Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,082
709
California
LOL the Rafale fanboys are still clinging to this?! LOL maybe some day Dassault can build something 5th gen, but for right now I'm dying LOL
The first thing the pilots show in video is a T-38 killing an F-22 pretty much making fun of these fanboys. It's ridiculous what they cling to.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,456
4,056
73
France
That's what I thought, there's no point in arguing with you, when you will start learning logic maybe we will be able to correct it, but I will probably be dead before then.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,566
10,790
India
you're practically twins!

I wonder if any of your Canadian hockey teams have deliberatly lost to some third world country just so their sponsors can fund the team a new gym.

whole lot of assumptions all around. I wouldn't count it until its done. Great to see how hard Boeing is working india. They burned us really nicely too. You'll learn the hard way

The situation isn't the same though. The only options we have are SH, Rafale and F-35C.

you really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know if Boeing is working their same standard lies they handed us to India, but Super Hornets won't even fit into our current hangars.

You seem to have got it wrong. The SH offer simply came without hangar upgrades, the SH can fit inside Canadian hangars. The F-35 will actually need much more expensive hangar upgrades. But these are like few tens of millions for all, it won't even register in the overall scheme of things.

We also have "well established hornet infrastructure" that isn't helpful since we work most closely with the American air force and they don't use Navy aircraft like we do.

This also doesn't matter. No matter how closely you work with them, it's not like your pilots are sitting on their laps. All you need is the ability to communicate with them, and that's something the USN and USAF already do. The Block III's MMI is more or less similar to what's on the F-35.

Boeing already made an offer to Canada, it was over 5 billion dollars for just 18 aircraft, no doubt this offering will be less, but there is simply no chance it comes in under F-35.

I already told ya, the inital deal is always big since it comes with a lot of additional capacity. Like you could have bought 2 simulators that can train 100 pilots, so you don't have to buy new simulators as you bring in more jets. The same with all the other types of infrastructure. For example, the order of 18 would have come with only 36-40 engines, but the infrastructure, like test benches, would be good enough to support 80+ engines.

It's like how Qatar paid $7B for 24 Rafales, at $291M per jet, but the follow on deal for 12 more jets only cost them $1.1B, that's $91M per jet. The overall price tag brought it down to $225M. More orders can bring down the unit price even more.

The Egyptians started with $5.8B for 24, $241M, and with their second order of 30 at $4.5B, $150M, their average price came down to $190M. This is how it goes.

While the procurement cost will come down quite significantly with a total order of 88 jets, the SH's operating cost is already a very low $18,000 versus the F-35A's yet-to-be-achieved goal of $25000. That's at least a 15% difference. In any case, Canada will simply manipulate the prices in favour of the F-35, 20% less flying time actually gives it a 5% margin, so it doesn't matter. Even if the SH is less expensive, which it actually is, the addition of the Growler and the price manipulation of the F-35 will ensure its loss. Different story that the F-35 is worth buying compared to the SH, I won't dispute that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lolwa

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,456
4,056
73
France

Fighter Mission Capable Rates Fell in 2021


an increasing number of F-35s came due for their first big engine overhauls. A shortage of engines has grounded about 40 F-35As over the past year, a level that the F-35 Joint Program Office predicts could hold for several years.
[...]
With operating costs disappointingly high, the Air Force has throttled back on new F-35A purchases until the more capable Block 4 version is ready and operating costs can be brought down to a more sustainable level. Congress has gone along, with members recognizing that adding airframes has only exacerbated a shortage of parts and made it harder to achieve objective mission capable rates.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
76
Canada
The situation isn't the same though. The only options we have are SH, Rafale and F-35C.


You seem to have got it wrong. The SH offer simply came without hangar upgrades, the SH can fit inside Canadian hangars. The F-35 will actually need much more expensive hangar upgrades. But these are like few tens of millions for all, it won't even register in the overall scheme of things.

Super Hornets are bigger than CF-18s. We can't fit as many in the same space. This is complicated to you for some reason. We will need new hangars regardless of what is picked. We will need new infrastructure regardless of what is picked. some of our stuff dates back to the original CF-18 purchase and beyond.


This also doesn't matter. No matter how closely you work with them, it's not like your pilots are sitting on their laps. All you need is the ability to communicate with them, and that's something the USN and USAF already do. The Block III's MMI is more or less similar to what's on the F-35.

Nope. SH and F-35 are not interchangeable regardless of block. SH simply can't do what F-35 can.



I already told ya, the inital deal is always big since it comes with a lot of additional capacity. Like you could have bought 2 simulators that can train 100 pilots, so you don't have to buy new simulators as you bring in more jets. The same with all the other types of infrastructure. For example, the order of 18 would have come with only 36-40 engines, but the infrastructure, like test benches, would be good enough to support 80+ engines.

It's like how Qatar paid $7B for 24 Rafales, at $291M per jet, but the follow on deal for 12 more jets only cost them $1.1B, that's $91M per jet. The overall price tag brought it down to $225M. More orders can bring down the unit price even more.

The Egyptians started with $5.8B for 24, $241M, and with their second order of 30 at $4.5B, $150M, their average price came down to $190M. This is how it goes.

How about you talk about what was actually in Boeings offer to us instead of what Qatar paid for something else??

While the procurement cost will come down quite significantly with a total order of 88 jets, the SH's operating cost is already a very low $18,000 versus the F-35A's yet-to-be-achieved goal of $25000. That's at least a 15% difference. In any case, Canada will simply manipulate the prices in favour of the F-35, 20% less flying time actually gives it a 5% margin, so it doesn't matter. Even if the SH is less expensive, which it actually is, the addition of the Growler and the price manipulation of the F-35 will ensure its loss. Different story that the F-35 is worth buying compared to the SH, I won't dispute that.

