British weapons for the F-35

If you go back to the FRAAM and related competitions, they ended up with a version of the Mica 4A
seeker which is X-band.
The confusion comes from the fact that in the 90's there were using NATO band designations (I, J) and
IEEE X-band overlaps with both bands. And there were multiple seekers options (including Ka-band) that were
proposed (including passive X-band and active ka-band) but ultimately abandoned.

Mica uses AD4A seeker that operate in J-band (10-20 GHz)

Mica RF is equipped with a programmable J-band, pulse Doppler AD4A radar seeker with a pointed ceramic radome at the nose.
The radar seeker, supplied by Thales and Alenia Marconi Systems, operates at 10GHz to 20GHz. The seeker is of proven design and performance and is also installed in the Aster missile.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
X band actually only range from 8-12 Ghz, so only a tiny part of J band overlapped with it. Imho, X-band is just so popular to most enthusiasts that people always think missile seeker operate in X band.

GQM-163 has a huge rocket motor that boosts. It carries a lot more gas generator propellant
And it doesn't have the weight penalties of carrying a warhead or a seeker or a datalink.
And it gets more ram air and its combuster is more efficient by virtue not being a compromised IRR.

All of that is true and I don't doubt that if they are launched in the same condition the GQM-163 will have longer range, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a vast difference between their launch condition. GQM-163 is launched from ground with zero starting velocity. Meteor is launched from at least Mach 0.85 and 35.000 ft in most case. GQM-163 cruise in thicker air as well

The GQM-163A motor is the same one that was used for HSAD and T3.
Meteor was designed for a 5km launch altitude. Min launch altitude is 3km.

Afaik, none of us have seen the motor for T-3 and HSAD's motor is most certainly not the same one used on GQM-163 since it only has 2 inlets

Furthermore, 5 km is only 16.000 ft which is rather low for most aircraft, so I don't think that where Meteor is designed to operate. Moreover, they launch Meteor at 13 km (42,650 ft) already

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... t-success/

Completely untrue

That diagram strengthen my point though.
That GQM-163 climbed to 35.000 ft from starting point on ground with zero starting speed. Then cruise at Mach 3.3 at 35.000 ft for 203 km.Thus, not only GQM-163 has to climb 10.7 km from ground, it also cruise in relatively thick air at 35.000 ft, and yet it can still fly for >200 km.
On the other hand, Meteor launched from Mach 0.85 at 35.000-40.000 ft then climb to 60.000-65.000 ft and cruise there will be in a much more favorable condition. The drag is much lower.

I said ballistic coefficient; it's vitally important for dive performance.

I still don't see how AIM-54 has better ballistic coefficient than Meteor. From the equation

BC is Mass/(cross sectional area*drag coefficient)
AIM-54 is heavier than Meteor but its cross sectional area is also double
and the smaller length/diameter ratio of AIM-54 suggest that its Cd is worse than Meteor as well.
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that AIM-54 motor only burn for 24 seconds while Meteor's motor burn for several minutes

The radar seeker, supplied by Thales and Alenia Marconi Systems, operates at 10GHz to 20GHz. The seeker is of proven design and performance and is also installed in the Aster missile.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/
X band actually only range from 8-12 Ghz, so only a tiny part of J band overlapped with it. Imho, X-band is just so popular to most enthusiasts that people always think missile seeker operate in X band.

J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

All of that is true and I don't doubt that if they are launched in the same condition the GQM-163 will have longer range, but it still doesn't change the fact that there is a vast difference between their launch condition. GQM-163 is launched from ground with zero starting velocity. Meteor is launched from at least Mach 0.85 and 35.000 ft in most case. GQM-163 cruise in thicker air as well

IOW, GQM-163's range is understated. That rather proves my point.

is most certainly not the same one used on GQM-163 since it only has 2 inlets

The number of inlets is completely irrelevant since they aren't an integral part of the motor.
ARC (aerojet) is the same company that did the motor for HSAD, Coyote and T3.
Same gas generator, same valve system. The only thing that really changes is the combustor
for the integral rocket ramjet.

Furthermore, 5 km is only 16.000 ft which is rather low for most aircraft, so I don't think that where Meteor is designed to operate. Moreover, they launch Meteor at 13 km (42,650 ft) already

Meteor.PNG

https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-rele ... t-success/

Where they are launching now proves nothing about its design launch altitude.
5 km is not low if the aircraft is trying to survive in an IADS heavy environment.
Pre-stealth, low altitude was one of the only survivable flight profiles.

