- Posts: 324
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39
But as you note, no, there is nothing really extreme or impractical about a 650lb AAM/MMM concept being part of a load-out (internal or external) and as you say, nobody is suggesting 10 rounds on an F-16. (although, 6x on a block 50/52+ or blk60+ could imho be assessed as an asymmetrical, force-multiplying stopgap)??
...and so we return yet again to you thinking a bigger missile would be cool. What about that exactly is "asymmetrical" btw? Building bigger guns, bigger missiles, thicker armor, or more of something are all classic symmetrical responses to a threat that in this case, doesn't exist.
You seem to love the idea of yet another fantastically expensive development program, provided it produces a missile suitably large for your imagination, but you haven't yet managed to articulate the fundamental need for such a weapon.
What the heck is it for? The US already has the best BVR missile in the world and has gone to work on its successor even while continuing to upgrade the current design.
Where is the need for an interim anything? What is the justification for spending billions on an unwieldy weapon that would be replaced shortly after going into service?