The Super Hornet is on borrowed time. We are spending over 800 million just to upgrade 36 of our CF-18s, and only thanks to the US upgrading their F-18s do we even have that option. past about 2040 Super Hornet operators are going to spend a lot more money on upgrades and overhaul all by themselves with no help from the Americans. If you are buying Super Hornets for 20 years, you are probably ok, but when you buy them for 40 years, the back half is going to be too expensive. We know this, because the many countries comparing Super Hornet and F-35 have found this, including people who operate both. overall, long term costs for the life of the aircraft. if you are just looking at CPFH as the only measure you are missing out on much much more. Both the US and the Aussies operate both types and they are under no illusions. Super Hornets cost more, and if you look into it beyond CPFH you would know that. back in the early 2000s when the F-35 was hitting the wall Boeing made a "hard sell" of the Super Hornet, but we have yet to see it ever cost less than the F-35A. In lifetime costs or initial costs or procurement or sustainment costs The Super hornet is penny wise and pound foolish. and I don't even believe the CPFH costs because the Americans had to dump gobs of money into super hornets to make them work at all:


plus CPFH numbers are constantly screwed with in order to fool the public and there is no set international standard to them, the Americans alone have I think 8 ways of measuring CPFH. So it can be manipulated however one pleases
 
  • Like
Reactions: RISING SUN

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,082
709
California
Dude you must have nightmares about the F-35, huh? F-35 must be on your mind so much that it has likely driven you almost mad, eh? I say this because I just love how you imply this is only an F-35 issue when this is the whole USAF fighter fleet which you purposely left out.


USAF has six types of fighters and over a thousand combined you french only have two type of fighters just over 200 combined and can only get your french plane to 55% MCR. You fanboys can only wish you had a 68% MCR.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: RISING SUN

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
3,456
4,056
73
France
Dude you must have nightmares about the F-35, huh? F-35 must be on your mind so much that it has likely driven you almost mad, eh? I say this because I just love how you imply this is only an F-35 issue when this is the whole USAF fighter fleet which you purposely left out.

USAF has six types of fighters and over a thousand combined you french only have two type of fighters just over 200 combined and can only get your french plane to 55% MCR. You fanboys can only wish you had a 68% MCR.
I think you're a bit sick:

I didn't mention the F-35's MCR, first of all because I've already explained here that it's an irrelevant indicator, and that it's better to look at the FMCR, which shows how poorly the F-35 is doing, with an FMCR of 15%.

No, I was talking about the shortage of engines and disappointingly high operating costs, so I quoted two excerpts from the article about that.
Afterwards, for forumers to find the excerpts, you have to quote the article by its title and include a link, and I had no reason to change the title of the article, not even to please you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Amarante

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,566
10,790
India
Super Hornets are bigger than CF-18s. We can't fit as many in the same space. This is complicated to you for some reason. We will need new hangars regardless of what is picked. We will need new infrastructure regardless of what is picked. some of our stuff dates back to the original CF-18 purchase and beyond.

Your hangars are not gonna be changed just because the jet is a meter longer and wider.

Just checked out both your Hornet bases, you don't need anything extra. In fact the air force has fallen in numbers, so you have much more extra space. It doesn't matter how old the Hornet is, the SH is just its cousin. You only need new tools. Hell, it's more expensive switching the infrastructure over to the F-35.

Nope. SH and F-35 are not interchangeable regardless of block. SH simply can't do what F-35 can.

You misunderstood. I have not questioned the F-35's capability, it's well above the SH. But when it comes to interoperability, it's not an issue. Whatever data an American F-35 can receive, say, from a satellite, AWACS or another F-35, a Canadian SH can too.

If it's not interoperable, then the USN wouldn't have bothered to touch the F-35, preferring to develop their own platform that can work with the F-35. So what works for the USN will obviously work between Canada and the USAF.

How about you talk about what was actually in Boeings offer to us instead of what Qatar paid for something else??

Doesn't matter what the ware is, the cost falls when its distributed over larger numbers. It's called economies of scale.

The Super Hornet is on borrowed time. We are spending over 800 million just to upgrade 36 of our CF-18s, and only thanks to the US upgrading their F-18s do we even have that option. past about 2040 Super Hornet operators are going to spend a lot more money on upgrades and overhaul all by themselves with no help from the Americans. If you are buying Super Hornets for 20 years, you are probably ok, but when you buy them for 40 years, the back half is going to be too expensive. We know this, because the many countries comparing Super Hornet and F-35 have found this, including people who operate both. overall, long term costs for the life of the aircraft. if you are just looking at CPFH as the only measure you are missing out on much much more. Both the US and the Aussies operate both types and they are under no illusions. Super Hornets cost more, and if you look into it beyond CPFH you would know that. back in the early 2000s when the F-35 was hitting the wall Boeing made a "hard sell" of the Super Hornet, but we have yet to see it ever cost less than the F-35A. In lifetime costs or initial costs or procurement or sustainment costs The Super hornet is penny wise and pound foolish. and I don't even believe the CPFH costs because the Americans had to dump gobs of money into super hornets to make them work at all:


plus CPFH numbers are constantly screwed with in order to fool the public and there is no set international standard to them, the Americans alone have I think 8 ways of measuring CPFH. So it can be manipulated however one pleases

This is where politics comes in. CPFH has nothing to do the MLU that's expected to happen in 15-20 years.

Now you wanna say the F-35's upgrade cost after 20 years is gonna be cheaper? That's horse-pucky. Not even LM knows what the cost will be like in 20 years because the tech that will go into the F-35 has not even been developed yet. The same with SH. All you can do is set a benchmark price and simply hope it doesn't exceed it. If it does, well, what can you do? Gotta pay or skip it. You're stuck, after all.

You can bet that your Hornets are in fact getting a better radar than what's on the F-35 today. Similarly, the F-15EX is getting a much more advanced EW suite than the F-35. So better avionics upgrades on the SH are inevitable because any upgrade that will happen for Canadian SHs will only happen after the F-35s are upgraded, and naturally after both the NGADs are developed. You can bet the SH upgrade will get NGAD tech.

In this competition, the only thing you can do is raise unit costs of the SH by bringing in customisation, and use the F-35's lower flight hours to reduce CPFH. Since upgrades are benchmarked to a single price, it doesn't really matter. If the F-35 crosses the price, then you buy only what you can afford.

And no, nobody in the West screws around with CPFH numbers for jets in operation, it's illegal. It's actually why I believe the Norwegian price, along with the American price.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
76
Canada
Your hangars are not gonna be changed just because the jet is a meter longer and wider.

