Joint New Air-to-Air Missile (JNAAM)

[Ronny]

Judging by this phrase, the Gas generator turn down ratio could be extended beyond 12:1, here it means the inlet pressure can vary within these limits, and not the fuel consumption during gorenje

the consumption ratio of 10:1 most likely means that 10 kg of air is required for the combustion of 1 kg of fuel, and not 14.7 as with kerosene

Nope, again, please do some research on what is "turn down ratio" for a ramjet missile rather than inventing your own definition so that it can fit your agenda.
Here is some sneak peak for you.

 

[Ronny]

the resistance is still orders of magnitude higher than that of conventional missiles

No it isn't.
Formula for drag is:
D = 0.5* Cd* air density* reference area* Velocity^2
The biggest influent on drag is velocity.

since the RAMJET uses air as an oxidizer.So a flight above 20km is not possible

Do you want to know what else use air as an oxidizer? Air plane.
Do you want to do some research on cruising altitude of SR-71 and Mig-25?. Hint: it is greater than 20 km

 

[BBCRF]

"max/min fuel flow=5"5 what, kg/s, kg/min, kg/hour

 

[BBCRF]

No it isn't.
Formula for drag is:
D = 0.5* Cd* air density* reference area* Velocity^2
The biggest influent on drag is velocity.




Do you want to know what else use air as an oxidizer? Air plane.
Do you want to do some research on cruising altitude of SR-71 and Mig-25?. Hint: it is greater than 20 km

Oxygen recharge ever heard of this

 

[BBCRF]

D = 0,5 * Cd * плотность воздуха * контрольная площадь * Скорость ^ 2
Наибольшее влияние на лобовое сопротивление оказывает скорость.

yes, you're right, but the Cd itself is much higher than that of conventional missiles, and the mid section area is also larger

 

[Ronny]

"max/min fuel flow=5"5 what, kg/s, kg/min, kg/hour

For a ramjet missile, a turn down radio of 5 for example, mean that (the maximum fuel consumption)/(the minimum fuel consumption) = 5. That why it called a ratio. It doesn't matter what unit you use (kg/s, kg/min, kg/hour or whatever) , as long as you use the same unit for maximum and minimum fuel consumption , you will get the same result.

yes, you're right, but the Cd itself is much higher than that of conventional missiles, and the mid section area is also larger

Not high enough to counter the effect of higher velocity, as you can see from the formula, the velocity get square

Oxygen recharge ever heard of this

I can assure you neither SR-71 or Mig-25 need oxygen recharge for their jet engine to fly above 20 km especially consider how much fuel they consume when flying

 

[kqcke for you]

Thats because A solid have they Advantages too and B they are developing some. Atleast some of them did / do

 

[WatcherZero]

BBCRF if you read the paper posted earlier the drag at Mach 2.5 for the air intake is almost exactly the same as that of the fins and that of the body itself (between them accounting for 99% of drag) giving a ducted ramjet missile around 50% more drag than the same size conventional solid motor missile without an intake. With the improved performance of its engine over a conventional solid fuel rocket motor it achieves a higher performance despite the additional drag.

 

[Ronny]

Нет, друг, здесь ты ошибаешься. Если это расход в кг / с, то он намного выше, чем у ракет на жидком топливе. Расход всегда чем-то измеряется No, friend, that's where you're wrong. If it is a flow rate in kg/s, then it is much higher than liquid propellant rockets. Consumption is always measured by something

Nope. Are you playing dumb or do you actually don't understand what is a "ratio"?.
I can't not believe that I actually have to explain something so basic like this, this is like basic Math
I will give you an example.
Let say missile maximum fuel consumption is 0.1 kg/s and minimum fuel consumption is 0.02 kg/s
Then the turn down ratio would be 0.1/0.02 = 5.
If you want to use kg/hour unit then the maximum fuel consumption is 360 kg/hours, and minimum fuel consumption is 72 kg/hour.
The turn down ratio would be 360/72 = 5.
In other words, you got 5 in both case because it is essentially the same regardless of what unit you use for fuel consumption. The 5 has no unit because it is a ratio.

вообще то нуждаются,но не всегда /generally needed, but not always

Nope, SR-71 and Mig-25 does not need oxygen recharge for their jet engine to fly above 20 km. They take oxygen from atmosphere, that why they have these big inlet.

p/s: your diagram is kind of irrelevant

 

[BBCRF]

p/ s: ваша схема отчасти неуместна

Why is that?*

Нет, SR-71 и Миг-25 не нуждаются в кислородной подзарядке, чтобы их реактивные двигатели могли летать выше 20 км. Они забирают кислород из атмосферы, поэтому у них такое большое входное отверстие.

