THAT I didn’t know. No pun intended. Otherwise it would have fit on what bio said (ranges) and it can be launched without rail. Can anyone tell me why US services do not look at meteor? Afterall they had selected Mica as a backup solution if 9X wasn’t good enough. If europeans buy F-35 why wouldn’t usa buy meteor?

On the CUDA comment, sometimes it helps to read a couple of posts on the product we are talking about before commenting ;).

On AMRAAM replacement :

The US has a high volume production demand from any a2a missile and the numerical requirements for a missile make RDT&E, not trivial but pretty close to it. The Aim-120 clocked 20,000 missiles produced mark just recently. On the Meteor, I’ve long hoped that Lockheed partner with MBDA and offer it since they were left out of the competitive T3 contracts. This way they could compete if the Next generation missile where Boeing and Raytheon would have a distinct advantage if the USAF or the USN seek an AMRAAM class missile. To the broader question of a new missile however, the Pentagon, via-DARPA has already flight tested between 4-8 examples of a next generation missile in the AMRAAM class. They’ve tested it against all three T3 target types i.e. aircraft surrogates, cruise missiles and ground based radars (ARM function). The propulsion technology tested on these missiles was VFDR, i.e same as Meteor.

So having said that, any AMRAAM-replacement would need to compete given the stakes and as such the US would have the 2 competing weapons that it has funded through demonstrations etc. Meteor, or more appropriately a Lockheed derivative of Meteor could be a third such competitor imho. Even though Lockheed does not do seekers for the PAC-3, they have recently begun investing in it for the other H2K programs such as CUDA and MHTK so they could base a new front end off of that. But given the US demand there will be no wholesale import of the Meteor simply because of the size of the market and the strategic nature of the industrial base.

Besides Lockheed and perhaps Northrop Grumman (the two had partnered on the NGM),I don’t see anyone wanting to or requiring a teaming arrangement on the Meteor. Both Boeing and Raytheon have been for many years, working independently and with motor suppliers to develop next generation technologies for future missile applications. They have designed, developed and flight tested their work so are too invested in it to even think of sharing profits with MBDA. Motor supplier is fair game since they all use Aerojet or Nammo. BayernChemie could offer a competing motor to Aerojet’s VFDR which apparently both Boeing and Raytheon’s T3 missiles used. Between the PAC-3/MSE, Aim-120D/SM6/ESSM-Blk2, both Boeing and Raytheon have done plenty of heavy lifting as far as key high risk technologies are concerned. A lot of the risk has been mitigated through huge investments in these missile programs and DARPA took care of other elements not touched by them.

Out of the two companies funded for the T3, only one (Boeing) has come out publicly and commented on their Flight test activity that occurred in 2013/14. We know of the program only through publicly released DARPA budget documents that touch on program activity and testing.

Expect activity on a USAF formal program in this budget cycle or the next one. I think they will take a two step approach, step one will be a T3 derivative, while increment-2 would be SACM.

Boeing Discloses Advanced Missile Tests, Will Unveil Other Programs

ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18.
The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.

Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010, with the aim of demonstrating technology for a single weapon type that could function as an anti-radar missile, an air-to-air Amraam replacement and a cruise-missile defense weapon. The program has now been concluded, but the Navy now plans to develop a longer-range version of its AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

Davis also said Boeing will unveil some previously undisclosed Phantom Works programs “in the next month or two,” and that these will be separate from the unit’s work with Saab on the T-X program.

If europeans buy F-35 why wouldn’t usa buy meteor?

Domestic demand and strategic needs. If Europe had a requirement for 1000 fifth generation fighters, and the US for 400, would the European partners accepted the arrangement where US teams to lead the project? Same applies here. The US buys its missiles in fairly substantial quantities and the program cost is heavily stacked towards procurement as opposed to development. Given the strategic importance of many of the technologies that go into such a weapon the development cost is a no brainier relative to the overall cost of the program. Below is the Aim-120D projected procurement quantity –

Any future missile would not have to at a later date replace these missiles but also legacy AMRAAM’s and maybe the USAF HARM inventory. You’re looking at an assured 5 figure production quantity before you start looking at adding up export orders.