Why “thankfully”? :confused:

The AIM120 is a sound design, instead of going after a completely new design, an evolutionay upgrade path for the AMRAAM is a much safer and less expensive bet.

Microsoft Powerpoint.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLL

*ttp://http://www.3nw.com/pda/radar_with_cell_phones__look_at_celldar.htm

This has been around for ages (2002). and its been quoted as having ~10 meter accuracy

Jw

Almost a decade and a half ago SAAB was working on a multi-static system (the Associative Aperture Synthesis Radar) with an accuracy of 1,5m, with the beauty that the target RCS was pretty much irrelevant. The system followed the RCS shadow/black hole behind the target, it had also quite a few drawbacks (forget “locking” the target, by example), unfortunately the development was curtailed around 2000/2001.
That doesnt mean that “Stealth is dead”, but more modern systems are being developed and deployed, how capable will they be against LO/VLO targets, the chaps who have a fairly good idea are not going to openly discuss it, but i think its fair to say that if the CNO is worried, no one can entirely dismiss such capabilities.

Cheers

(Just noticed that Distiller on post 30 pretty much covered the idea in a much more elegant way that i could write)

Seriously though. If they have decided that a capability gap is ok, why are we going to buy anything but a simple patrol aircraft and compliment that wilth the specialist Merlin we already have?

Case solved…

Now, seriously, if a “simple patrol aircraft” fit the bill, forget packaging the Nimrod hardware on any type of airframe.
Just give a call to CASA (oops, EADS) and they will be more than happy to deliver an entire Sqn of decently equiped (FITS) CN295 for roughly 500 million Euros. For a “cheap” system there´s a lot of capability in there.

they can just buy F-60 from China and not waste money those country will become in Chinese sphere anyway like good old days.

“Good old days” for whom?

So get a US manufacturer to make it on a license, or let MBDA manufacture it in the US. The US has done this with aircraft in the past, there is no reason why it couldn’t be done in the future.

Boeing…
Throw in the multi spectral seeker that the USAF intended for JDRADM and you have a winner.

Just buy Meteor.

It has a massive problem, the “not made here” syndrome. The idea of relying on something foreign for its primary AAM would send the Pentagon (nevermind Raytheon) on a fit of rage.
On the other hand, give Raytheon the job to develop a new dual role seeker, integrate it on the Meteor, and here we go a “NATO JDRADM”.

IMHO Ramjet would not be the best plan for several reasons.
1. It violates the KISS principle

This coming from one of the most ardent defensors of the JSF program in this forúm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That most famous airframe, jack of all trades, with three diferent variants including a STVOL one…
Talk about simplicity itself…

2. It would take up additional room in internal bays due to the scoops

Moot point, if MBDA can stick four Meteors on the internal bays of a Dave B …

3. Less maneuverable

No. It makes diferent compromises than the ones made by a rocket equiped tube, if it has to manouver in such a way that the air intake performance is compromised, that means the target is very near (and is dead).
On a rocket engine if you dont want your AAM to fly (almost) straight ahead for the initial hundred(s) of meters after the several phases of the rocket been ignited you have to stick some pretty big control surfaces, “AKA” wings (Lockheed JDRADM concept) or TVC (Boeing JDRADM concept), both of them having quite a number of drawbacks of their own.