That diagram strengthen my point though.

It completely contradicts your claim of only two flight profiles.

That GQM-163 climbed to 35.000 ft from starting point on ground with zero starting speed. Then cruise at Mach 3.3 at 35.000 ft for 203 km.Thus, not only GQM-163 has to climb 10.7 km from ground, it also cruise in relatively thick air at 35.000 ft, and yet it can still fly for >200 km.
On the other hand, Meteor launched from Mach 0.85 at 35.000-40.000 ft then climb to 60.000-65.000 ft and cruise there will be in a much more favorable condition. The drag is much lower.

IOW, the upperbound on Meteor's performance is Coyote. That's the point.

I still don't see how AIM-54 has better ballistic coefficient than Meteor. From the equation
BC is Mass/(cross sectional area*drag coefficient)
AIM-54 is heavier than Meteor but its cross sectional area is also double
and the smaller length/diameter ratio of AIM-54 suggest that its Cd is worse than Meteor as well.
Furthermore, we shouldn't ignore the fact that AIM-54 motor only burn for 24 seconds while Meteor's motor burn for several minutes

How is the Cd worse? AIM-54 has a much better radome fineness ratio.
50% of missile drag is frontal so that's a huge advantage. The greater mass dominates
over long distances; it's the component of the formula that's trying to convey inertia.

It's why heavier artillery shells get used for range.

I see a difference in peak velocity and higher beta vs. higher sustained and lower beta. Unclear which wins.

J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

No, I don't suggest that Mica seeker has 10 GHz band width. But the operating bandwidth of Mica lie between 12-18 GHz same as Aster since they both use a version of AD4A seeker rather than in X-band range of 8-12 GHz.

IOW, GQM-163's range is understated. That rather proves my point

No, you should reread your original comment.

You claimed that "because AIM-54 range is greater than 100 nm and GQM-163 with all the bell and whistle only gets out to 110 nautical miles. There is no way that Meteor has better range than AIM-54". Then I pointed out that is a banana to orange comparison given that GQM-163 is ground launched with starting velocity equal zero, and it also cruise in much thicker air where the drag will significantly shorten the potential range. Your diagram prove my point since it shows a ground launched GQM-163 still manage 110 nm eventhough it has to climb very far and cruise in very thick air.

The GQM-163A motor is the same one that was used for HSAD and T3
The number of inlets is completely irrelevant since they aren't an integral part of the motor.
ARC (aerojet) is the same company that did the motor for HSAD, Coyote and T3.
Same gas generator, same valve system. The only thing that really changes is the combustor
for the integral rocket ramjet

The fact that ARC is the same company that make motor for HSAD, GQM-163 and T-3 prove nothing, one company can design and produce more than one type of motor.
Moreover, HSAD uses MARC-R290 ramjet motor while GQM-163 uses MARC-R282.

It is important to note that GQM-163 is 5.62 meters long without booster, with booster it is 9.56 meters long. MARC-R282 diameter is 350 mm (13.8 inches) and has 4 inlets. On the other hand, HSAD is 4.1 meters long including the warhead, seeker, booster. And MARC-R290 diamter is only 254 mm (10 inches) and has 2 inlets. They are not the same in any shape or form. A comparison with T-3 is even worse since it is used to study a multi mission missile that can replace AIM-120 so its dimension will be different from HSAD and GQM-163 as well.

Where they are launching now proves nothing about its design launch altitude.
5 km is not low if the aircraft is trying to survive in an IADS heavy environment.
Pre-stealth, low altitude was one of the only survivable flight profiles.

There isn't any evidence that 5 km is the design launch altitude of Meteor though, and there isn't any evidence that low altitude launch to survive IADS heavy environment was part of the requirement for Meteor either.

IOW, the upperbound on Meteor's performance is Coyote. That's the point.

IF you can get the range of a GQM-163 launched from 40.000-45.000 ft, Mach 1.2 and make it cruise at 60.000-65.000 ft then I can agree that the upper bound that Meteor can't surpass. A ground launched GQM-163 is not the upper bound for Meteor launched from high altitude, high velocity.

How is the Cd worse? AIM-54 has a much better radome fineness ratio.
50% of missile drag is frontal so that's a huge advantage.

How can AIM-54 have better fineness ratio than Meteor?

