Although, perhaps some technical aspects you're overlooking in longer range AESA, is potential for an air-launched version of say, SM-6 and the ability to data-link target info to forward patrolling aircraft, flying in passive mode, which can launch the C7 giving a significant range multiplier effect. In this case, the better the (V), even in the F-15E models, the better the mini-AWACS intercept capability.

F35 is a pretty plane,but that electronics and radar and stuff that is inside it,ishould be putted inside F15/F16/F18/ and it would be cheaper...i beleive that F35 has not better manuverbility than F15\16...only stealth is new...but against new russian air defence systems S300PMU2 and S400...stealth stops being stealth...

F35 is a pretty plane,but that electronics and radar and stuff that is inside it,ishould be putted inside F15/F16/F18/ and it would be cheaper...i beleive that F35 has not better manuverbility than F15\16...only stealth is new...but against new russian air defence systems S300PMU2 and S400...stealth stops being stealth...

The chief test pilot has already stated that the first F-35's manueverability is on par or better than the F-16's he has flown. And he's talking about the heavy bird, not the lighter ones being delivered.

I checked and the SM-6 weights 3500lbs. The F-15 could perhaps carry 3 of them, but those missiles are probably very expensive and are not manoeuvrable enough to be used against fighters. Without considering the integration cost which would be significant.

The Meteor is impressive but not really adapted for the USAF. The F-22 couldn't carry it internally and the F-16 radar range is too short to guide it. Also the F-35 can have the first shot without so much range.

A better option imo would have been the FMRAAM. Had the USAF shown interest in it, the british would probably have embarked on the program. That would have reduced the R&D cost for both countries. It wouldn't even have been more expensive to develop than the AIM-120D for the USAF.

The FMRAAM could have been carried internally by the F-22. Another advantage I can think of it that it could have been carried externaly. The F-22 with external FMRAAMs would have been stealthy enough to have first look first shoot ability. Once the external FMRAAMs are launched, VLO RCS is restored and the F-22 can get closer and use its internal missiles.

The FMRAAM would also have been better adapted to the F-16 because of weight and range issues - talking about AESA equipped aircraft. Range would have been well enough for the F-35.

Concerning the 450 F-15s to replace, the F-22s are currently replacing the F-15s. So the F-35s would have to replace only like 350 F-15s.

Also, to partially compensate for the retirement of many F-16s the USAF could put CFTs on the F-16s that can carry them. From what I know about 250 USAF F-16s could be equipped with CFTs. The aircraft have enough thrust to accomodate the weight increase. That would double the payload and increase maximum range.

Even if performances are slightly worse, it's not so bad because the F-16 would have very good BVR capabilities ( with AESA/AIM-120D) and very good WVR capabilities with JHMCS/AIM-9X.

The CFTs are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

(1) The SM-6 is more than maneuverable enough for ANY target in the skies and it's 370km zero-zero launch range equates to a 600~900 km range AAM. The problem is that a 3000+ lbs missile is not particularly practical as an AAM except perhaps as an AWACs killer.

(2) The FRAAM has the same packaging problem as the Meteor. In fact there is very little exterior differences between the FRAAM and the meteor. The FRAAM is an AMRAAM with a VFDR motor. The Meteor is a VFDR motor with an European front end. They are both 7" with two lower intakes, 3.66m long, 335~350 lbs and equipped with AMRAAM style interfaces. They are because the length and weight are in the original requirements so they are compatible with AMRAAM launchers and ejectors.

(4) The F-22 CAN carry as many Meteors as AIM-120As -- FOUR (4).

(5) The Meteor has been redesigned for the F-35. ALL production Meteors will fit the F-35 (they took away the fixed front fins and redesigned the rear steering fins), there will not be two versions. This was done because the F-35 export market pie is too huge for MBDA to ignore even if you discount the USAF/USN which will not use the Meteor.

(6) The Aerojet has a 7" VFDR ready for the AMRAAM, so giving the AMRAAM the kinematics of the Meteor is an option that has always been on the table. There just hasn't been much interests on the part of the USAF/USN.

(7) Currently, the US is planning on replacing the AMRAAM in the 2015~2020 time frame with a dual role missile -- AAM cum HARM in one missile. Enabling technologies are being matured through the JDRADM -- Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile -- program. These include sensor as fuse, multi-band sensors (Combined IIR & Active Radar), etc. Propulsion configuration has not been determined. New propulsions being matured include the advanced graphite-epoxy rocket motor, Dual Combustion Ramjet (DCR) and the good old VFDR.

1) I think an AAM SM-6 version concept is being underestimated in a modern fighter/CAP/intercept role. As I agree with Dwight, the >400 km AAM could surely out-maneuver almost anything in the air despite it's large launch mass. At the least, it could cause havoc, cause dumping of tanks/ heavy stores and disrupt opponent's intended operations.

2) The employment of such AAM, doesn't even need the launching aircraft's AESA's radar detection of the target first, before launching. But it would be a huge exploitation of any long range 200+ mile range AESA radar independently, or more so exploited in concert with AWACS and other future airborne intel data relay.

5) The CFT/F-16 upgrade idea sounds pretty rational and sound, as it would more fully exploit the strengths of the AESA/-C7/120D capability. However, this should be the type of upgrade made regardless of any related F-35 issues, imo, just to keep relative parity with competitors' modernizations.

6) Concerning F-22s replacing 100 F-15s and then F-35s replacing the remaining 350 F-15s... by the time 350 USAF F-35s become operational, it will be which year (not to mention how many F-16s being retired by this time)? Hence the point about the 'gap' threat. A potential 5-10 yr hole in tactical deterrence. Similar perhaps in comparison to the Space shuttle gap, between the retirement and the replacement.