Unless the problem with detecting/defending against VLO cruise missiles and UCAV are solved, it will be a strong focus on ground attack, preferably to “do it to them before they do it to us”.
I think this is sad and dangerous, as it favor the attacker.
It might even become too dangerous to even switch on the radar, as an UCAV can be programmed to launch at whatever is emitting.
Something has to be done to dramatically improve the chance of defeating incoming aa missiles, perhaps the AESA can fry incoming missiles ?

Drag from missiles is over-estimated, Eurofighter do M1.5 clean and M1.3 under operational conditions with 6-8 missiles.
MiG-25 do M3.2 but is restricted to a mere M2.8 on operations.
Why ? is it because it cant go past M2.8 with missile loadout ? – No, its because the engine get too hot and wastly reduce lifetime.

that’s more than enough

Probably, at least for the forseable future, but it aint a IRST in terms of range.

while an F-16 with only 23000 lbs at full afterburner can reach mach 2

An F-16 can’t go beyond M1.6

Anti ship missile RB04

Unique swedish antiship missile

Sweden was the first in the Western world, with an operational antiship missile.

Background
The interest in anti-ship missiles was after the Second World War international situation cool.
The Swedish safety in the late 1940s included a threat of a Soviet invasion across the Baltic Sea. An airborne anti ship missile fit into this context.

Missile Defense Agency has already started in 1949 Project 304. With this project, RB04 later became Sweden’s leading in the Western world with low altitude anti ship missiles. RB04 was fitted with active radar guidence an early swedish specialty.
RB04C sample was launched by a J29 first time 1955 and became operational in 1961 as standard armament for Attack Lansen A32A It thus became the Western world’s first anti ship missile. Soviet first anti ship missile, Styx, may have been operating a year earlier.

Improved versions of D-and E-followed during the 60 – and 70’s

Feature
RB04 was intended to be retracted from the aircraft and then act totally independently (fire and forget). After separation from the aircraft was the robot down to ~10m height and held at this altitude by a radar altimeter.
A gunpowder rocket motor drove the missile at high subsonic speed towards the target. After locking on the goal was ruled in the horizontal plane towards the target of an FOA / AGA 1-developed plans radar seeker, who worked in CW mode.
The robot was flown deliberately over the ship. At the crossing over the deck,
usually with weaker armor protection, triggered conflict part of a zonrör. Verka had a part, the FOA developed, warhead with downward pressure effect. If the robot met the shell or the superstructure was triggered contrary part delayed by an appropriation contact.

http://www.aef.se/Flygvapnet/Notiser/Robot%2004%20Notis%202.htm

The RB 08 from the mid-1960s had its origins from a french target drone.

google translated so dont blame ME!

*RB-04E: Further development of the D version to suit the new AJ37 Viggen strike aircraft. The missile had a shorter wingspan and an improved guidance system, which allowed sea skimming approaches. early 70’s

…… and I still wait for more information whether Thai RBS-15F will have and land attack capability or not. They said they will sign a separate contact for RBS-15F. Maybe just wait for press release.

According to this article, only the latest RBS-15 Mk. III has land attack capability, There is only a ship launched version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS_15

KEPD 150 with a range of 150 km is a much better land attack standoff weapon anyway.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/taurus.htm