Fineness ratio is length/diameter
Meteor is 3.65 meters long and its diameter is 178 mm so fineness ratio is 20.5
AIM-54 is 4 meters long and its diameter is 380 mm so fineness ratio is 10.52

The greater mass dominates
over long distances; it's the component of the formula that's trying to convey inertia.
It's why heavier artillery shells get used for range.

Yes greater mass is an advantage. But as you can see in the equation, the cross sectional area is equally important. On one hand, AIM-54 is about twice as heavy. On the other hand, AIM-54 cross sectional area is also twice as big. Thus, they balance out

Fineness ratio is length/diameter
Meteor is 3.65 meters long and its diameter is 178 mm so fineness ratio is 20.5
AIM-54 is 4 meters long and its diameter is 380 mm so fineness ratio is 10.52

Yes. And I explicitly stated radome fineness. And you chime in with irrelevancies.

Yes greater mass is an advantage. But as you can see in the equation, the cross sectional area is equally important. On one hand, AIM-54 is about twice as heavy. On the other hand, AIM-54 cross sectional area is also twice as big. Thus, they balance out

We're comparing empty masses. So no. They don't balance out.

J-band is merely the band where the center frequency falls. You aren't seriously suggesting that there
were seekers in the early 90's out there with 10 GHz of bandwidth?

No, I don't suggest that Mica seeker has 10 GHz band width. But the operating bandwidth of Mica lie between 12-18 GHz same as Aster since they both use a version of AD4A seeker rather than in X-band range of 8-12 GHz.

No. The operating frequency lies somewhere in the J-band. Which is 10 - 20 Ghz.
They've been explicit about that for Meteor since the 90's. MICA being a narrower diameter
would require a higher frequency seeker. Meteor would not.

You claimed that "because AIM-54 range is greater than 100 nm and GQM-163 with all the bell and whistle only gets out to 110 nautical miles. There is no way that Meteor has better range than AIM-54". Then I pointed out that is a banana to orange comparison given that GQM-163 is ground launched with starting velocity equal zero, and it also cruise in much thicker air where the drag will significantly shorten the potential range. Your diagram prove my point since it shows a ground launched GQM-163 still manage 110 nm eventhough it has to climb very far and cruise in very thick air.

Which manages to completely ignore the massive differences in the gas generator perf
between the two. It's clear that GQM-163 will be an upperbound on Meteor's performance.

It is important to note that GQM-163 is 5.62 meters long without booster, with booster it is 9.56 meters long. MARC-R282 diameter is 350 mm (13.8 inches) and has 4 inlets. On the other hand, HSAD is 4.1 meters long including the warhead, seeker, booster. And MARC-R290 diamter is only 254 mm (10 inches) and has 2 inlets. They are not the same in any shape or form. A comparison with T-3 is even worse since it is used to study a multi mission missile that can replace AIM-120 so its dimension will be different from HSAD and GQM-163 as well.

You're injecting pure irrelevances: it's the same gas generator, the same exact EM valve/plunger arrangement.
HSAD has port covers and some weight reduction and a slightly different combustor because it's an IRR.
But that's not fundamental.

There isn't any evidence that 5 km is the design launch altitude of Meteor though, and there isn't any evidence that low altitude launch to survive IADS heavy environment was part of the requirement for Meteor either.

It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

No. The operating frequency lies somewhere in the J-band. Which is 10 - 20 Ghz.
They've been explicit about that for Meteor since the 90's. MICA being a narrower diameter
would require a higher frequency seeker. Meteor would not.

Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A seeker
Mica radome diameter is 160 mm and its seeker is often cited as working inside J band range (10-20 GHz)
Aster radome diameter is 180 mm and its seeker is often cited as working inside Ku band range (12-18 GHz)
Meteor radome diameter is 178 mm and it also uses a version of AD4A seeker delivered from Aster and Mica.
There isn't a big difference between their random diameter, thus logically speaking they will use the same frequency to reduce cost and risk through parts commodity. On the other hand, there is a big difference between Meteor, Mica and Aster radome diameter with the radome of AIM-54 or fighter radome, so it is also logical that they use a higher frequency regime.

Which manages to completely ignore the massive differences in the gas generator perf
between the two. It's clear that GQM-163 will be an upperbound on Meteor's performance.