Just checked out both your Hornet bases, you don't need anything extra. In fact the air force has fallen in numbers, so you have much more extra space. It doesn't matter how old the Hornet is, the SH is just its cousin. You only need new tools. Hell, it's more expensive switching the infrastructure over to the F-35.
LOL you just checked them out? how was your flight? back already or still at Cold Lake? what are the costs and the differences. show your work. I want to see it. You must be delusional. you do not even know what you do not know. this is a running theme with all your posts regarding F-35 vs super hornet which has been beat to death, but once more into the stupid breech!


You misunderstood. I have not questioned the F-35's capability, it's well above the SH. But when it comes to interoperability, it's not an issue. Whatever data an American F-35 can receive, say, from a satellite, AWACS or another F-35, a Canadian SH can too.

If it's not interoperable, then the USN wouldn't have bothered to touch the F-35, preferring to develop their own platform that can work with the F-35. So what works for the USN will obviously work between Canada and the USAF.
you are confusing the ability to receive with the ability to produce. The Super Hornet can't produce and share the level of data the F-35 can. Canada would be wholly reliant on the US launching its F-35s at all times, and the Canadians would be reliant on the F-35 to "see" for SH. We can't just send out two Super Hornets and expect the same amount of data and sensors. that's the shortest version I can say. The Super Hornet is not at the same level of the F-35 and never will be.



Doesn't matter what the ware is, the cost falls when its distributed over larger numbers. It's called economies of scale.

There are more F-35s than super Hornets, and there will be more F-35s in the future. its called economies of scale. its also why the F-35 is cheaper.


This is where politics comes in. CPFH has nothing to do the MLU that's expected to happen in 15-20 years.

Now you wanna say the F-35's upgrade cost after 20 years is gonna be cheaper? That's horse-pucky. Not even LM knows what the cost will be like in 20 years because the tech that will go into the F-35 has not even been developed yet. The same with SH. All you can do is set a benchmark price and simply hope it doesn't exceed it. If it does, well, what can you do? Gotta pay or skip it. You're stuck, after all.

There are more F-35s, operated by more nations, not to mention the US will is going to use them longer than Super Hornet across all 3 services instead of just one. its called economies of scale. the whole of the JSF is shared costs. If Canada bought Super Hornets we would be on the hook to keeping them fully upgraded to the ever increasing 5th generation NORAD standard. We would be the sole nation constantly having to pay to try and keep up with F-35, and we simply can't ever keep up with it for 40 years.

Again. I feel like you must be blind.

You can bet that your Hornets are in fact getting a better radar than what's on the F-35 today. Similarly, the F-15EX is getting a much more advanced EW suite than the F-35. So better avionics upgrades on the SH are inevitable because any upgrade that will happen for Canadian SHs will only happen after the F-35s are upgraded, and naturally after both the NGADs are developed. You can bet the SH upgrade will get NGAD tech.
your pulling all of this out of the air. I don't even have the time to correct it all. LOL you just invent things now. Is this serious? trolling? we don't know about F-35 overhauls but we do know SH will get NGAD tech? whatever NGAD tech is? if Canada is allowed to have NGAD? if we can afford it? if the navy bothers to implement it for us through their own upgrade? you also don't have the ability to know this stuff because its not only classified but hypothetical

I can spend all kinds of time explaining this stuff to you if you actually want to know it, but if you are just going to double down on your stupidity, tell me now so I can save the time sharing the links. and yes I am serious.

In this competition, the only thing you can do is raise unit costs of the SH by bringing in customisation, and use the F-35's lower flight hours to reduce CPFH. Since upgrades are benchmarked to a single price, it doesn't really matter. If the F-35 crosses the price, then you buy only what you can afford.

F-35 already costs less. do you actually look at this stuff before you say it? or is the whole point to argue with me using lies and invention? stopping come up with "customization" as an excuse. its not necessary except for Rafale, which needs an excuse as to why it costs so much. an F-35A costs less than Super Hornet for Canada. We just watched the Swiss verify this only months ago. Denmark did the same. And Boeing did the same for Canada not long ago. why is this so hard for you?

And no, nobody in the West screws around with CPFH numbers for jets in operation, it's illegal. It's actually why I believe the Norwegian price, along with the American price.
its not illegal. Boeing can say the Super Hornet costs 10,000 per hour and they have. they can say it costs 10 dollars an hour in fact. Unless its in a official competition where the numbers have to be truthful they can say whatever they want in the public. This is how Saab gets away with their "4,700 dollars an hour" claim. they can invent what they please to the public. the US has multiple ways of showing CPFH. There is no set international standard for CPFH and what is and is not included. Dassault could say the Rafale is 5000 per hour, and it might actually be correct depending on what is and is not included.

Once it goes into official competition the real numbers and classified information comes out and low and behold the Super Hornet has never won a competition, and the F-35 has never lost one. What does that tell you? Canada has been looking at Super Hornet and F-35 for 10 years now. I promise I have more knowledge than the stuff you are desperately inventing to start trouble. You don't know anything about Canada and how to compare what is happening and it shows.

I understand that the Super Hornet may someday soon being wearing Indian Roundels, good for India if so. but don't be so onboard with Super Hornet that you start inventing things we simply do not see to be true here when we review it and actually look especially when it comes to canada. I will gladly admit I am no expert on the indian air arm if you admit you are no expert on Canada. deal?
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,566
10,790
India
LOL you just checked them out? how was your flight? back already or still at Cold Lake? what are the costs and the differences. show your work. I want to see it. You must be delusional. you do not even know what you do not know. this is a running theme with all your posts regarding F-35 vs super hornet which has been beat to death, but once more into the stupid breech!

Google Earth. A lot of our HAS are actually smaller and even hold the Flanker.

you are confusing the ability to receive with the ability to produce. The Super Hornet can't produce and share the level of data the F-35 can. Canada would be wholly reliant on the US launching its F-35s at all times, and the Canadians would be reliant on the F-35 to "see" for SH. We can't just send out two Super Hornets and expect the same amount of data and sensors. that's the shortest version I can say. The Super Hornet is not at the same level of the F-35 and never will be.

The ability to receive and share data is dependent on the datalink, which is the Link 16. You are confused between capability and interoperability. Even the Mig-21 can use the F-35's data with the Link 16.

