I don’t see your point here. The Europeans could very well have developped a missile using a regular rocket. It would have been a hell of a lot less complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)

The ARC dual-pulse motor would not enable full compliance with the SR(A)1239 requirement, however it was believed to be adequate to counter the threats expected until 2012-15 when improvements to the warhead, datalink, and propulsion would be available. The slow pace of Russia’s ramjet powered R-77 derivative, a mock-up of which had been displayed at the Paris Air Show but which had not progressed past component ground tests and for which the Russian air force had no requirement due to lack of funding,[42] was offered as evidence that the full capability required by SR(A)1239 would not be necessary for some time. At a press conference to launch ERAAM+ Raytheon said that a ramjet powerplant “is not needed today“.

Even the dual pulse motor, which the 120D lacks, didn’t meet the SR(A)1239 requirement.

A version somewhat similar to what became the AIM-120D had been rejected for the SR(A)1239 requirement and was rejected due to lack of performance. That version was supposed to have a dual pulse motor, and the 120D doesn’t even have it. Only a ramjet missile could meet the requirement.

People tend to exagerate the range of the 120D. It’s probably no more than 110-120km. Otherwise why would the europeans have bothered with such a complex and expensive weapon?

Yeah, it’s not just a matter of thrust, the F100 was more responsive and less prone to problems like stalls.

The F-14 was a truly remarkable design, it is disappointing that its engines were not up to par. Had it had F100s, the enconomy of scale with the F-15 and F-16 production would have reduced the cost. The F100 was not very reliable but the tomcat is dual engine so it is not as bad if one engine has a problem. I am pretty sure USN planes are tested to carrier land with only one engine. The problems with the F100 were solved a few years later via an upgrade, so it was an inexpensive fix.

I think that for a 4th gen asset to effectively serve as a “deep magazine”, it needs to have a longer ranged weapon than the AMRAAM. When you add the range that the 4th gen has to stay behind the F-35/22 in order for the enemy not to see it, the AMRAAM will have a significantly shorter range after it passes the F-35/22 in order to still have a satisfactory pK.

There are two ways to solve this, 5th gen magazines (UAVs) and better weapons.

Better weapons is the cheaper way to go. Think Meteor or an adaption of a current long-ranges SAM like AMRAAM-ER.

The most expensive option is to develop a VLO UCAV with an eye towards a relatively large internal load. It does not have to go particularly fast or have an extremely small RCS since it’s going to stay behind the F-35/22 assets anyways. Think of a LO boxy structure like “Tacit Blue” that can hold at least 8 full sized AAMs & 6-8 CUDA sized AAMs for self defense but can still get up to 600mph and have at least a 1000nm combat radius.

Or.. do the same thing that they did with the boostered SDB1, that is, reuse an old rocket and use it as a booster for an AMRAAM. Like use a sparrow rocket for instance. And use an old ejector taken from an old plane like an F-4 to make an interface for a2g stations, such as stations 3, 4 and 6,7 on the F-16 and wing stations on the F-15. They better be sure that the tactic with the F-35/F-22s works otherwise these missiles would be pretty useless at closer range.

unless i’m completely misinformed, the canards on F-106X were to be fixed,
i want them as rudders, and a shift of center of gravity backwards

Even at that I doubt you would get the same maneuvrability. The sweep angles on the gripen and rafale have been carefully chosen for maneuvrability. From what I understand the shorter the wingspan the less the maneuvrability. Perhaps wingtip control surfaces like on the F-16X would help the roll rate and the pitch moment. Might be possible to build such control surfaces without too much complexity hmm..

If you want a very fast plane you might try to get rid of the VT, like on the F-16X. The front of the wing along the fuselage could be a moving planform like on the PAK-FA. This way you avoid the drag of the canard in horizontal flight and have some of the canard advantages for maneuvrability. Combined with the thrust vectoring it would be very maneuvrable. And STR is less important if the aircraft has HOBS missiles/360 degrees engagement capability.

It wasn’t me suggesting putting AESA radars, and sending a pair of these trainers up to hunt cruise missiles with 16 missiles. I’ll let others be the judge of the non-sensical argument portion !

No, YOU are the one that said that someone said that it would make sense to hunt cruise missiles with IRSTs, and noone ever said that, certainly not me!

Now what is the problem with the idea of hunting cruise missiles with AESA radars? F-15s and F-16s will be able to do that, so for the life of me I can’t see a problem here. And for the N+1th time, I repeat that the T-X would not try to engage the missiles at long range, they just have to loiter above the base to defend, or wait on the ground ready to take off. They can acquire the CMs in multi target and shoot them down 4 by 4 in look down shoot down without problem a few tens of km from the target at most.

As for the number of missiles the T-X can carry, there is absolutely no problem with carrying 8 missiles per plane. You don’t give a rat’s ass about the maneuvrability or max acceleration for that role. Even a slow drone would be able to do the job.

BTW the gripen routinely uses 6 missiles for the a2a role, and is equipped with an F404. The performance needed for the close-in CM defense would be way less than that. I even wonder if the T-X could not carry 12 or 16 missiles. You don’t give a flying ******* about max perfs. And the AMRAAM is not even an heavy missile. 2 missiles per pylon would weigh 310kg +the weight of the pylons and launchers. ZERO problem with that.