Why are we buying METEOR BVRAAM?

[foormort]

As the title says, why?

[DEL Mode]

As the title say's....

Why not?

We bought Polaris and Trident, does not mean we have to use them

[Jackonicko]

Because AMRAAM will need replacing, sooner rather than later.

It may have active terminal guidance, but even with mid course updates, it is far from being the magic bullet it is sometimes presented as.

The Meteor promises longer reach, faster speed, better ECCM, and a bigger NEZ.

Why would we not be buying it?

[SirToppamHat]

Don't wish to show my own hand here but during a visit to MBDA, the main question was whether the Rules of Engagement are ever likely to be put in place (in these days of ultra caution) where it would be allowed to be used. Most of our activities are peacekeeping or air policing, during which you would normally expect to need a visual confirmation on a target prior to engaging - absence of (for example) IFF is not adequate assurance under normal circumstances to lead to missile release, so BVR might be questioned.

Of course NCTR (info here: http://www.ottawa.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/html/RAST-309-nctr_e.html) may give greater assurance of the long-range target's ID, though I suspect specific capabilities in this regard will be beyond the classification of this thread.

That said, ASRAAM is a fantastic piece of kit (I am led to believe), but would meteor's greater size make it preferrable against a larger target (irresepective of range) ?

If AMRAAM needs to be replaced (and I always believed its initial procurement was as a stop-gap pending Meteor) what else would you go for?

STH

(And MBDA gave out crap gizzits, saying that we could only have teh laser pointers when the contract for Meteor had been signed!)

[FormerFlake]

Don't wish to show my own hand here but during a visit to MBDA, the main question was whether the Rules of Engagement are ever likely to be put in place (in these days of ultra caution) where it would be allowed to be used. Most of our activities are peacekeeping or air policing, during which you would normally expect to need a visual confirmation on a target prior to engaging - absence of (for example) IFF is not adequate assurance under normal circumstances to lead to missile release, so BVR might be questioned.

Of course NCTR (info here: http://www.ottawa.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/html/RAST-309-nctr_e.html) may give greater assurance of the long-range target's ID, though I suspect specific capabilities in this regard will be beyond the classification of this thread.

That said, ASRAAM is a fantastic piece of kit (I am led to believe), but would meteor's greater size make it preferrable against a larger target (irresepective of range) ?

If AMRAAM needs to be replaced (and I always believed its initial procurement was as a stop-gap pending Meteor) what else would you go for?

STH

(And MBDA gave out crap gizzits, saying that we could only have teh laser pointers when the contract for Meteor had been signed!)

The ROE is an important factor, point well made!!

[Gen.Thomas Power]

If you want a 'capability' reason (instead of a political or industrial one) we're buying Meteor because Typhoon isn't stealthy, and because those pesky Russians will be flogging a ramjet around the bazaars before too long. However, the money might be better spent on the aircraft's air-to-ground capability . . . or even an e-scan radar, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool air supremacy merchant. AMRAAM is far from obsolete and the 'special relationship' has to be good for something.

[FormerFlake]

If you want a 'capability' reason (instead of a political or industrial one) we're buying Meteor because Typhoon isn't stealthy, and because those pesky Russians will be flogging a ramjet around the bazaars before too long. However, the money might be better spent on the aircraft's air-to-ground capability . . . or even an e-scan radar, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool air supremacy merchant. AMRAAM is far from obsolete and the 'special relationship' has to be good for something.

Is stealth actually the be all and end all? Does it really work that well? How many times of the spams used the B2s for initial strikes? Why do we still send SF in to take out radars etc if stealth is so good?

[foormort]

Will it fit into/onto JCA? Will the Eurofighter be able to detect and resolve groups of targets made up of these future threats? Who are we engaging in a long range shooting war and where? It surely costs a lot of procurement monies, is this where we want to spend when other areas are hurting?

[HEDP]

Surely the ROE argument applies to Brimstone also then?

