Jump to content

Talk:Meteor (missile)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need some help here, I cannot find the "Image Text" which is still showing up.

I removed the image because it did not show the MBDA Meteor (which has a "rounder" nose, ramjet-intakes on a single plane and is quite thick), but the Raytheon FMRAAM, with the FMRAAM-logo removed and a fin added, obviously in photoshop.

And since the FMRAAM images are copyrighted... well, you get the idea.

Are you certain ? You sound like having seen only the image on [1], which shows the Meteor under an angle. See images on [2], you will see that the nose is not rounder, the body not thicker and that there are indeed two ramjets intakes. Rama 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. The image on gsec actually IS distorted, giving the Meteor quite a different appearance. Actually, I was under the false impression that the Meteor's design was "final", which might not be the case. At least in the article image, the Meteor seems to have an additional fin at the same angle as the "top right" tail stabilizer, which is not there in the official MBDA Meteor image on the MBDA Website. But that just might be because of the pre-production state of the inert missile shown.
This article makes me want to vomit. As is typical with any British led project, the tone of the article sounds so shrill and defensive with respect to the British contribution that there's a degree of paranoia surrounding most passages; one example "...Thales contributes its experience and capabilities to MBDA-led definition studies and produces four sub-assemblies representing approximately 35% of the seeker..."
Laughable! Those four sub-assemblies are absolutely key to the function of the missile. You would have no seeker--or a very useless seeker--without Thales.
But I digress; reviewing the article in it's entirety reveals a project to be grossly delayed and--not surprisingly--over budget. Long time observers will not be surprised of the source of the delay, development and production. For additional examples of waste, delays, flawed concepts, poor execution--or all four, look up Nimrod AEW; Hotol; Beagle (Mars lander); BAC TSR-2 or Skylon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.53 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supercruise and climb capablity

[edit]

WHat is so special about the F-22 ? The Rafale and the Eurofighter also has supercruise abilities, so it is not obvious how this element evens the AMRAAM with respect to the Meteor, am I missing something ? Rama 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just repeating what Jane's Defence Weekly said; Jane's has a very good reputation for getting this kind of stuff right. But to answer your question, there's lots of special things about the F-22; the special things that may give it a better AMRAAM range are that it can allegedly accelerate and supercruise faster than the Eurofighter and particularly the Rafale (whose supercruise abilities are apparently very marginal), has a very high climb rate (higher than anything else), and may have a higher top speed with combat weapons loading (though this is speculation) So, when the F-22 goes to launch an AAMRAAM, it can launch it from higher and going faster, and thus get more effective range out of it. The Eurofighter can probably get more effective range out of the AMRAAM than current fighters as well. --Robert Merkel 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'd die less stupid this evening than I would have in the morning :) Rama 06:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No less stupid, just less ignorant :p There is a difference.
The F-22 has a better climb rate than the Eurofighter? Can you back this up, I cannot find any references of F-22s climb rate, and probably because the information is classified. So what do you know what others don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.99.232.80 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Meteor3.jpg

[edit]

Image:Meteor3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English usage.

[edit]

I'm maybe being picky but I think "kinematic" should read "kinetic". Editors?

92.1.157.4 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Chris[reply]

Are you kidding?

[edit]
This is easily the worst article ever! Who cares! After a valiant attempt, my interpretation of this article was the equivalent of mind numbing written diarrhea. Here it is in an essence: Blah, blah, blah, blah. Bottom line: start over. Please stick to pertinent facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.157.255.184 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shut up armed chaired expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessPavarocks (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've always read that the Mica's sensor input (especially IR) was an important part of the Rafale's sensor suite. This is in complete contradiction with the current article text. Leridan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC). It is when the missile is still attached to the pylon, but after release the comms are one-way only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.149.88 (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update for RAF

[edit]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/typhoon-weapons-upgrade-18062013

Phd8511 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operational range

[edit]

The Operational range of the Meteor missile is only 100km or slightly more, where did the person that edited the infobox get the 300km range from? the Meteor doesn't even have half that range! i think i know how this mistake was made, one of the sources says the Meteor has "more than 3 times the "no escape zone" of the AIM-120 AMRAAM", it says 3x the NO ESCAPE ZONE of the AMRAAM not 3x the range of the AMRAAM!! the range of the AIM-120 AMRAAM is about 105KM, but it's NEZ (No Escape Zone) is only 20km, which means the Meteor's NEZ (not it's range) is 60+km. Wasteland1 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly states 3x range of AMRAAM it replaces, which at time of press (2014) was AIM-120C-5. The actual range is classified. The test you refer to says "well in excess" of 100km. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.181.164 (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not state 3x range of AMRAAM it replaces, it states 3x the No Escape Zone (NEZ). The radius of the NEZ may be 3x or more than that of the AIM-120C-5, but the NEZ of a missile is not its range, and the relationship between max range and NEZ is very different between a conventional rocket like the AMRAAM that only burns for a few seconds, vs a ramjet / ducted rocket that maintains missile energy. The Meteor's max range will be <3x that of the AIM-120C-5, likely similar or just slightly superior to that of the AIM-120D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6412:9D00:2CB8:4E1C:95A1:F1F3 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In order to have 3x the NEZ it must have approximately 3x the range. 100km is ridiculous, even the AIM-120D has a range of 160km and that uses a single-burn solid rocket motor. The Meteor is the same size and uses a throttleable ducted rocket using air form the atmosphere. The AIM-120C-5 has a range of 105km, so 3x that is 315km. 300km is clearly a better figure than 100km. But range is a very wishy-washy thing that varies with launch altitude, launch speed and target aspect and speed anyway. All AAM ranges tend to be for optimal releases at high altitude. Given that fact, 300km is ball-park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.149.88 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
100km range is ridiculous and the sources state "100km+", but you're missing the other person's point that NEZ is not the same thing as range, and does not scale linearly when comparing different types of propulsion. The No Escape Zone (NEZ) radius of an air-breathing missile will be a greater percentage of that missile's maximum range compared to a normal rocket, because the air-breathing rocket sustains a supersonic airspeed (and its kinetic energy) for a relatively long time. The limitations of lofting against manoeuvring targets also plays a large factor here.Dragon029 (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meteor (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meteor (missile). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor missile RCS ?

[edit]

what is the meteor missile rcs ? 78.187.96.111 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for the article or just a general query? Talk pages aren’t forums for general discussion. I’m not sure RCS is a relevant spec. It’s speed and range are key to its effectiveness. The small differences in RCS relative to other missiles will not be key to lethality. Mark83 (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meteor_(missile)&oldid=1202113478"