South Korea has achieved a milestone by integrating MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM) onto its next-generation KF-21 Boramae fighter aircraft.
This effort between South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), and MBDA showcases international cooperation and advanced engineering expertise.
The Meteor missile, renowned for its unique ramjet propulsion system, offers unparalleled range and performance.
Unlike traditional air-to-air missiles that lose manoeuvrability during unpowered flight, the Meteor maintains its speed and agility right up to the target, making it a formidable addition to the KF-21’s capabilities.
The integration process, a highly complex task involving aerodynamics, radar, and software engineering, began with the KF-21’s first flight in July 2022, where the aircraft was equipped with four Meteor missiles—an unprecedented achievement.
The project advanced through ejection tests in 2023 and successful firing trials in early 2024, demonstrating the weapon’s effectiveness. Manufacturing contracts are now in place to ensure the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) receives operational Meteor missiles in time for the KF-21’s entry into service.
This integration also positions ROKAF to potentially use a common Meteor missile stockpile across both the KF-21 and the F-35, enhancing logistical efficiency.
I’m not saying a wor…oh sod it …How’s our integration Meteor fantasy going?
Just goes to show how.lomg it will take IF we ever get to the starting gun..more like a marathon than a sprint.
You can do a rapid integration of a missile on to a platform in as title as 6 months. As shown by getting Storm Shadow (SS) on to the Ukrainian Su-24s. However, this was an urgent requirement, where the traditional safety rules were swept under the carpet. It does mean that the integration program skips over some key steps, for example expanding the operational launch envelop. Where I’d expect the Su-24 must be in a certain flight profile to launch SS.
Traditionally it can take at least 6 years or more to integrate fully an air to air missile on to an aircraft. Much of this is making sure that the aircraft and missile can talk to each other and not misinterpret a command. For beyond visual range (BVR) missiles this generally takes much longer. As you also have to incorporate long distance data-link testing. Whereas a within visual range (WVR) missile such as Sidewinder is much simpler. As the missile is generally a point and shoot. Though having the ability for lock on after launch (LOAL) and helmet cueing has made this a bit more complicated.
Where you fit the missile on to the aircraft also has a part to play on how long it takes to integrate. Having it carried under the wing and launched from a rail is much simpler, especially if it’s under the wing rather than on top. Launching from a weapons bay is significantly more complicated, where it could be attached to rail on a bay door, or is forcibly thrown out by ejector mechanisms. Plus there’s the airflow around and in the bay to contend with.
The KF-21 uses semi-recessed slots in the belly of the airframe to house Meteor. Thus making the missile installation more aerodynamic, compared with hanging them off a pylon. Plus by doing so keeps the radar cross section (RCS) lower than when carried on a pylon. However it does mean that the missile must use ejector mechanisms to push the missile away from the airframe. As the airflow close to the airframe can cause loose objects to stick to the airframe. The mechanism will throw the missile past the boundary layer into freer moving air with quite some force, so the missile must be strong enough to take this lateral movement.
One of the biggest contentions is data sharing. How much does the aircraft manufacturer share data with the missile manufacturer and vice versa. Clearly there must be a middle ground. But getting to that stage involves contract lawyers, which invariably delays everything as they try to protect their company’s intellectual property and quibble over the phrasing of a sentence.
It also helps if the platform and missile manufacturers are from the same country. Politics does have a big part to play on integration. Especially if you have a competing foreign built missile manufacturer that is trying to get on the platform.
Thank you for that great insight Davey. Easy to overlook the extreme complexity involved and I’m sure the contract lawyers for US companies are particularly scrupulous in their work. Certainly amusingly compared to Bernie Ecclestone who signed one with Brawn in the Brawn story I saw the other night on tv, where the contract they signed, so he could continue to screw the teams and prevent a breakaway, became null and void because he couldn’t resist boasting to those other F1 teams about it in a finger up fashion. Brawn’s Lawyer on the other hand who added it played a blinder mind as it then gained Mercedes’ interest in investing and the rest became history.
Cheers Spy, nice F1 dit. For me, too many times have I run foul of “that’s not in scope” and requires either a contract amendment or the the other firm gives a blatantly inflated cost for allowing/doing the work, trying to push you down the contract amendment route.
I think the F35 is an example of both political interference, but also where the platform designer has promised x, y and z, but in reality can’t deliver. As they are the owner of the mission software, there’s very little we can do to speed up the MOD’s need to get sovereign weapons on to the platform. In the case of Meteor, you might be able to get an initial operating capability, by fooling the mission system that it is a version of AMRAAM. But that will give a very basic function set of what the pilot can do with the installed Meteor. Both missile conform to MIL-STD-1760. But normally the aircraft’s mission system is uploaded with the missile’s key parameters, but also something like a “babblefish” program, so it can communicate directly with the missile and understand what it is saying in return. Otherwise you could have a scenario where the aircraft’s radar sees a target flying above, but the emission system tells the missile to look at these coordinates. Where the missile misinterprets it and looks down, then telling the mission system it can’t find or acquire the target.
A lot of these “alignment” issues are initially sorted out on rigs, that use the aircraft systems but put on racks on the ground. However you can only do so much on the ground and you do need to validate the missile alignment and communications whilst on flight tests. So suitably qualified pilots and aircraft availability becomes the big headache.
Likely much faster now the TR3 issue has been largely solved. Given the glacial pace of US AAM meteor will likely be an increasingly big sales point for F35 in the 2030’s. I think you will see progress by 2027 as was initially indicated.
One thing to bear in mind is that the AMRAAM manufacturer Raytheon is doubling the production facility with the aim of doubling the number of missiles it can produce. A lot of this is to replace stocks donated to Ukraine for their use in NASAMS. But also the US is selling the F35 as a complete weapons package. Where just like a car purchase it comes with a weapons options list. As AMRAAM is part of the list, the US can offer it as part of the package deal, so at a lower cost, then buying them separately. This is what MBDA have to compete with, which makes Meteor quite a bit more expensive than AMRAAM. Unless Air forces can be shown that Meteor has a qualitive improvement over the latest AMRAAM variant, it will struggle to get sales.