As for reliance on the US, you are reliant on them irrespective of whether you operate the SH or F-35. For targeting at sea, you need American maritime aircraft, that goes for the F-35 too. For targeting in the air, you need AWACS. And air superiority is exclusively done by the USAF, so all you're gonna do is strike and escort missions. The data your jets are gonna produce will be largely irrelevant. But you can always carry pods that can do better than the F-35's avionics anyway.

There are more F-35s, operated by more nations, not to mention the US will is going to use them longer than Super Hornet across all 3 services instead of just one. its called economies of scale. the whole of the JSF is shared costs. If Canada bought Super Hornets we would be on the hook to keeping them fully upgraded to the ever increasing 5th generation NORAD standard. We would be the sole nation constantly having to pay to try and keep up with F-35, and we simply can't ever keep up with it for 40 years.

Again. I feel like you must be blind.

Did you forget about GaN radar on the Hornet and EPAWSS on the Eagle?

your pulling all of this out of the air. I don't even have the time to correct it all. LOL you just invent things now. Is this serious? trolling? we don't know about F-35 overhauls but we do know SH will get NGAD tech? whatever NGAD tech is? if Canada is allowed to have NGAD? if we can afford it? if the navy bothers to implement it for us through their own upgrade? you also don't have the ability to know this stuff because its not only classified but hypothetical

I can spend all kinds of time explaining this stuff to you if you actually want to know it, but if you are just going to double down on your stupidity, tell me now so I can save the time sharing the links. and yes I am serious.

That's how upgrades work for older jets. Hence why there's a GaN radar on the Hornet already and a GaN based EW suite on the F-15. Technologies developed through NGAD will find their way on both the F-35 and SH.

Even today, the F-16V, B70, F-15EX, SH B3 etc are receiving upgrades developed through the F-22 and F-35. In fact all their radars and computers were developed after the F-35's was, and in some cases are even more advanced. For example, the B3 received a new MFD last year that's better than what's on the F-35, and the F-35 is also gonna get this upgrade in a few years. The so-called F-21 is also apparently using F-35 tech, if the Americans are to be believed.

F-35 already costs less. do you actually look at this stuff before you say it? or is the whole point to argue with me using lies and invention? stopping come up with "customization" as an excuse. its not necessary except for Rafale, which needs an excuse as to why it costs so much. an F-35A costs less than Super Hornet for Canada. We just watched the Swiss verify this only months ago. Denmark did the same. And Boeing did the same for Canada not long ago. why is this so hard for you?

They didn't use current costs, they used a fictional future cost that would bring the F-35 down to the same level as the F-16, and then drop 20% less flying hours because the training is apparently "easier" because half of it is done on simulators instead. So your liberal use of the word "already" is gonna have to be brought to notice.

its not illegal. Boeing can say the Super Hornet costs 10,000 per hour and they have. they can say it costs 10 dollars an hour in fact. Unless its in a official competition where the numbers have to be truthful they can say whatever they want in the public. This is how Saab gets away with their "4,700 dollars an hour" claim. they can invent what they please to the public. the US has multiple ways of showing CPFH. There is no set international standard for CPFH and what is and is not included. Dassault could say the Rafale is 5000 per hour, and it might actually be correct depending on what is and is not included.

Nobody has lied. While there is no international standard, there is a national standard. Each nation has its own costs associated with its requirements. $25000 in the US costs different elsewhere. And that's where tenders come into the picture.

When Boeing said the SH cost $10000, it was in reference to the B2, around the time when the F-16 B52 cost $7500. Now the F-16 costs $25000 under a different cost metric, and in that metric, the B3 costs $18000. At the national level, they are not lying, they are merely not giving us the full details.

Costs compared across different nations is dumb. For example, the Norwegians say the F-35 costs €11000, but that's in relation to their F-16, not the American or Israeli F-16. But Francis Tusa, in that twitter post, did exactly that.

Once it goes into official competition the real numbers and classified information comes out and low and behold the Super Hornet has never won a competition, and the F-35 has never lost one. What does that tell you? Canada has been looking at Super Hornet and F-35 for 10 years now. I promise I have more knowledge than the stuff you are desperately inventing to start trouble. You don't know anything about Canada and how to compare what is happening and it shows.

So are you saying the F-35 is "already" cheaper? Or are you saying all the choices were made with the hope that the F-35's costs will eventually be cheaper?

I understand that the Super Hornet may someday soon being wearing Indian Roundels, good for India if so. but don't be so onboard with Super Hornet that you start inventing things we simply do not see to be true here when we review it and actually look especially when it comes to canada. I will gladly admit I am no expert on the indian air arm if you admit you are no expert on Canada. deal?

I think the SH is a waste of money. After our navy chief flew both the SH and the Rafale, he said that while the SH is a good aircraft, the Rafale is a generation ahead. And for India, upgrading the SH could be a bigger problem than it would be for Canada.

But in our case the choices are limited, and it's obvious Canada should go for the F-35. But cost isn't the reason, is all I'm saying.

Today, LM can claim the F-35 needs 20% less flight hours, so 4800 hours. But once the last American ally buys the F-35 in the next few years, then LM/USAF can come out saying the 20% additional flight hours will be needed to train pilots for next gen warfare, ie, with drones and such. Then it's back to 6000 hours at 20% higher cost, and that's 20% more money for LM.

So I'm more inclined to believe costs are being manipulated, within the limits of a legal grey area, to convince the masses, instead of just saying they are all buying the F-35 for its capabilities irrespective of costs, which is the actual case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amarante

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
420
194
Australia
I think the SH is a waste of money. After our navy chief flew both the SH and the Rafale, he said that while the SH is a good aircraft, the Rafale is a generation ahead. And for India, upgrading the SH could be a bigger problem than it would be for Canada.
Are you making this up? I remember the chief at the time, saying that the American's had better radar and weapons/missiles. but someone had to be eliminated. he wasn't that happy about it.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
14,566
10,790
India
Are you making this up?

Nope, it's the truth. The one who said it is Adm Arun Prakash.

I remember the chief at the time, saying that the American's had better radar and weapons/missiles. but someone had to be eliminated. he wasn't that happy about it.

I don't remember this, for obvious reasons.