I didn't ignore their difference in size. In fact, big part of the reason why GQM-163 can fly that far while being launched from ground and cruising in thick air is due to its size. However, the difference in starting and crusing conditions will have a massive impact on range and you can't ignore that.
For example:
Aster-15 is 310 kg and 4.2 meters long, Aster-30 is 450 kg and 4.9 meters long whereas Aim-120 is only 152 kg and 3.7 meters long. Yet max range of Aster-15 is 40 km while max range of Aster-30 is 120 km whereas AIM-120 launched at high altitude can reach as far as 130 km. So despite having about 3 times the launch mass and obviously a lot more propellant Aster-30 still has shorter max range than AIM-120 because the former is launched from ground while the later can be launched at high altitude in very favorable conditions.

AIM-120 range vs altitude

Another example:
S-200 is a 10.8 meters long missile that weight 7100 kg with 4 inlets to get alot of air while ASMP-A is only 5.38 meters long and weight 860 kg. Yet S-200 can't fly further than 200 km while ASMP-A can fly as far as 500 km.

It isn't surprising that a smaller missile with less propellant can fly a longer distance if it is launched from more favorable starting conditions.

You're injecting pure irrelevances: it's the same gas generator, the same exact EM valve/plunger arrangement.
HSAD has port covers and some weight reduction and a slightly different combustor because it's an IRR.
But that's not fundamental.

No, I didn't inject any irrelevances. MARC-R282 ramjet stage used by GQM-163 and MARC-R290 used by HSAD are not the same thing period. They don't have the same length, they don't have the same diameter, they don't have the same number of inlets, they don't have the same aerodynamic, they don't even carry the same amount of propellant, they don't have the same combustor. All these factors affect range.
I don't know if their gas generator and EM valve are the same or not because you haven't provide evidences for me to make a conclusion, but even if these parts are similar, R282 and R290 are still not the samething given that there are more than a dozen differences between them.

It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.

Can you quote that part?

In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

That the minimum altitude requirement and you shouldn't forget they also said it can reach >250 km at high altitude

Yes. And I explicitly stated radome fineness. And you chime in with irrelevancies.

Imho, it isn't irrelevant to consider the fineness ratio of the whole missile body instead of only the nose consider that drag affect the whole missile.
Nevertheless, I did some estimation:
Meteor radome is 11% of the total body length so it is 401.5 mm long, Meteor diameter is 178 mm so the radome fineness ratio is 2.26
AIM-54 radome is 18.1 % of the total body length so it is 724 mm long, AIM-54 diameter is 380 mm so the radome fineness ratio is 1.90
Bigger fineness ratio is better. So, frankly I don't see how AIM-54 has better radome fineness ratio than Meteor.

We're comparing empty masses. So no. They don't balance out.

Afaik, we don't know the empty mass of either missile. Furthermore, I want to emphasize again that AIM-54 motor only burn in 25 seconds while Meteor motor can burn for several minutes. Thus, AIM-54 will go empty much earlier. If we compare them both at burn out then that will be a Meteor that have just burn out to AIM-54 that burned out 155 seconds earlier

It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

I only have time to look carefully at the scholarly links now: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257018.pdf
It appear that they are simulating the performance of a BVR air to air missile with the same length and diameter as the current BVR air to air missile, and it has 2 inlets. Thus, I think it is quite close to Meteor.
But how is this not a world better than AIM-54?
In their simulation, the ramjet missile is launched from altitude of 6 km, to target also at 6 km, which is very low altitude

Yet we got some insane interception range

With turn down ratio of 10 => Powered intercept distance is 100 km and unpowered intercept distance is 220 km => total intercept is 320 km
With turn down ratio of 7.5 => powered intercept distance is 95 km and unpowered intercept distance is 200 km => total intercept distance is 295 km
With turn down ratio of 5 => powered intercept distance is 80 km and unpowered intercept distance is 180 km => total intercept distance is 260 km
IMHO, that is many time better than what AIM-54 can do at the same altitude.

Furthermore, I also look at the altitude requirement, there is no indication that 6 km is the intended altitude, the operating envelope affected by turn down ratio and minimum altitude requirement

Stay down maraudee!

It's abundantly clear from the scholarly work posted in the other thread that 5km was the design launch altitude.
In fact, the original A3M reqs have it a Mach 0.8 at 3km.

