Just a slight correction: The USAF is not “looking at the F-15X”, it is being forced on them by forces outside the USAF.

Actually, US internal prices are FMS prices (plus admin fees).

Looking at the requirements that lead to Meteor, the no-escape zone requirement was “approaching twice”, not “three times”.

The RAFs Staff Requirement (Air) 1239 to replace the Sky Flash is understood to demand an engagement and no-escape envelope approaching twice that of the current medium-range missiles, including the AMRAAM. All this must be achieved within the present dimensions of the AMRAAM because of the size limitations of the semi-recessed bays on the Eurofighter 2000. Meeting such a demand will require either a hybrid ramjet/rocket propulsion system, or a dual-rocket-motor configuration. Given size limitations, the former is considered to be the more likely. BAe is looking at both a “dual-section boost-coast-boost cycle rocket motor” and a ramjet/rocket.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch…0-%200674.html

In 1994 (the date of the above article), the AIM-120C3 was just coming off the factory floor so I doubt that the requirement was based on the C3. More than likely it was the AIM-120B on just looking at the date. The above article does mention that they were aware of the initial goals of P3i (30km vs maneuvering & 60km vs non-maneuvering targets) , which lead to the AIM-120C3 so they could have based the FRAAM specs on whent they thought was going to come out of P3I. Using this data, at best they based their “approaching twice” spec on C3 as they would not have knowledge of C5 or even a clue about C7 or D.

Yes, but Amraam is to Meteor what sparrow was to amraam.

While the AMRAAM held an advantage in every way to the Sparrow, Meteor only holds a range advantage over the AMRAAM.

The Meteor started development in the early 2000’s and I have not seen any news about updates since then. In that same time-frame, the AMRAAM has gone through 2-3 major updates (C5, C7, and D) along with numerous software updates.

While most AMRAAM updates are shrouded in secrecy (eg ECCM, seeker performance, etc), others are clear like GPS and a two-way datalink.

Here is an early MBDA pic showing the AMRAAM initial acceleration performance vs the Meteor. Keep in mind that this is either the AIM-120B or C1 as that is what the U+K had at the time they started Meteor Dev. Also keep in mind that the AMRAAM C5 came win all new seeker, guidance, and a longer rocket motor which would make the initial performance of the AMRAAM in the below pic even better.

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”wzo3FwS.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3849701}[/ATTACH]

There is/”will be” an internal F-35 rack but it has not bee displayed or discussed in any detail yet.

The jet can’t deploy or operate properly without ALIS, parts, etc. These are integral to the F-35 and are F-35 programme problems.

The problems with supporting programs are relatively minor as the F-35 has shown by being on combat deployment right now not to mention 2 wings are currently ar Red Flag 19-1.

Is it perfect? Of course not, but that does not stop it from being operational and a hell of a lot better than it was last year, and the year before, etc.