While the radar was good on both jets, it's obviously not going to beat the AESA+Meteor combo on the Typhoon and Rafale. No clue who's even gonna say an outdated solid rocket motor is gonna be better than ramjet.

But we have an Air Marshal, the one who started MMRCA, say that the F-16 is nothing more than a 3rd gen jet.
 

Spitfire6

Member
Oct 31, 2021
86
76
Canada
Google Earth. A lot of our HAS are actually smaller and even hold the Flanker.

so your rebuttal to the the costs and comparisons of infrastructure conditions, needs and what is included regarding the Cf-18, SH and F-35 for Canada is "I used google earth and the hangars look big enough"

??

I wouldn't think I would have to explain that we can fit fewer larger aircraft compared to our current smaller aircraft but here we are, Your analysis seems juvenile and glib.

We have a hornet training squadron. We would not need that training squadron if we bought F-35s. We train at Luke AFB in Arizona. Then we need fewer aircraft and fewer pilots. We don't need dedicated trainers this way and all our aircraft are combat, so we can have easier and more efficient rotations and deployments, we need fewer pilots and fewer maintainers and this is good, because we struggle with retention and have for years. there is more to it than hangars and how thing look from google earth. my god I can't believe I have to explain this.


The ability to receive and share data is dependent on the datalink, which is the Link 16. You are confused between capability and interoperability. Even the Mig-21 can use the F-35's data with the Link 16.
yes but the Mig-21 doesn't have the F-35 sensors a point made already. if we are going to say "anything with link 16" means interoperable, then yes everything will be. i can put one in a Cessna 172. But there is more to it than that.

As for reliance on the US, you are reliant on them irrespective of whether you operate the SH or F-35. For targeting at sea, you need American maritime aircraft, that goes for the F-35 too. For targeting in the air, you need AWACS. And air superiority is exclusively done by the USAF, so all you're gonna do is strike and escort missions. The data your jets are gonna produce will be largely irrelevant. But you can always carry pods that can do better than the F-35's avionics anyway.

False. and again you don't understand what you are talking about this begins another problem with your comparison. The pods that are going to magically replicate an F-35 won't be cheap or free. In which case again, we can simply buy F-35. instead of buying Super hornets, and then buying again and again to keep them up with F-35s which is the point. You also don't seem to understand the RCAF at all. But I am not surprised, as that wouldn't show up on google earth. its more complicated than you think but the short answer is, we want to be a good ally to the US, not a helpless contributor that must be looked after. We also have things like September 11th, when Canadian aircraft were the first over New York. If we need the Americans to babysit us for every patrol, we might as well give up having an air force. that is the short version. its critical that we are able to undertake NORAD missions when it is our rotation or sector, and fulfill any NATO, NORAD or even UN missions. in 1999 the CF-18s were almost sent home when our aircraft lacked encryption ability to keep up. we have to carry our weight do our part of the lifting, even in coalition war. it is hard to thing to explain and very unique position.


Did you forget about GaN radar on the Hornet and EPAWSS on the Eagle?

did you forget that we are talking about not only upgrades but the cost of those upgrades? and that Canada as one of the few Super Hornet operators going in 20 years would be responsible nearly 100 percent for developing and implementing those? I am talking about 2 important things. Cost and capability. you keep saying capability is irrelevant because we can always just more later. and my point is with the F-35 we won't be paying nearly as much over time. How much money are we going to spend to get less than an F-35, at more expensive than F-35 costs? And then spending billions more? At that point the CPFH cost becomes irrelevant.

both the GaN radar on our hornet and EPAWSS on the eagle were developed and paid for by the US. much like the L3 upgrade the US Marines years ago we piggy back off their already paid for development. You seem to think money grows on trees for every aircraft except the F-35. "why don't we just spend billions of dollars independently designing and installing your own upgrades?"


That's how upgrades work for older jets. Hence why there's a GaN radar on the Hornet already and a GaN based EW suite on the F-15. Technologies developed through NGAD will find their way on both the F-35 and SH.

Even today, the F-16V, B70, F-15EX, SH B3 etc are receiving upgrades developed through the F-22 and F-35. In fact all their radars and computers were developed after the F-35's was, and in some cases are even more advanced. For example, the B3 received a new MFD last year that's better than what's on the F-35, and the F-35 is also gonna get this upgrade in a few years. The so-called F-21 is also apparently using F-35 tech, if the Americans are to be believed.

historically the our hornets get upgrades that the Americans pioneer. we can't afford them otherwise. I don't know what is being lost in this conversation. but the idea that Canada can always just pay billions more later on upgrading to try and keep up with F-35 is not the incentive you think it is. This is also why the Super hornet is a bad idea long term. once the US support for this aircraft dries up, the costs are going to be extensive. one of the biggest and most important aspects of the CF-18 replacement requirements has been considerations like this. Stuff you simply don't bother with.



They didn't use current costs, they used a fictional future cost that would bring the F-35 down to the same level as the F-16, and then drop 20% less flying hours because the training is apparently "easier" because half of it is done on simulators instead. So your liberal use of the word "already" is gonna have to be brought to notice.
Nobody has lied. While there is no international standard, there is a national standard. Each nation has its own costs associated with its requirements. $25000 in the US costs different elsewhere. And that's where tenders come into the picture.

When Boeing said the SH cost $10000, it was in reference to the B2, around the time when the F-16 B52 cost $7500. Now the F-16 costs $25000 under a different cost metric, and in that metric, the B3 costs $18000. At the national level, they are not lying, they are merely not giving us the full details.

Costs compared across different nations is dumb. For example, the Norwegians say the F-35 costs €11000, but that's in relation to their F-16, not the American or Israeli F-16. But Francis Tusa, in that twitter post, did exactly that.
You really have no idea and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. we are also talking again about lifetime costs. This matters to us. Maybe it does not to you, but over the last 10 years the Canadian CF-18 replacement saga has been highly complicated and most people, even many Canadians don't know exactly what the goals and parameters are. I can't catch you up on 10 years in a few posts. if you are actually interested in looking into this stuff there are plenty of places to look.

So are you saying the F-35 is "already" cheaper? Or are you saying all the choices were made with the hope that the F-35's costs will eventually be cheaper?
Other than Canada, Switzerland, and Denmark likely Finland here soon, saying F-35 is cheaper, how can we know the F-35 is cheaper?

