I’m still going with studying an air launched ESSM variant and for the dual-role case stated above especially, maybe it could incorporate the conformal W-band mmW seeker (from the AGM-88E) along with the enhanced -9x IIR seeker? It just seems there might be some already existing OTS programs including proven platforms which could be more rapidly developed at far less expense. Not saying they shouldn’t continue the long-term JDRADM program in conjunction, but imho DoD needs to think about making smarter defense development and acquisitions thats all (not just talk about it), and to maximize/evolve already existing solutions.

My guess as to why they’re not doing this, is that they’re satisfied with the capabilities the -120D/-9X provide, till the JDRADM comes on line.

USAF’s only stated reason for next gen bomber being manned is [some people] “don’t feel comfortable having an unmanned airplane dropping nukes”. But those same people will not blink an eye over ICBMs with multiple warheads or long range cruise missiles programmed to fly circuitous routes. For their tiny brains, there is no cognitive dissonance. :rolleyes:

I think the problem some have is the notion of an unmanned, nuclear armed bomber, that gets hacked. The cruise missile isn’t analogous, because the missile isn’t being controlled remotely(and subject to potential interference).

What does that have to do with a “substantial” loss in agility, which is what I was referring to?

A eurofighter is definitively able to provide the needed air superiority platform to protect US airspace. Eurofighter has apparently demonstrated in trainings that it can wipe the floor with su-27, just to name one.

and prices are a consequence of the numbers of planes built. The current prices are based on a maximum volume of around 800 planes for 5? countries.

I don’t doubt that the Eurofighter would be effective in that role, but I strongly suspect that it wouldn’t be a cheaper alternative. If the F-35 wasn’t chosen, then upgraded F-16s/F-18s would be a better value too.

That includes spares, facilities, etc.. over the aircraft’s life. That’s not the fly away cost. How much is the cost of a Typhoon w/ this package over the next 30yrs?

There’s a difference between a concrete plan, like AESA on Typhoon & 4 internal AAM’s on F-35.
vs feasibility studies, like thrust vectoring on Typhoon & 6 internal AAM’s on F-35.

Spiral upgrades are concrete(especially those which don’t require technology to mature prior to implementing)- it’s the IOC which may shift left or right. The cost to upgrade the launchers for 6 rounds is considerably cheaper than adding AESAs to Typhoons(or some of the other advanced avionics that could be added on). It’s already been demonstrated as feasible, so there’s no engineering hurdles that need to be overcome. The weapons bays have the room, so that’s not an issue either. It seems to me that it’s more of a pathological need to believe that F-35s will remain at Block III, while other aircraft incorporate new capabilities.

Yes, i’m reading Notional Block 4/5 on your power point, and since English isn’t my first language, i looked up Notional, and it says:
Of, containing, or being a notion; mental or imaginary. 2. Speculative or theoretical. 3.

So: is the Notional 6 internal AAM’s mental or imaginary. 2. Speculative or theoretical. 3. ?

Using that standard, then any proposed upgrades to Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Flankers, Fulcrums, etc… are notional until they’re implemented, for purposes of comparison. The point of the matter is that there is no technical hurdle to be overcome, in order to fit 6 AMRAAMS internally, so it’s a matter of when, not if.

Excuse me..
Isn’t it Four internal AIM-120’s at the moment:confused:

If/when the six AIM-120 ever see daylight, its even more ‘hello fattie’ than now;)

When- Block 4/5