British weapons for the F-35

Sorry but unless there's an AESA in the mix Big-Oh analysis says that aperture is the whole picture.
Particularly when there's such a huge difference.

AFAIK, Meteor uses Ku -band seeker which have operating frequency between 12-18 GHz (wavelength: 2.4 - 1.6 cm)
I don't know for certain the operating band of AIM-54 seeker, however, since both AIM-120 and AIM-54 is made by Raytheon (Hughes), if i was to venture an educated guess, I would say it also use I band seeker similar to AIM-120 with operating frequency from 8-10 GHz (wavelength: 3.7 - 2.9 cm)
So the operating wavelength of AIM-54's seeker is roughly 1.54 - 1.81 times longer than the operating wavelength of Meteor.
The Gain equation is as follows:

From the equation we can deduce that because AIM-54's seeker operate at longer wavelength, if all else equal, to match the Gain of Meteor's seeker then the aperture of AIM-54's seeker must be 2.37 - 3.27 times bigger than Meteor's seeker aperture. Given that AIM-54's diameter is only two time bigger than Meteor's diameter thus this requirement isn't satisfied so Meteor will have higher Gain.
Higher frequency has greater propagation losses but from 8-20 GHz the attenuation is negligible imho

Moreover, while the range of AIM-54's seeker could be better, the ECCM of Meteor's seeker is likely better because there are more ECCM methods when it was made. There are many ECCM method and not everything rely on the pure transmitting power.

It's not clear that the higher Vbo for AIm-54C in a loft loses to the ducted rocket. And if there is an increase
in miss distance it's not clear that's not compensated for by the much larger warhead.

IIRC, Spurt made an aero and kinematic analysis for Meteor, seem like it can beat anything else.

AFAIK, Meteor uses Ku -band seeker which have operating frequency between 12-18 GHz (wavelength: 2.4 - 1.6 cm)

It's an X-band seeker.

It's not clear that the higher Vbo for AIm-54C in a loft loses to the ducted rocket. And if there is an increase
in miss distance it's not clear that's not compensated for by the much larger warhead.

IIRC, Spurt made an aero and kinematic analysis for Meteor, seem like it can beat anything else.

AIM-54C was well over 100 nm. Meteor's not getting out that far.

GQM-163A, a VFDR with twice as many inlets, a bigger combustion chamber and
(IIRC) hundreds of pounds more propellant for the gas generator gets out to 110 nautical miles.

And the ultimate question for end-game is miss distance; warhead lethal radii is pretty much
linear in warhead weight. So I like AIM-54C's chances particularly against a fighter that's laden
with the sort of ASCM that could threaten a carrier.

For Meteor's original design target of an A2A Flanker that tries to out-dive an A2A missile
sure..but then the ballistic coefficient of the AIM-54C might be better too.

It's an X-band seeker.

X-band is 8-12 GHz, most reliable source I can find for Meteor indicate it uses a Ku band seeker
Moreover, Meteor's seeker was supposed to be a delivered from Aster and Mica RF seeker
Aster uses Ku band seeker (12-18 GHz) while Mica uses J band seeker (10-20 GHz) so it would make more sense that Meteor seeker also operate at high frequency regime like these two

an active radar seeker derived from MBDA’s Aster and Mica missiles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ainonl ... sile%3Famp

It's an X-band seeker.

X-band is 8-12 GHz, most reliable source I can find for Meteor indicate it uses a Ku band seeker
Moreover, Meteor's seeker was supposed to be a delivered from Aster and Mica RF seeker
Aster uses Ku band seeker (12-18 GHz) while Mica uses J band seeker (10-20 GHz) so it would make more sense that Meteor seeker also operate at high frequency regime like these two

an active radar seeker derived from MBDA’s Aster and Mica missiles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ainonl ... sile%3Famp

Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.

You see Ku but they mean X-band.

And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

AIM-54C was well over 100 nm. Meteor's not getting out that far.

I have seen various aerodynamic and kinematic simulation by various people showing Meteor excess 100 nm

GQM-163A, a VFDR with twice as many inlets, a bigger combustion chamber and
(IIRC) hundreds of pounds more propellant for the gas generator gets out to 110 nautical miles.

That a banana to orange comparison, GQM-163A is ground launched from zero altitude, zero starting speed. By contrast, even in worst case scenario, I expect Meteor to be launched from 20.000-35.000 ft and Mach 0.85
Starting speed and altitude have a tremendous impact on missile range. For example: a ground launched AIM-120 won't fly further than 20 km whereas at high altitude it can goes as far as 120 km.