Swiss which operate F-18s, rejected the Super Hornet, and said it costs over $2 billion more than the F-35? this would seem to be a very important development and a recent one that would put the whole thing to bed. how strange that the Super Hornet is always cheaper, and then all of the sudden when its time to put up or shut up, the Boeing option ends up costing more than F-35. put on your detective cap and think about that.

I think the SH is a waste of money. After our navy chief flew both the SH and the Rafale, he said that while the SH is a good aircraft, the Rafale is a generation ahead. And for India, upgrading the SH could be a bigger problem than it would be for Canada.

But in our case the choices are limited, and it's obvious Canada should go for the F-35. But cost isn't the reason, is all I'm saying.

Frankly, being a Canadian a lot of people seem to think we are simpletons. we can calculate costs and have constantly for the last 12 years. we know fighters. we know what we are doing. Canada has a proud aerospace industry. Canada more than any other nation, thanks to political pressure has analyzed the F-35 cost probably to a greater extent than most realize. I don't know of any country that hired a civilian firm to take the costs out for 4 decades from acquisition to the cost of retiring them in the 2060s and then updated that assessment for years afterward like we did. The Canadians made several mistakes, but these costs are not one of them. this was verified over the years and with a great assist from Boeing when their promised "65 million Super Hornet half of the price of the F-35!" Turned out to be off by about 500 percent. The liberals thought after years of being told "65 million!" that they were about to pay about 1 billion dollars for 18 aircraft. So where do we sign? oops. The cost is actually over 5 billion now. This is from the group that relentless badgered the last government about insane cost escalations and unaffordable fighters. 5 billion for 18. they said 9 billlion for 65 F-35 was too costly for years. There is a reason Trudeau put a gag order on people in the RCAF and DND. this has been a running theme with Boeing. The Super Hornet is cheaper than the F-35A. and then when its time to actually view the numbers, the Super hornet costs more. this has happened in 3 countries so far. one just last summer

I will try and summarize as best as I can. The F-35 already costs less than the Super Hornet. The Super hornet will not last as long in American service this will leave Canada paying the majority of the upgrade costs completely by ourselves. this is unaffordable and Something we struggle with even when the Americans do the majority of the work and pay for the development and testing. Even when we do buy upgrades, we struggle. only 36 CF-18s are being upgraded at the cost of over 800 million dollars. your solution is to just throw money at the problem in the interest of "savings". basic as it sounds, just buying F-35s would be the easiest way to stay interoperable with F-35s.


 
Last edited:

Innominate

Well-Known member
Jun 23, 2021
1,082
709
California
While the radar was good on both jets, it's obviously not going to beat the AESA+Meteor combo on the Typhoon and Rafale. No clue who's even gonna say an outdated solid rocket motor is gonna be better than ramjet.

F-18E AESA is more capable than french plane and Aim-120D has a 140-150 mile range however early next year the F-18E will be a SUPERIOR BVR fighter than the french plane.

Testing Of The Secretive New AIM-260 Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile Is Well Underway​

Publicly released documents reveal that QF-16 jets have been regularly supporting the AIM-260 missile program.​


The U.S. Air Force has been busy flying QF-16 Full-Scale Aerial Target, or FSAT, missions in support of the Lockheed Martin AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile program. While the AIM-260, or JATM, remains a highly secretive weapon, it’s now clear that test work is well underway, with around 30 FSAT missions last year alone. This would make sense given that the goal is to have the new missile start arming Air Force and Navy aircraft as early as next year.

Our Twitter contact @MIL_STD brought attention to the new developments after examining publicly released Air Force data recording various test missions flown by the QF-16 FSAT fleet. This consists of F-16 fighter jets converted to drones and used as targets and also flown as manned test assets for chase and range instrumentation flights. In drone mode, these aircraft are not always shot down even during live-fire events as often the missiles hurled at them are not equipped with live warheads. As such, close enough, within the blast radius of the missile’s warheads, can be considered a kill.

The Air Force first disclosed the existence of the AIM-260 program, which is a joint effort with the Navy, in 2019. Those two services intend for this missile to provide a new, longer-range weapon to replace the ubiquitous AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

@MIL_STD’s entire Twitter thread, portions of which are embedded below, is well worth a look, but the key details reveal that the FSAT fleet has been supporting JATM test work since April 2020, if not before. In that month, there were eight QF-16 missions in support of the new missile.


Whether some or all of these flights involved actual missile launches is unclear, although it’s certainly possible. Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida was the launch point for these missions and the facility and its target drones are regularly used to support live-fire missile sorties. In the past, it was stated that JATM flight tests should begin this year.

Later in 2020, there seems to have another relative spike in JATM test activity, with six missions flown by the QF-16s in October alone, and another two missions canceled. At the same time, it should be remembered that the FSAT activity detailed in these documents is just one aspect of a much broader joint Air Force/Navy program on the path to getting the missile into service.

While the Air Force is yet to release any such data for this year, it’s clear that 2020 saw plenty of activity for the AIM-260 program, making the fact that these missions have not so far been spotted by photographers or other observers all the more surprising. That is unless the AIM-260 looks nearly identical to the AIM-120 it replaces, which would be an accomplishment considering its supposed major step-up in capability over the already extended-range AIM-120D.

Overall, the data from 2020 provides a tantalizing glimpse into a program that is being run very much out of the public eye. So secretive is the new missile, in fact, that the Air Force has invested $6.5 million in building a Joint Advanced Tactical Missile Storage Facility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to help keep it secure under Special Access Program security requirements.

What we do know about the JATM itself has come primarily from brief comments made by Air Force leaders and other officials. Indeed, for a long time, the only official mention of the program that was publicly available online was a vague reference about the assistant program manager, an employee of Naval Air Systems Command, winning an award for outstanding logisticians in 2017.

Nevertheless, the new missile is expected to not only out-range the AIM-120 but offer performance that at least matches Chinese and Russian efforts in the field of very long-range air-to-air missiles. The Air Force has publicly said that the emergence of the Chinese PL-15, a long-range air-to-air missile featuring a dual-pulse rocket motor, was a key factor in the decision to start the AIM-260 program.

