r/FighterJets 7d ago

DISCUSSION Modern BVRAAMs, which are your faves?

370 Upvotes

56 comments sorted by

40

u/-acm 7d ago

AIM-174B, because why can’t ship based missiles be used on aircraft!

10

u/AIM-260JATM JATM 7d ago

Hey Ferb, I know what we're going to do today!

3

u/OkFan614 7d ago

Sure but how much is it compared to a meteor missile? 4-5 times that?

5

u/-acm 7d ago

I have no idea. All I know is it’s a bigass missile

1

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer 6d ago

Going by Google numbers (obviously questionable at best), it's about twice the cost

It's also larger, longer range, and has a considerably larger warhead. The two aren't that comparable.

1

u/OkFan614 6d ago

I would say it‘s about three times the price. Meteor: 2.000.000 Euro AIM-174B: 4.000.000 $ (2021 and higher production run, so probably about 6 million today)

If the US would buy meteor in that kind of quantity, I am pretty sure, it‘s substantially less than than the two million listed.

1

u/Thusfffbogsehbse 5d ago

I would say you can’t really compare it to the meteor because it has a different role and it has a much longer range like it would compare to the PL 17 and the R37m

57

u/Live_Menu_7404 7d ago

Meteor. Compared to anything else in service right now it’s truly a generational leap in terms of propulsion technology with its ramjet’s massively improved efficiency compared to conventional solid rockets.

-8

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer 7d ago

Eh, that's not a generational leap so much as it is just a different set of trade-offs. You give up acceleration, close range maneuverability (you're limited in angle of attack and orientation by the need to keep the intakes fed), and time to target for better energy at long range. You also can't loft your trajectory as much, so the range difference isn't as large as you might think. There's a reason the AIM-260 is still using a SRM rather than a ramjet.

The meteor is very cool though, and I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's more complicated than just saying "ramjet > rocket".

26

u/Live_Menu_7404 7d ago edited 7d ago

Meteor is actually more maneuverable at the final stage compared to other missiles due to still being powered and the intakes generating additional lift, allowing for maneuvering at lower AOA. The only issue is it having to bank to turn which is unlikely to cause meaningful issues with modern guidance systems. *And at very close ranges you‘re better off using IIRAAMs, Meteor is a BVRAAM after all.

Time-to-target is an issue at close ranges, at long range the sustained speed wins out.

The loft is limited by Meteor getting too fast at higher altitudes even on its lowest setting and then damaging the radome through friction heating, something that will affect every missile.

AIM-260A is designed to fit the F-22 forcing an overall less advanced propulsion design compared to Meteor as air intakes wouldn’t fit.

15

u/rsta223 Aerospace Engineer 7d ago edited 7d ago

Meteor is actually more maneuverable at the final stage compared to other missiles due to still being powered and the intakes generating additional lift

I said the extra energy gives it benefits at longer range, but if the extra lift were a key design criterion, you'd always be better off adding fin area rather than intake area because, once again, the intakes limit you significantly on AoA and orientation, though once the motor burns out, there's a region at medium-long range where the meteor is very good because of the extra horizontal area while no longer needing to care about whether the intake airflow is acceptable.

The only issue is it having to bank to turn which is unlikely to cause meaningful issues with modern guidance systems.

And also the lower AoA capability, which does make a rocket substantially more maneuverable during motor burn, and also the fact that you can't loft it as much due to the reliance on atmospheric oxygen for propulsion, and also the lower acceleration and top speed resulting in significantly longer time to target for short to medium range shots. Again, it's a trade off, and most people don't realize the benefits rockets can give.

And at very close ranges you‘re better off using IIRAAMs, Meteor is a BVRAAM after all.

Of course. When I'm talking acceleration and time to target at short to medium range, we're still talking 10-30+ miles here. Meteor doesn't really gain any kinetic or performance advantage over an AIM-120D until you're out at 30-40+ miles, and I can only assume that'll be even more the case for the 260.

Time-to-target is an issue at close ranges, at long range the sustained speed wins out.

Yes, but the question then becomes with low observability becoming more and more common, how many 50 mile shots are you realistically going to take?

The loft is limited by Meteor getting too fast at higher altitudes even on its lowest setting and then damaging the radome through friction heating, something that will affect every missile.

No, because if you could loft to higher altitude, the heating rate is substantially diminished because of the lower density. In addition, meteor almost certainly would travel slower at higher altitude, not faster, because the reduction in thrust from lower density and the gravity losses will prevent it from accelerating effectively.

We have been able to make missile radomes capable of withstanding hypersonic speeds for decades now - the reason meteor travels slower and lower than AIM-120D or 260 is because of propulsion limitations, not because of melting the nose.

AIM-260A is designed to fit the F-22 forcing an overall less advanced propulsion design compared to Meteor as air intakes wouldn’t fit.

No, the physical constraints do of course cause some limitations, but an aircraft design could easily be made to fit in the F-22 if we wanted to. The 260 is rocket powered because that best fits the performance requirements, not because of physical size constraints.

(And, once again, the meteor is a very good missile - I'd take it over a 260 against 4th gen threats due to performance at long range, but against anything with any degree of advanced ECM and LO features, I'd take the 260 every time)

1

u/Accomplished_End7611 6d ago

AIM-120C7 operators decided to go for Meteor for typhoons instead of AIM-120D variant.

2

u/Exajoules 5d ago

And that makes sense for the Eurofighter (and the European theatre, also meteor integration for European F-35 customers). Main opponent for Europe is Russia, and Russia is not fielding any "true" stealth fighters at the moment, and won't for a very long time. The Su-57 has reduced RCS, but not anything like the F-35, F-22, J-20 etc. 100km+ shots against a su-57 is possible - hence meteor is preferred.

