Eeerrrr, like the very important “Made in the USA” requirement…

The agreement was ~ SRAAM by Europe, LRAAM by the USA, but the US decided against that.

Not quite. Because, if selected, the ASRAAM would have been manufactured in the US. It just wasn’t good enough…:p

So Europe went with Meteor because the US LRAAM “didn’t meet European requirements.

i.e. ” Honour your agreements” 😉

Cheers

😮 Really? I must have been fooled… I thougth that the RAF Tornadoes and EFs have AMRAAMS; As well as the German F 4s and EFs. Not to mention the midgets (Gripens). I also believed that until the wunder Meteor will appear, the AMRAAM is still the most sophisticated missile in W. Europe.

My understanding would be that assuming the F35 survived the initial meteor launch then it would be in serious trouble with the ASRAAM before it could launch the upgraded 1950s infrared missile you talk about…

Your beloved ASRAAM has the same IR seeker as “the upgraded 1950s infrared missile” you despise so much. Both seekers are made by Raytheon.

You mean where most combat occurred 30-60 years ago i take it ?
rest assured no modern fighter, F-22 included, will default to subsonic.

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis( Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program), who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it’s entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). “I don’t see how that gets you an advantage” Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs

And he was talking about the F 15, a fighter that have seen more combat than all the modern fighters…

You are talking 10 yrs out though. Much can happen between now and then surprise wise. I’m sure you would have been blown away in disbelief 10 yrs ago, if someone contemplated out loud the current day situation and outlook today. It would be foolish to underestimate the capabilities of unprecedented, fast paced technological and asymmetrical advances going forward.

Yes, these are very uncertain times and if you don’t believe it, I can refer to you the Quadrenial review as an interesting synopsis (albeit one year old data already). Better to be flexible and not tied down to any one budget killing MIC bomb truck in particular.

If anything, it will be US based UCAV which will threaten the F-35, procurement and doctrine wise by 2020.

We’ll have to unfortunately wait a couple years still to see if and where the policymakers regain control of a prudent Tac-air recapitalization strat.

-US UCAV programs are a few years ahead;
-no other nation has an operational UAV comparable with Predator/Reaper that can fire A-G PGM; nor comparable with, let’s say, a Global Hawk;
-no other coutry has available know-how in stealth comparable with US

How will the F-35 deal with a large number of UCAVs having RCS significantly lower than itself?

The main threat to F-35 will not be from the past (F-16) or the present (Typhoon) but from the future (networked stealth UCAVs).

Considering that US has the most advanced programs of stealth UCAV, who would be this threat you are talking about?

In the context of A2A fencing, a realistic appreciation of AAM’s limitation is essential.

The DRDO said Astra will be able to be launched from different altitudes but those alterations would affect the range.
It will cover nearly 70 miles when launched from an altitude of just more than 9 miles
but only 27 miles when fired from an altitude of 5 miles.

At sea level the range is expected to be 13 miles.
Active homing range will be nearly 16 miles.

A longer range version, the Astra Mark 2, will have a 93-mile head on range with a tail chase range of 21 miles.
http://www.upiasia.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/07/15/Indias-Astra-tested-for-night-operations/UPI-69881279199751/
70 miles =60nm=110km
9 miles=14 km
5 miles =8km
27 miles=23nm=43km
13 miles=11 nm=20km
16 miles=14nm=26km
93 miles=81nm=150km
21 miles=18nm=34km

As we can see, an impressive 93 miles=81nm=150km range on a head on shrinks to a mere quarter on a tail chase, (21 miles=18nm=34km) which would be the first thing the shot at fighter would do, equipped with MLD/MAWS, and reasonable high alt agility.
If he then proceed to take a dive, we can shave off half of that quarter,
for an effective range of that 150 km missile in practical term is
~10 miles=9nm=17km, = well within visual range.

Except that the situation will be different for an AA missile, because the shoooter is moving towards the target, adding its speed to the missile. Generally, for an AA missile, the distance in chase is reduced by half compared with head-on.

So far the F-35 hasn’t demonstrated much at all! Turning as good at high subsonic speeds is not a great deal at all. What’s the highest AoA, speed, altitude, g-load etc. the F-35 has achieved yet?

55 deg AoA trimmed flight; >50 deg/s pitch rate; 1.67 M; 50.000 fts; 9G;

Caution: the plane that achieved those was the AA; the present AF performs better.