Moreover, GQM-163 was designed to simulate Russian supersonic anti ship missile thus it is either sea skimming or only cruise at 45.000 ft in high altitude operation. Whereas, air to air missiles tend to climb to much higher altitude to take advantage of the low drag condition

For Meteor's original design target of an A2A Flanker that tries to out-dive an A2A missile
sure..but then the ballistic coefficient of the AIM-54C might be better too.

Why would AIM-54 have better drag coefficient than Meteor? AIM-54 is a fat missile with much higher (cross sectional area)/total length compared to Meteor. Furthermore, AIM-54 motor burn for about 25 seconds whereas the throttle able motor of Meteor can burn for about 3 minutes. Thus at terminal stage, AIM-54 maneuver with no thrust, just gravity and drag, basically every slight turn that it make, it will lose the speed that it can't get back. By contrast, Meteor can uses low thrust for cruising and high thrust for end game maneuver.

Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.
You see Ku but they mean X-band.
And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

I find that hard to believe, even early in the development stage, Meteor was supposed to use much higher frequency than AIM-120 to have better burn through performance.

Besides, Meteor basically uses an improved version of AD4A seeker which operate at 10-20 GHz, make no sense for them to reduce it to 10-12 GHz.

Ku-band and X-band overlap; when the quote seeker band it's typically where the center frequency falls.
You see Ku but they mean X-band.
And 10 - 12 GHz would overlap between Aster and Mica.

I find that hard to believe, even early in the development stage, Meteor was supposed to use much higher frequency than AIM-120 to have better burn through performance.

There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't make the final cut. Like an AESA.

There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't happen. Like an AESA.

Yes of course, but I find it hard to believe that the improved AD4A on Meteor is somehow worse than the base AD4A seeker on MiCA and Aster, both supposed to work in 12-18 GHz

There were a lot of things at the early stages of development that didn't happen. Like an AESA.

Yes of course, but I find it hard to believe that the improved AD4A on Meteor is somehow worse than the base AD4A seeker on MiCA and Aster, both supposed to work in 12-18 GHz

Given that MICA is a smaller diameter missile it makes perfect sense particularly as
solid state amplifiers were much more powerful at X-band than a Ku-band during this period.

And it's an Italian seeker anyway; I'm sure they had a say.

Given that MICA is a smaller diameter missile it makes perfect sense particularly as
solid state amplifiers were much more powerful at X-band than a Ku-band during this period.
And it's an Italian seeker anyway; I'm sure they had a say.

The much bigger Aster also use AD4A seeker that operate in Ku-band and only recently upgraded to Ka band in Block 1 NT version
Given that Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A, it is extremely strange if Meteor suddenly become the outliner, there isn't anything to support the claim that Meteor use X-band either.

The much bigger Aster also use AD4A seeker that operate in Ku-band and only recently upgraded to Ka band in Block 1 NT version
Given that Mica, Aster and Meteor all use version of AD4A, it is extremely strange if Meteor suddenly become the outliner, there isn't anything to support the claim that Meteor use X-band either.

The only reference I can find to the Meteor using X-band at the moment is "The Drive" who did a 2016 article of European missile capability and stated the Meteor uses an X-band seeker.

However, the UK is currently working with Japan to produce a new version of the Meteor that uses an AESA seeker head developed from the one used in the AAM-4B - first test firings should occur in 2023. It's official designation is the JNAAM, the UK have not yet said if it intends to order the missile itself though.

latest update here: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... evelopment

However, the UK is currently working with Japan to produce a new version of the Meteor that uses an AESA seeker head developed from the one used in the AAM-4B - first test firings should occur in 2023. It's official designation is the JNAAM, the UK have not yet said if it intends to order the missile itself though.

latest update here: https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... evelopment

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.

That a banana to orange comparison, GQM-163A is ground launched from zero altitude, zero starting speed. By contrast, even in worst case scenario, I expect Meteor to be launched from 20.000-35.000 ft and Mach 0.85

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.

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.
The only way the Eurocanards could survive against IADS was with low-altitude pen.

Moreover, GQM-163 was designed to simulate Russian supersonic anti ship missile thus it is either sea skimming or only cruise at 45.000 ft in high altitude operation.

Completely untrue.

Why would AIM-54 have better drag coefficient than Meteor? AIM-54 is a fat missile with much higher (cross sectional area)/total length compared to Meteor.

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