If you're talking about the main combustion chamber, then no need. Since the gas turbine engine regulates the air supply at the entrance to the engine and a fairly stable gorenje zone. In a RAMJET, the air intake is usually not adjustable and the flight is limited to 20 km for sustained combustion .Gorenje For afterburners, I use oxygen recharge. Just for the ignition of fuel in the afterburner

 

[BBCRF]

Нет. Вы прикидываетесь тупым или действительно не понимаете, что такое "соотношение"?.
Я не могу не поверить, что мне действительно приходится объяснять что-то настолько простое, как это, это похоже на элементарную математику
Я приведу вам пример.
Допустим, максимальный расход топлива ракеты составляет 0,1 кг / с, а минимальный - 0,02 кг / с
, тогда коэффициент уменьшения будет равен 0,1 / 0,02 = 5.

Translation error.Thanks for the answer

 

[Ronny]

Why is that?*

If you're talking about the main combustion chamber, then no need. Since the gas turbine engine regulates the air supply at the entrance to the engine and a fairly stable gorenje zone. In a RAMJET, the air intake is usually not adjustable and the flight is limited to 20 km for sustained combustion .Gorenje For afterburners, I use oxygen recharge. Just for the ignition of fuel in the afterburner

Like a said before, ramjet can fly much higher than 20 km, for example the ramjet CIM-10 Bomarc had done interception at 100,000 ft or roughly 30 km height

 

[Ares]

Japan to design new missile for next-generator fighter jets

Japan plans to design a new missile for next-generation fighter jets it is developing with Britain and Italy, aiming to equip them with it when they are first deployed in the Asian nation in 2035, a source familiar with the matter said Monday. A study involving Japan and Britain on…

japantoday.com

Japan to design new missile for next-generation fighter jets

Japan plans to design a new missile for next-generation fighter jets it is developing with Britain and Italy, aiming to equip them with it when they are first deployed in the Asian nation in 2035, a source familiar with the matter said Monday.

A study involving Japan and Britain on what would be fit for new fighter jets to be used by Japan's Air Self-Defense Force showed that a home-grown air-to-air missile would initially ensure better performance at a lower cost than the European-developed air-to-air Meteor missile, according to the source.

In the future, however, Japan may consider equipping its new fighters with missiles that are used for British and Italian warplanes to improve their capabilities, the source said.

The launch of the joint fighter jet project was announced last December by the leaders of Japan, a close U.S. security ally, and the two NATO members amid an increasingly severe security environment including Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and China's military buildup.

It is the first time Japan has engaged in defense equipment development with a nation other than the United States.

Currently, the three countries are working on the basic design of the aircraft body and engine details.

To streamline the development process, they are holding talks to set up a body to implement decisions made by their defense authorities, according to the source.

Japan plans to deploy the new fighter jets as successors of about 90 aging F-2 fighters of the ASDF that are to begin retiring in 2035, and some 240 Eurofighter jets in Britain and Italy will be replaced in total, according to the Japanese Defense Ministry.

The Meteor missile, developed by six European states including Britain and Italy, is for use in Eurofighters and other aircraft, and is also likely to be a candidate for use in the new fighter jets in the two countries.

As for electronic devices to be put on the new fighters, an ASDF C-2 transport aircraft will be modified to carry out flight tests.

Study on artificial intelligence will also be promoted to develop drones to assist fighter jets' operations.

I hoped the JNAAM program could carry on no matter what. This was the most ideal and best way to unify the operation and supply chain of the future air-to-air missile not only for GCAP but F-35s...

 

[kqcke for you]

Yeah but now we got the chance to see JNAAM with an RDE Ramjet xD
I could see that with the right diplomatic talks JNAAM becomes the Meteor Sucssesor for all (except france who gets his own radar seeker xD)

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Slightly related, as Japan has allocated budget for the development of AAM-4 follow-up missile called "next-gen MRAAM (次期中距離空対空誘導弾の開発). This is separate from "future MRAAM R&D (将来中距離空対空誘導弾に関する研究)", which the JNAAM programme was part of.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Be interesting to know how that worked in detail, given that the Meteor propulsion tech is actually German (Bayern Chemie).

I was wrong about the details there.

Japan wasn't receiving the technology regarding the propulsion system design itself, but rather the related data concerning the ramjet missile behaviour, flight regime and compatibility with their seeker design/technology.

 

[timmymagic]

Slightly related, as Japan has allocated budget for the development of AAM-4 follow-up missile called "next-gen MRAAM (次期中距離空対空誘導弾の開発). This is separate from "future MRAAM R&D (将来中距離空対空誘導弾に関する研究)", which the JNAAM programme was part of.

Is the 'MRAAM' designation being used as a placeholder? Surely they're looking at a Long Range AAM to combat PLAAF developments?

 

[kqcke for you]

Is the 'MRAAM' designation being used as a placeholder? Surely they're looking at a Long Range AAM to combat PLAAF developments?

Or its the good old way to have same capabilitys (or more) in a mutch smaller package.

 

[Maro.Kyo]

Is the 'MRAAM' designation being used as a placeholder? Surely they're looking at a Long Range AAM to combat PLAAF developments?

I'd say don't read too much into the designation itself.

 

[zjz]

Japan to develop new medium-range air-to-air missile

Japan has said it will develop a new medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM) to arm its sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) fighter aircraft.

www.janes.com