spectra certainly does compare - not so sure about the EF2000 though].

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Just to add, the ABL has a range more like 200NM, if they can link it's laser with a radar image from other assets you have an untouchable platform with dozens of "shots". It wont have to kill any missiles, it will take the launching platform out before it even knows what hit it (laser = speed of light). But this is all highly speculative, though perhaps not totally unrealistic.

With current YAL-1 ABL totally unrealistic. This is not a StarTrek. Current ABL is capable to shoot down big BALLISTIC misiles traveling at high speeds with predictable trajectory FROM SIDE. Simply because you need to aim the laser at least one second on sufficiently big target on the same place.

I also can imagine that in the long term future the laser will replace cannon on fighters, but it is impossible with current hardware.