I only have time to look carefully at the scholarly links now: <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257018.pdf</span>
It appear that they are simulating the performance of a BVR air to air missile with the same length and diameter as the current BVR air to air missile, and it has 2 inlets. Thus, I think it is quite close to Meteor.
But how is this not a world better than AIM-54?
In their simulation, the ramjet missile is launched from altitude of 6 km, to target also at 6 km, which is very low altitude

Well thanks for proving my claim that Meteor was not designed for high-altitude launch.
The turn-down requirement dictated the low altitude launch; that's entirely consistent with
no fewer than two sources that I cited that you helpfully regurgitated. It also contradicts
your claims of "minutes" of powered flights; depending on TDR it's barely over a minute.


I can't even begin to start addressing some of the amateurish and non-rigorous claims being made
here like looking at frontal drag without considering the different ogives employed by different missiles.


Or some willful refusal to understand why the gas generator and EM valve are the most important part
of a VFDR or why weight optimized missiles like HSAD and T3 with integral rocket ramjets
would be different than steel cased, non weight optimized, non IRR test targets like GQM-163.

Well thanks for proving my claim that Meteor was not designed for high-altitude launch.
The turn-down requirement dictated the low altitude launch; that's entirely consistent with
no fewer than two sources that I cited that you helpfully regurgitated

Which part from your sources make you think Meteor isn't designed for high altitude launch?. Can you quote that part?
Imho, the scholarly source clearly shows that Meteor isn't limited to low altitude.
The source indicates that the operating envelope is dictated by 3 factors:
- Minimum altitude and speed requirement: the lower the minimum altitude, the bigger the booster has to be and it also increases the maximum flow requirement since low altitude air is thicker
- Radome heating effect: although the propulsion system might be able to keep the missile at Mach 4, the missile must be slow down to a slower speed so that the radome stagnation temperature is lower than 800K (526°C)
- Turn down ratio: lower altitude require higher max fuel flow (to fight the air resistance) while higher altitude require lower minimum fuel flow (to keep the missile slower and reduce radome stagnation temperature). Thus, a bigger turn down ratio means the operating envelope can be expanded in both ways.
In their simulation, they estimated that for their simulated ramjet missile if the minimum launch altitude requirement is: sea level from Mach 0.5 and the turndown ratio is 1:5 then the maximum altitude that it can cruise is 15 km (49kft).
If the turndown ratio is increased to 10 then the maximum cruising altitude is 20 km (65kft).
On the other hand, if they relaxed the minimum altitude requirement to be 5 km instead of sea level then even with a turndown ratio of 1:7.5 then the missile can still cruise at an altitude beyond 20 km (65kft)

For comparison, the minimum launch altitude requirement for A3M (later become Meteor) is 3 km height from Mach 0.9 and the demonstrated turn down ratio is 1:9 .Thus, not only the mininum altitude requirement of A3M is not as low as the missile in the scholarly study, the turndown ratio ratio is also higher than 5. Both factors clearly indicate a much higher maximum crusing altitude than 15 km (49kft) so I can't see how Meteor isn't designed for high altitude launch.

It also contradicts your claims of "minutes" of powered flights; depending on TDR it's barely over a minute.

It doesn't actually, the minutes of powered depend on specific conditions
In the study, they simulated the ramjet missile launched from an altitude of 6 km the loft to 12 km height. Those are not the altitude with minimum fuel consumption. A Meteor launched from 15 km will be able to operate much longer. For example: at 15 km altitude the fuel consumption is about 1/2 that of 10 km altitude and about 1/4 that of 5 km altitude

Furthermore, relax the minimum launch speed requirement can reduce the booster size, thus increase missile range

I can't even begin to start addressing some of the amateurish and non-rigorous claims being made
here like looking at frontal drag without considering the different ogives employed by different missiles.

If you have some CFD study of Meteor and AIM-54, I'm happy to see them too. However, you only said AIM-54 has much better radome fineness then Meteor. A simple length/diameter calculation shows that not to be the case

Or some willful refusal to understand why the gas generator and EM valve are the most important part
of a VFDR or why weight optimized missiles like HSAD and T3 with integral rocket ramjets
would be different than steel cased, non weight optimized, non IRR test targets like GQM-163.

you haven't shown us any evidence about the gas generator and EM valve of GQM-163, HSAD and T-3 for anyone to make any conclusion regarding whether they are the same thing or not. Only saying that they are made by the same company doesn't help because these missiles used for vastly different purposes and one company can make more than one type of motor. At least you can give us a photo or some statements from the manufacturer
Furthermore, you are the one who claimed GQM-163 motor is the same one used for HSAD and T-3. I said they aren't the same thing given that there are too many difference between them