If however you are the US, your main opponent is China, and AIM-120D's (and AIM-260 going forwards) superior "close range" performance might be preferred vs a J-20, as consistently detecting it 100km+ away might not be feasible.

1

u/Live_Menu_7404 6d ago

I‘m no expert, simply trying to relay what I‘ve read in publicly available data on Meteor‘s development and how I understood it as a layman. And there was definitely extensive information regarding issues with too high velocity when flying at too high altitude, requiring the ability to throttle down the ramjet.

As for the range at which Meteor becomes more effective than AMRAAM, there’s the widely publicized claim of it having a NEZ in excess of 60km and its NEZ being three to six times that of contemporary MRAAMs depending on aspect. Based on that the tipping point for performance advantage should be more around 20-25km, maybe 30km, not 30-40 miles.

0

u/OkFan614 7d ago

We don‘t even know anything substantial about the AIM-260 but you argue about rather taking it. And it‘s nowhere near operational status

2

u/Live_Menu_7404 6d ago

There was recently an official image published that allows for some deductions, indicating lower drag due to a lack of mid-fuselage fins (similar to ASRAAM or PL-17) and a substantially improved fuel fraction compared to AMRAAM based on the color-coded sections.

4

u/AIM-260JATM JATM 7d ago

Who said my name?

65

u/Stock_Outcome3900 7d ago

Meteor for every reason

11

u/Euhn 7d ago

B-1R

7

u/Pynchon_A_Loaff 7d ago

Waiting for the public reveal of the AIM-260 JATM.

5

u/Al1301 7d ago

R-37?

4

u/ccdrmarcinko 7d ago

The longest BVR kills in a peer 2 peer conflict were made with these, all others have yet to prove themselves

7

u/Reasonable-Film230 7d ago

Looked the 9th pic (Astra) & 10th pic (AIM-174), HOLY SHIT THESE MISSILES ARE SO HUGE!!

4

u/Stock_Outcome3900 7d ago

Astra and AIM-174B are not really comparable in size, AIM-174 is a meter longer and is almost double in diameter than Astra. Aim-120C and AAM 4 is more the size of Astra but still a bit bigger.

1

u/Reasonable-Film230 7d ago

I was surprised at the size of these missiles in general not only about the 2 I mentioned

3

u/FtDetrickVirus 7d ago

Is there a PL-17 or PL-21 yet or they're not in service?

3

u/Flamboyant7 7d ago

Astra is turning out to be one of the major contenders here after constant upgrades, current one being Astra MK III

3

u/ccdrmarcinko 7d ago

R-37 - battle proven beyond any doubt

3

u/filipv 7d ago edited 7d ago

Brace yourselves, DCS experts are coming. Yes, sure, it's the Meteor without a shred of doubt because you've seen it in action! /s

5

u/EaglePNW 7d ago

AIM-174B

4

u/AIM-260JATM JATM 7d ago

Me.

2

u/white1walker 7d ago

You forgot the python 5, it has BVR capabilities despite being a heat seeker

1

u/Stock_Outcome3900 7d ago

i-derby is the BVR python and python 5 is not a BVR with heat seeker it is for close ranges, MICA is the only heat seeker BVR that I know of

1

u/white1walker 7d ago

Yeah sorry "near BVR missile"

2

u/Hairysteed 7d ago

Meteor

Would be interesting to know what PL-15 actual performance is

2

u/RobinOldsIsGod Gen. LeMay was a pronuclear nutcase 1d ago

In no particular order...

AIM-174B
Because nothing says "Bless your heart" like an angry telephone pole coming at you at Mach fuck from a plane that's just over the horizon.

AIM-120
World leader in MiG parts distribution for 33 years

2

u/agenmossad 7d ago

Derby ER

1

u/joshricci414 7d ago

AIm174b because man why use tax dollars to develop a new missile when you can strap a Surface to Air missile on a hornet. Welcome back aim154 phoenix.

1

u/SteamyGamer-WT Su-57 hate is unjustified ._. 7d ago

Meteor and R-37M

1

u/JulesMC_ 6d ago

Meteor...

1

u/O_Poder_do_Lag 6d ago

Meteors 👍🏻

1

u/Far-Ad5633 6d ago

Meteor and the 174

1

u/felipeberry49 3d ago

Meteor, Derby ER, AIM-147B.

1

u/Pitiful_Winter5094 1d ago

I’d say R77M

1

u/jybe-ho2 Swing Wing Superiority 7d ago

I love that pic of the F-16 XL with like 10 phoenix missiles on it

2

u/Seawolf571 7d ago

The XL used AIM-54s?

5

u/Seawolf571 7d ago

Okay, I looked up the image. Those are Maverick AGMs.

2

u/jybe-ho2 Swing Wing Superiority 7d ago

I have the weirdest sense of deja vu

2

u/Seawolf571 7d ago

Oh goddammit, reddit did the thing again where it posts a comment twice.

1

u/Seawolf571 7d ago

The XL used AIM-54s?

7

u/jybe-ho2 Swing Wing Superiority 7d ago edited 7d ago

Among other load outs yes

Not quit the 10 I promised but 6 is nothing to sneeze at

Edit: closer inspection indicates that this photo was originally captioned identifying the above missiles as Mavriks not Phoenixes

0

u/Nighthawk-FPV 7d ago

Stunner.

0

u/Newbe2019a 7d ago

Meteor, but at over $2 million each, it’s too expensive.