You do not know, but that does not prevent you to do such guess to stay polite. At least as an US-citizen you have the opportunity to ask the related press-officer about that.

Like sferrin said, I made no claim other than there’s no information available that would lead one to a conclusion that F-22s aren’t(haven’t been) carrying C7s.

Either such vibrations are a critical issue or they are not. By the way, that problem did not start with the C7. Be critical does demand to be selfcritical too.
After 2003 the USAF was not in need to use the AIM-120 in anger and the 59% success rate for the AIM-120 was ok. Of cause you can fix technical problems after landing during peace-time, when during war-time you can run into problems, when your systems do not work in critical moments. 😉

The vibration issues weren’t something that in one flight in a F-22 would be manifested(or that you’d have to worry about the missile not working in combat.) It just means that instead of having 1500hrs MTBF, perhaps it’s only 1000hrs.
As for the AMRAAM success rate, where did you arrive at that figure? In order to know the true success rate, you have to know a number of details.

-how many missiles were fired?
-how many missiles passed within lethal range of the target?
-were the missiles fired within their NEZ?
-how many missiles malfunctioned?
-how many missiles were armed improperly(either by pilot or loaders)?
-was any ECM being used, and if so was it effective?

This is the kind of data among other things, that one needs in order to arrive at any meaningful conclusions about the true performance. Just as an example, let’s say you fired 20 missiles to kill 10 targets. At first glance that might look like a .5 Pk. This doesn’t tell you how many of the extra missiles also passed within lethal distance though. It also doesn’t tell you the intent of the pilot(s) that fired the missiles(i.e. was one missile fired to cause the foe to react a certain way, in order to gain an advantage, resulting in a kill?)
You also have to take into account that just because a missile didn’t hit a target, doesn’t mean that it didn’t serve its purpose(keeping foes out of the airspace you’re defending). Without knowing how many missiles simply missed their target inexplicably, it’s disengenuous to assign arbitrary numbers.

The D is the C8 as it was claimed by sferrin. 😎
Or whatever the working name was around 2005. 😉
When will the first D examples replace the Cs at the F-22 units or will that be some upgraded C7s at first?

C7s are the current standard, so there’s no reason to think that F-22s aren’t currently outfitted with them(even though there’s less necessity).

what’s this? US jets flying over another country’s airspace with out prior arrangements?

I didn’t see anything in that story that said they were in anything other than international airspace.

To cut a longer story short. Were someone of our American friends informed about the problems of the F-22A and its AIM-120C models f.e.? The new AIM-120D will bring the solution to that and there is no shortage about the related goodies of that for everyone to read. All that claims do have the short memory of the people in mind. Or do someone still remember the advertisement claims about the C model, which is in urgent need for replacement for the F-22A at least. 😮
After one year in front-line service a claim can be made, if most of the promises related to a new system are kept really. 😉

What problems are you referring to with the C variants? The D model will just make sure that western aircraft are not only not kinematically disadvantaged against extended range R-27/77s, but enjoy superiority.

Either it does justify the new D variant or it is limited to a further upgrade of the C variant. 😉

It was originally going to be called the C8, but for whatever reason was renamed the D(perhaps they felt it was different enough to warrant that). It wasn’t due to technical problems, as the name change occurred prior to the D model entering the testing phase.

It surely can engage the afterburner long enough to accelerate to M2.0 and make a shot, doesn’t it? 🙂

Well if all the enemies it needs to engage in a multi-target scenario can be dealt with at once, it might be practical. It’s not going to be able to accelerate to M2 very many times before Bingo fuel though.

What part of my post do you consider crap ?

1) That they all have a G limit of some 30-35 G ?
or 2) C and D has improved ECCM, longer range for any given target, can be carried internally and has a smaller warhead. ?

What’s the source for that G limit on the C/D AMRAAMS?