Thread by @Indrani1_Roy

My thoughts on the same. @gareebscientist

https://twitter.com/gareebscientist/status/1317062457928544256

The marketing of Meteor is just as superb as the missile itself. In terms of rocketry, the essentials are the same as Akash.Nozzleless booster accelerates the missile to 4M. In long range scenarios it coasts until the right distance from the target where it ignites its 2nd stage

Like Akash, and unlike other dual pulsed solid motor missiles, Meteor uses a solid fueled ducted ramjet (SFDR) engine for its second stage. Being a ramjet engine with no oxidizer onboard, its specific impulse is about 3 times (between 1000 and 1200) of the solid motors.

Therefore, it can stay powered for much longer than dual pulsed engines in the end game. Another difference is that it has limited throttlability (not to the extent of a liquid fueled rocket). This greatly enhances its kill zone and probability.

The seeker, the warhead and the communications are state-of-the-art. Not so for Akash Mk1. Another fundamental difference is the size. MBDA has been able to build an SFDR which is small enough to use in an A2A missile. Most probably the smallest in history.

Now the marketing part. SFDR is not a silver bullet. It’s been known and tested for over 60 years now. The Americans, Russians and (probably) the Chinese have the tech. Russian development of an A2A SFDR missile is slow only for want of funds.

There are limitations to SFDR too. It makes the missile heavy and the inlets are draggy. Also, the airbreathing inlets place restrictions on the permissible AoA and sideslip angles.

Additionally, the inlets are chin mounted on the Meteor. This makes the maneuverability asymmetric and like a fighter it may require rolling to aligning the airframe for best turning performance in the direction desired. And all throughout it needs to maintain lock.

The complexity of the missile is also higher (e.g. in India’s first test of the SFDR, the second stage did not ignite. It’s not as simple as starting a solid motor). These added complexities and “novelty” (e.g. the inlets have to be made of titanium) blows up the acquisition cost

This has been the largest detractor for many to adopt the missile in large numbers. Many argue that in the vast majority of the cases, being able to fire two solid-fuel missiles at the cost of one SFDR provides better flexibility and probability of kill.

India is developing its very own SFDR. One test firing has happened. But for reasons described above, I expect IAF/IN to maintain an inventory of Astra Mk1, Mk2 and SFDRs. The last one will be the least numerous and by some margin.