Since you only need to get the AIM-120 “close enough” for it’s active seeker to find the target, the AN/ALR-94 (and by extension the ASQ-239 ) are more than capable of doing this, especially considering the automatic datalinks & triangulation that they provide.

UCAVs are not coming any time soon that will compete with manned fighters, especially in the A2A arena.

The reason is simple, they all rely on constant datalinks for the most basic of operations. Screw with their datalinks or just don’t have the coverage or bandwidth and you are screwed. The only answer to that is AI pilots and that is a LONG way off.

Btw, you need to research the F-35 vs traditional avionics packages before saying something like it’s easier to do “x” in the Rafale vs the F-35. Things like a software defined radio, middleware, modular/open architecture, UIA and a MASSIVE userbase gives the F-35 advantages that just don’t exist in other programs yet.

Then there is the whole Rafale is already more expensive now and will only get worse as the F-35 gets cheaper.

sound logic

You could say the same of the US B-2 force as there are probably less than 40 pilots in that program.

Besides, there will always be F-35s on the carriers or on rotation in the field. Good luck with that.

Given the timelines, and the fact that its a Navy only program its quite likely that the Navy would just look to take it out of the block development program or insert it towards the end of block 4 since priority would be the Growler given the mission.

Give it UAI drivers and they won’t be tied to any one block. UAI is also mentioned in the UAI budget doc for the F/A_18, but no timeline given.

Interesting that we are seeing an AARGM-ER (F-35 int compliant) now as the only time I saw it on the schedule, it was for Block6 integration. I wonder if they are moving it up to Block4 (4.3 or 4.4)?

AARGM-ER retains the same guidance, sensor, and warhead capabilities of the Block 1 AARGM.

Their goal for the AARGM-ER IOC is 2023

http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2017/Navy/U_0205601N_7_PB_2017.pdf

The one engineering problem I can think of right now which could apparently be classed as “incompetence” is the initial tail hook design on the F-35C

The USN has already accepted blame for that one. The provided LM with bad numbers. I can dig it up, the subject came up at a recent Tailhook convention (great resource to get hours of talks from USN pilots).

There was one ginormous ****-up that they did do however, they did not properly account for the weight of “empty space”. Since the X-35 did not have weapons bays, the bays needed to be designed into the F-35 after the contract was awarded. When they began calculating overall weight, thrust, engine performance, etc, they did not properly account for the extra weight penalty that internal bays large enough to accommodate 2k bombs would impose on the overall envelope. Because of this, they initially designed the F-35B to also carry the 2k load even though the spec said 1k. This underestimation of the “empty space” penalty eventually lead to SWAT weight-reduction effort of the 2004. The KPI reductions that the program had to also do in the late 2000s directly relates to this.

Engineers from the European firm MBDA, which builds the missile, have reportedly claimed that the Meteor has a “no escape zone” three times larger than that of the AIM 120B AMRAAM missile.

FIFY

The original quote where this came from is

Meteor has a No Escape Zone three time greater than AMRAAM it is designed to replace.

https://s25.postimg.io/4qw3vyzov/going_digital_pg_3.jpg

When Meteor development began, European forces were using the AIM-120B so that is the model it was “designed to replace”.

Why not, Iran did it :applause:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248213[/ATTACH]