What we do know about the AIM-260 is that the new missile will have the same general diameter and length as AIM-120. This will, among other things, allow it to be carried inside internal weapons bays on stealth fighters that were designed to accommodate the AMRAAM.

The dimensional requirements mean that a ramjet powerplant, as used in the pan-European Meteor missile, is impossible. So, a new type of solid-fuel motor seems to be a given, perhaps a dual-pulse type to ensure energy across the flight envelope just like on the PL-15. As Aviation Week’s defense editor Steve Trimble has pointed out, this new propulsion unit could be combined with miniaturization of other components as a way of increasing the fuel load to eke out yet more range. Advanced highly-loaded grain propellant, which is also being developed for use in other air-to-air missiles, could help improve performance without increasing the overall form factor.

Trimble has pointed out that different options exist for the warhead, including a directional warhead, which could be smaller than the standard type, but with more accuracy meaning that it could be scaled down. Another option, as we have discussed in detail before, would be a hit-to-kill type missile, with no actual explosive charge, which is another concept that has been discussed in the past in relation to more compact air-to-air missile designs.

As well as the new missile itself, the Air Force is meanwhile busy working on other measures to extend the range at which enemy aircraft can be engaged in the air. This includes fielding new and more capable sensors, such as powerful active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and infrared search and track systems.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the AIM-260 will very likely be joined by other advanced long-range air-to-air weapons. Separate to the JATM program is the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) project, being developed by Raytheon. Boeing recently unveiled a concept for a two-stage weapon, the Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or LRAAM

Well well well. Seems they have been secretly testing this new missile for a while now and will enter service early next year and will be carried by F-18E, and other US 4th gen fighters... pic-oil must be taking some meds for his headaches right about now. Lol.

PL-15 and PL-21 are huge missiles the PL-15 being the size of aim-54 phoenix so for the aim-260 having similar range of these two missiles and having the size of the aim-120 that is some advanced tech.
 

Optimist

Active member
Oct 31, 2021
420
194
Australia
The ability to receive and share data is dependent on the datalink, which is the Link 16. You are confused between capability and interoperability. Even the Mig-21 can use the F-35's data with the Link 16.
"The MADL [F-35] has a range of literally hundreds of miles, much better than [NATO's standard system] Link 16." Data also travels via Link 16 during the flight. “It has a shorter range and lower bandwidth, although the characteristics of radio signals do not use much bandwidth. But SAR radar imaging data, for example, cannot be transferred over Link 16. In addition, the signal on the Link 16 is wide, making it easier to detect, interfere with, and mimic. The closer you get to the distractor, the worse Link 16 is available. ”

I don't think meteor was included in the contest. The one where Rafales radar and the one way data link was, limiting it's engagement. I would have remembered? I think it came later.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Spitfire6

AbRaj

Senior member
Dec 6, 2017
2,490
1,826
Republic of Wadiya
so your rebuttal to the the costs and comparisons of infrastructure conditions, needs and what is included regarding the Cf-18, SH and F-35 for Canada is "I used google earth and the hangars look big enough"

??

I wouldn't think I would have to explain that we can fit fewer larger aircraft compared to our current smaller aircraft but here we are, Your analysis seems juvenile and glib.

We have a hornet training squadron. We would not need that training squadron if we bought F-35s. We train at Luke AFB in Arizona. Then we need fewer aircraft and fewer pilots. We don't need dedicated trainers this way and all our aircraft are combat, so we can have easier and more efficient rotations and deployments, we need fewer pilots and fewer maintainers and this is good, because we struggle with retention and have for years. there is more to it than hangars and how thing look from google earth. my god I can't believe I have to explain this.



yes but the Mig-21 doesn't have the F-35 sensors a point made already. if we are going to say "anything with link 16" means interoperable, then yes everything will be. i can put one in a Cessna 172. But there is more to it than that.



False. and again you don't understand what you are talking about this begins another problem with your comparison. The pods that are going to magically replicate an F-35 won't be cheap or free. In which case again, we can simply buy F-35. instead of buying Super hornets, and then buying again and again to keep them up with F-35s which is the point. You also don't seem to understand the RCAF at all. But I am not surprised, as that wouldn't show up on google earth. its more complicated than you think but the short answer is, we want to be a good ally to the US, not a helpless contributor that must be looked after. We also have things like September 11th, when Canadian aircraft were the first over New York. If we need the Americans to babysit us for every patrol, we might as well give up having an air force. that is the short version. its critical that we are able to undertake NORAD missions when it is our rotation or sector, and fulfill any NATO, NORAD or even UN missions. in 1999 the CF-18s were almost sent home when our aircraft lacked encryption ability to keep up. we have to carry our weight do our part of the lifting, even in coalition war. it is hard to thing to explain and very unique position.




did you forget that we are talking about not only upgrades but the cost of those upgrades? and that Canada as one of the few Super Hornet operators going in 20 years would be responsible nearly 100 percent for developing and implementing those? I am talking about 2 important things. Cost and capability. you keep saying capability is irrelevant because we can always just more later. and my point is with the F-35 we won't be paying nearly as much over time. How much money are we going to spend to get less than an F-35, at more expensive than F-35 costs? And then spending billions more? At that point the CPFH cost becomes irrelevant.

both the GaN radar on our hornet and EPAWSS on the eagle were developed and paid for by the US. much like the L3 upgrade the US Marines years ago we piggy back off their already paid for development. You seem to think money grows on trees for every aircraft except the F-35. "why don't we just spend billions of dollars independently designing and installing your own upgrades?"




historically the our hornets get upgrades that the Americans pioneer. we can't afford them otherwise. I don't know what is being lost in this conversation. but the idea that Canada can always just pay billions more later on upgrading to try and keep up with F-35 is not the incentive you think it is. This is also why the Super hornet is a bad idea long term. once the US support for this aircraft dries up, the costs are going to be extensive. one of the biggest and most important aspects of the CF-18 replacement requirements has been considerations like this. Stuff you simply don't bother with.




You really have no idea and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. we are also talking again about lifetime costs. This matters to us. Maybe it does not to you, but over the last 10 years the Canadian CF-18 replacement saga has been highly complicated and most people, even many Canadians don't know exactly what the goals and parameters are. I can't catch you up on 10 years in a few posts. if you are actually interested in looking into this stuff there are plenty of places to look.


