Full A/A configuration for the Eurofighter Typhoon:
>14 (fourteen) Meteor BVRAAM missiles
>2 IRIS-T SRAAM
Thoughts?
Total Air Death
Full A/A configuration for the Eurofighter Typhoon:
>14 (fourteen) Meteor BVRAAM missiles
>2 IRIS-T SRAAM
Thoughts?
>BRAAAP missiles
>14
just develop a 3pylon load there
it probably wont go far but so will the enemy
>take off
>get to 40k
>have 15 minutes of flight time before RTB
In reality you end up taking 4 MRAAMs 2 SRAAMs and 3 bags
t. DCS pro
How good is Meteor really?
What are tanker doing?
>How good is Meteor really?
Nobody really knows for obvious reasons, but the general consensus seems to be that it is pretty fucking scary. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread the Meteor is one of only a handful of missiles that can recoup energy lost to maneuvering, so trying to crank the missile and drain its energy doesn't work nearly as well in this case. That gives it a very high hit probability at absurdly long ranges, and makes current counter-missile techniques much, much harder to implement. Because it can recoup energy it can also be programmed to throttle down and enter a kind of loiter state if it loses its target, and so remain a threat for a lot longer.
Presumably you can still notch it to make it lose track?
t. Growling Sidewinder enjoyer
Notching works against a very specific kind of technology - pulse doppler filtering of radar returns - as it existed in the 70s-90s, and only if you've got clutter to hide in.
Nowadays you can use a lot more fancy frequency hopping shit on the emitter side to discriminate target returns from the background using time offsets and whatnot. Combine this with state estimation like kalman filters running on modern computer hardware and a momentary loss of frequency shift is a non-issue.
> recoup energy
how? regenerative braking? hybrid flywheel drivetrain?
>Because it can recoup energy it can also be programmed to throttle down
First time hearing this. It's a solid rocket motor, it can't be throttled.
Refer to
Most missiles burn their fuel early on and then coast. This means the sum of their kinetic and gravitational potential energy is fixed and diminishing for most of their trajectory. Meteor keeps burning for a long time, which means it can "regain" lost kinetic and gravitational potential energy by using chemical potential energy (which isn't being counted here).
wouldn't it be able to change it's fuel burn rate by limiting it's oxygen intake and thus throttle down to some degree?
it's not exactly new, throttleable solid rocket motors do exist, like the one on that virgin galaxy suborbital tourist ride.
ok that makes sense
according to wikipedia it can (if i read it correctly)
>Thoughts?
Needs two wingman drones with another 8 Meteor each.
do you really need low RCS if youre this upgunned? (i know stealth is good)
Neat, now when will it carry AG ordinance? 2060?
>4.5gen
An obsolescent aircraft with minor stealth charACK
Quick rundown on meteor vs amraam? I assume they're both pretty similar?
Is the goal here F35s detect and provide firing solutions for the eurofighter missile trucks behind/above to launch?
meteor has a ducted rocket (NOT RAMJET!!!) engine, which burns for a lot longer because it augments the thrust of the rocket with surrounding air, kinda like turbofan vs turbojet
what this means in practical terms is that it has lower peak acceleration but burns for much longer. most missiles only burn for a few seconds, then they coast. which means that if you force them to turn after the initial boost phase they have no way to recover that energy.
something like meteor can in practical terms hit maneuvering targets much further away (like, 30 miles vs 10 miles) at the cost of some snapshot performance up close.
meteor is some space magic shit. It has like an obscene No Escape Zone of like 60 km. We don't know for certain but supposedly it's better than the 120 Ds and has a 200 km range
>air to air missile
>range
ugh
That is a lot of missiles.
In a hypothetical air war where these things see use, who exactly is going to field enough aircraft to fire at? China? Or do you launch multiples at the same target?
That's a heavy ass jet, show me its Fox 3 timeline
t. C2
>Thoughts?
The twin pylons don't exist
The flying and releasing enveloppe is not open
With only one tank it's short on legs
A scenario in which you'd need such long range AA firepower yet so little playtime simply doesn't exist
Picrel is a far better and more realistic option and, surprisingly, an actual operational configuration for the jet.
>The twin pylons don't exist
They do, was just released in February.
https://theaviationist.com/2021/02/14/eurofighter-shows-typhoon-in-beast-mode-with-14-meteor-beyond-visual-range-air-to-air-missiles/
Wasn't a big deal because triple pylons for air-to-ground already existed (picrel)
Yeah it solely exists as a rendering, let’s talk about it when it is fielded and operational
>They do, was just released in February.
I'll believe it when I see them in flight with an open and validated release enveloppe that is part of an operational loadout, thanks.
Your picture does not show what you think it shows, rather what mine
does. That's not a twin pylon. That's two separate pylons carrying a single AIM-132 ASRAAM each.
>It does exist, it's called point-defense interception. It's the loadout you would use to defend your airbase against a massive surprise bomber strike, for example.
Anon, first there cannot be a "massive surprise bomber strike", ever. This is not 1941. Secondly, if you have to do "point defense" against a massive bomber raid, you intercept these as far as possible away from your base. Which means taking off quickly, climbing high, then flying very fast for quite some time before getting close to the bombers and launching the missiles.
Even considering a 200km+ range for the Meteor, any cruise missile launched from a heavy long range bomber will outrange these Meteor by far. Or is the goal to intercept the cruise missiles? In which case the aircraft itself would be irrelevant.
So no, "point defense" is not a credible scenario to justify 14 Meteors and a single fuel tank. Not even for a small country like Qatar.
>By the time you took off, the bombers might be minutes away from your location
Then that's an even bigger problem, as a Typhoon carrying such a loadout should be in a high alert readiness state and ready to take off in the span of a minute, as it was the case during the cold war. Even better you may already have jets in the air, that's called "Air policing".
>so range is irrelevant
Well then why the Meteor? This doesn't make any sense.
>Same reason why the F-14 was able to carry 6 phoenixes, even though everyone knew this wouldn't be the loadout it would use on normal missions.
So 6 Phoenix was too much but the alternative loadout of 4 Phoenix 2 Sparrows 2 sidewinders was ok?
wtf
>A scenario in which you'd need such long range AA firepower yet so little playtime simply doesn't exist
It does exist, it's called point-defense interception. It's the loadout you would use to defend your airbase against a massive surprise bomber strike, for example. By the time you took off, the bombers might be minutes away from your location, so range is irrelevant. Same reason why the F-14 was able to carry 6 phoenixes, even though everyone knew this wouldn't be the loadout it would use on normal missions.
>A scenario in which you'd need such long range AA firepower yet so little playtime simply doesn't exist
You detect dozens of Russian bombers incoming and all you have to hand are your two 5 minute alert planes.
>You detect dozens of Russian bombers
At least half of them crash upon take off, a quarter falls from the sky while en route to your base, only 4 remain when they get into firing range, and 90% of their missiles miss the target.
I think we're fine anon.
>Not enough airframes?
>Not enough qualified pilots?
>Just add more missiles, it's not like adding more has adverse effects on the aircraft's speed, range, or maintenance
Non-stealth fighters are as obsolete today as they were in 2005
That's fine when 90% of the worlds air forces don't have them. And most of the countries that use Eurofighter are getting F35 anyway.
typhoons are ugly
you're ugly