HEDP

[NURSE]

The ROE argument is valid. But as has been said it is to replace AMRAM system which will need updating or replacing. If Meteor is the best system then that is what should be bought.
With ROE who says in the future we won't have to deploy a system with Meteors capability to deal with a situation not currently identified as a threat. Maybe the compatibility of other nations products with the F35 progremme should have been delt with in programme definition phase or when other nations joined the programme?

[trap one]

Is stealth actually the be all and end all? Does it really work that well? How many times of the spams used the B2s for initial strikes? Why do we still send SF in to take out radars etc if stealth is so good?
BUFF's are used for initial strikes with stand off weapons not the dumb or short range (relative) JDAM's. Now as the stand off weapons do have a stealth componant, the whole argurement about getting as close to the Target before the other side know you're there and can react is still valid.
Depends if you want to spend large amounts in very very small RCS aircraft or a small RCS that doesn't cost the earth (relatively).
The problem about taking out a radar is that the closer you get the more power is reflected from the aircraft and so eventually you will get a return on the scope. Now if it's only 1 radar in the country then you can take it out and achieve the result you require. But if itis part of an intergrated air defence system them someone will notice the returns or radars dropping out before they get to the rest of the radars r the target. So as your normal SF trooper has the RCS of nothing and the SF Helo boys can Nap of the earth like no one else. Coupling all the SF with the rest of the air assets will allow you to tke out the radars you need to all at once and hence provide surprise.
As for the ROE arguement, thats for the politicians :mad: or the lawyers :yuk: to let the frontline pukes know if they can use if or not. However if you have Meteor against you, then you have to honour the threat. For example F16s in USAF when they go to war always have AMRAAM on board. Other F16 users don't always have the AMRAAM. So if your RHWR is screaming F16 then you react at AMRAAM distances not AIM9L. Same deal if your spiked by SLOTBACK II unless your INTEL puke is 100% sure that the SU27's don't have ALAMO C and only has ALAMO A then you would react at C ranges.
As for why are we buying it then why didn't we buy self sealing fuel tanks for the C130 plus a shed load of other projects that have been turned down for cash or other reasons.

[Roland Pulfrew]

As the title says, why?

Cynical answer - "Because 10 Downing Street told us to!" IIRC it didn't win the competition, but it was the European answer!!

[soddim]

There are few weapons that can be described as a panacea solution but it should not stop us procuring one that gives us a more competitive edge than the opposition in any particular scenario. The days of "You'll never get clearance for a BVR shot" are over. The quality and quantity of data and the real time dissemination to the sharp end now permits the use of weapons that will ruin a good fighter pilots day before he knows what day it is.

Sadly, experience, skill and cunning are now less important than technology.

[Gen.Thomas Power]

FF

"Typhoon needs Meteor because its not stealthy" etc. (quoting self).

The point I was trying to make about stealth was not in the air-to-ground role. A stealthy aircraft also has a major advantage in air combat . . . because if you can creep up on your oponent and launch an AMRAAM at him before he can react to your presence (the missile launch may be the first indication that you're there) then you don't need a big stick like Meteor because you'll have 'timed out' on your opponent before he can target, launch and 'time out' on you. Hence, although the US might be developing longer range versions of AMRAAM, they probably don't feel the need to develop an ultra-long range missile in quite the same way as we do. . . .

Because if you have a radar cross-section the size of a barn door and can be seen from miles away, you need to be able to shoot at your opponents . . . from miles away! However, shooting at range not only introduces problems with ROE etc, but more importantly, with your own radar's ability to track the target and support the missile to time-out. . .because it'll have to cope with targets that are dodging, diving, ducking, weaving, chaffing and generally monkeying about at twice the range they used to (with radar returns that are 16 times as weak blah, blah). Hence my comment about an e-scan radar which (if it works) can solve a lot of these problems (and quite a few others) for you.

:eek:

[hotshots!]

Rules of Engagement...

Stop fighting the last war and think about what may happen next.

Are people really trying to say why buy Meteor because you will never get the beyond visual range engagement command. Well, if thats the case and everything has to be a VID, lets scrap missiles altogether and just go for guns (maybe a bit extreme but it makes the point).

Meteor is necessary because it will combat the capabilities of tomorrow.