Typically how long after launch does an aircraft have to detect an incoming missile and take avoiding action?

That depends on intercept aspect (collateral speeds) and on MAWS type.
Let’s say MAWS in question has a 5km detection range against a certain missile at certain aspect and with a missile’s average closure rate of M2 (medium/long distance abeam BVR shot), that’s about 8 seconds for a target plane to undertake defensive action (decoys, maneuver, etc.).

the concept of Pro-Nav is that the missile isn’t wasting energy in getting to that intercept point, by matching every turn.

You may want to reexamine what proportional guidance is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation
If you want to learn more, follow the links on the bottom of the page.

The whole point of proportional navigation, is that the missile isn’t having to match every single move the fighter makes, and once the fighter starts pulling hard Gs and losing energy, it’s more vulnerable if the first maneuver didn’t work.

The missile constantly flies towards the intercept point, wherever it is.
That’s the point of proportional guidance. Dunno where do you get these concepts of yours?

The -120D is a 180km class missile, which means that in a head on shot, it’s quite conceivable that it’s fired outside of the detection range of the MAWS/MLD. Obviously it won’t be fired at 180km, but it’s not going to be falling out of the sky in 10 seconds.

If fired outside of the detection range of the MAWS/MLD, the target isn’t going to know that it needs to do a 180 degree turn, and change altitudes significantly. The whole point of this excercise is that stealthy aircraft are going to be able to set up optimal shots against anyone that’s not stealthy.
It’s no surprise that a low altitude, low speed shot, at a receding target won’t have the same range as a high altitude, high speed shot against an approaching target. That’s why pilots are going to use the latter more often than the former, as their first choice of tactics.

MAWS does not need to detect a missile launch…Dunno where did you get that idea?
What MAWS does, is (as the name says) it warns the pilot of an inbound object, that has been detected using various means (IR, IIR, radar).
IR MAWS needs a laser rangefinder to measure distance to the inbound object to plot a vector.
Radar MAWS substitutes IR and laser for detection and tracking, with radar and works in mm wavelength to accurately measure inbound object’s distance.

Obviously, the launch distance is irrelevant.

An aerodynamic jewel.
Maybe, it’ll be the necessity (funds), that will eventually drive it into production.
In any case, one can’t go wrong with XL, be it at present configuration, or some possible upgrade (GE -132, radar, DAS, etc…).

i was drawing attention to ‘your’ quoted pilot and what he said about dogfights, even with the old FCC
the fa-18’s has better dogfight maneuverability, i have shown that the fa-18c has similar transonic speed
now there are plenty of sources to the maneuverability of the fa-18c & SH including your very own pilot, it seems you want to pick and choose what is accurate in what he said
i have said that the f-16 is better in supersonic up high

Ok look, you made a claim about F18 being superior to F16 in several rather specific characteristics, which isn’t true and I’ve pointed that out and documented that.
You didn’t and now you make more ridiculous claims like “the fa-18’s has better dogfight maneuverability“.
Dunno why you do that, but it seems the military aviation is a D.Tracy/Top Gun type of issue for you, when it’s a very serious business in reality, in which ppl get killed.

So, if you have something solid (actual figures, not empty talk) to add on F16-F18 comparison table, let’s have it, otherwise let’s just drop the subject.

JJ, if F16, starting from M0.9, reaches M1.75 in 2 minutes, as opposed to F18 which reaches just M1.62 by that time, while both flying similar engines, then it’s pretty clear which one has better transonic acc. even though it wasn’t given as a separate subject.
Moreover, the pilot in the F16/F18 comparison clearly claimed that F16 reaches 500 kts, by the end of the same runway on which F18 raches 350 kts.
So, F16 has superior subsonic and supersonic acceleration and yet you’re trying to make a case it somehow has better transonic acc.
Are you serious??

Here’s an unofficial figure on F16 acceleration, but since it isn’t official I’d imagine you’ll jump it isn’t true, right?
It may not be exactly true, but is VERY close to one and compare that to F18’s.

JJ, again…

1) F18C DOESN’T have better transonic acc. than F16, as per link.

2) F18C or F16C, DON’T have higher instantaneous g load limit then each other, but both have the same – 9, as per link.

What are you talking about??

if you could post your links showing the f-16 has better transonic acceleration, i would appreciate it
• At 5,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.08 Mach7 in 21 seconds,
• At 20,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 34.6 seconds,
• At 35,000 feet at maximum thrust, the F/A-18C accelerates from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach in 55.80 seconds,

You obviously missed the point of this link.
It’s here to provide cross reference with another link, that contains F16’s and F18’s comparative accelerations, in case there’s a doubt in validity of claims.

JJ, FCS doesn’t alter performance (well, it does if the original was downloaded from Inet) but handling, whether those are measured in climb, level flight, dive, or in turn…doesn’t matter.
I was talking about performance issues, since some guys managed to conclude (in their infinite wisdom) that F16 and F18 have “practically” the same performance.