Other than Canada, Switzerland, and Denmark likely Finland here soon, saying F-35 is cheaper, how can we know the F-35 is cheaper?

Swiss which operate F-18s, rejected the Super Hornet, and said it costs over $2 billion more than the F-35? this would seem to be a very important development and a recent one that would put the whole thing to bed. how strange that the Super Hornet is always cheaper, and then all of the sudden when its time to put up or shut up, the Boeing option ends up costing more than F-35. put on your detective cap and think about that.



Frankly, being a Canadian a lot of people seem to think we are simpletons. we can calculate costs and have constantly for the last 12 years. we know fighters. we know what we are doing. Canada has a proud aerospace industry. Canada more than any other nation, thanks to political pressure has analyzed the F-35 cost probably to a greater extent than most realize. I don't know of any country that hired a civilian firm to take the costs out for 4 decades from acquisition to the cost of retiring them in the 2060s and then updated that assessment for years afterward like we did. The Canadians made several mistakes, but these costs are not one of them. this was verified over the years and with a great assist from Boeing when their promised "65 million Super Hornet half of the price of the F-35!" Turned out to be off by about 500 percent. The liberals thought after years of being told "65 million!" that they were about to pay about 1 billion dollars for 18 aircraft. So where do we sign? oops. The cost is actually over 5 billion now. This is from the group that relentless badgered the last government about insane cost escalations and unaffordable fighters. 5 billion for 18. they said 9 billlion for 65 F-35 was too costly for years. There is a reason Trudeau put a gag order on people in the RCAF and DND. this has been a running theme with Boeing. The Super Hornet is cheaper than the F-35A. and then when its time to actually view the numbers, the Super hornet costs more. this has happened in 3 countries so far. one just last summer

I will try and summarize as best as I can. The F-35 already costs less than the Super Hornet. The Super hornet will not last as long in American service this will leave Canada paying the majority of the upgrade costs completely by ourselves. this is unaffordable and Something we struggle with even when the Americans do the majority of the work and pay for the development and testing. Even when we do buy upgrades, we struggle. only 36 CF-18s are being upgraded at the cost of over 800 million dollars. your solution is to just throw money at the problem in the interest of "savings". basic as it sounds, just buying F-35s would be the easiest way to stay interoperable with F-35s.
Such a shame that you guys have abandoned your aerospace industry and became totally dependent on Americans .
At its peak, Canadian Aerospace companies were as high tech as any of their US and European counterparts. Avro used to design reliable and state of the art commercial and military planes. Avro Arrow was supposed to be the future of combat is Western Airspace.

Heck some of them are still operational in IAF and doing routine jobs.
Bombardier was a big name in passenger jets, not so long ago.
 

Bon Plan

Senior member
Dec 1, 2017
2,325
1,054
France
F-18E AESA is more capable than french plane and Aim-120D has a 140-150 mile range however early next year the F-18E will be a SUPERIOR BVR fighter than the french plane.

Testing Of The Secretive New AIM-260 Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile Is Well Underway​

Publicly released documents reveal that QF-16 jets have been regularly supporting the AIM-260 missile program.​


The U.S. Air Force has been busy flying QF-16 Full-Scale Aerial Target, or FSAT, missions in support of the Lockheed Martin AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile program. While the AIM-260, or JATM, remains a highly secretive weapon, it’s now clear that test work is well underway, with around 30 FSAT missions last year alone. This would make sense given that the goal is to have the new missile start arming Air Force and Navy aircraft as early as next year.

Our Twitter contact @MIL_STD brought attention to the new developments after examining publicly released Air Force data recording various test missions flown by the QF-16 FSAT fleet. This consists of F-16 fighter jets converted to drones and used as targets and also flown as manned test assets for chase and range instrumentation flights. In drone mode, these aircraft are not always shot down even during live-fire events as often the missiles hurled at them are not equipped with live warheads. As such, close enough, within the blast radius of the missile’s warheads, can be considered a kill.

The Air Force first disclosed the existence of the AIM-260 program, which is a joint effort with the Navy, in 2019. Those two services intend for this missile to provide a new, longer-range weapon to replace the ubiquitous AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

@MIL_STD’s entire Twitter thread, portions of which are embedded below, is well worth a look, but the key details reveal that the FSAT fleet has been supporting JATM test work since April 2020, if not before. In that month, there were eight QF-16 missions in support of the new missile.


Whether some or all of these flights involved actual missile launches is unclear, although it’s certainly possible. Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida was the launch point for these missions and the facility and its target drones are regularly used to support live-fire missile sorties. In the past, it was stated that JATM flight tests should begin this year.

Later in 2020, there seems to have another relative spike in JATM test activity, with six missions flown by the QF-16s in October alone, and another two missions canceled. At the same time, it should be remembered that the FSAT activity detailed in these documents is just one aspect of a much broader joint Air Force/Navy program on the path to getting the missile into service.

While the Air Force is yet to release any such data for this year, it’s clear that 2020 saw plenty of activity for the AIM-260 program, making the fact that these missions have not so far been spotted by photographers or other observers all the more surprising. That is unless the AIM-260 looks nearly identical to the AIM-120 it replaces, which would be an accomplishment considering its supposed major step-up in capability over the already extended-range AIM-120D.

Overall, the data from 2020 provides a tantalizing glimpse into a program that is being run very much out of the public eye. So secretive is the new missile, in fact, that the Air Force has invested $6.5 million in building a Joint Advanced Tactical Missile Storage Facility at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, to help keep it secure under Special Access Program security requirements.

What we do know about the JATM itself has come primarily from brief comments made by Air Force leaders and other officials. Indeed, for a long time, the only official mention of the program that was publicly available online was a vague reference about the assistant program manager, an employee of Naval Air Systems Command, winning an award for outstanding logisticians in 2017.

Nevertheless, the new missile is expected to not only out-range the AIM-120 but offer performance that at least matches Chinese and Russian efforts in the field of very long-range air-to-air missiles. The Air Force has publicly said that the emergence of the Chinese PL-15, a long-range air-to-air missile featuring a dual-pulse rocket motor, was a key factor in the decision to start the AIM-260 program.

What we do know about the AIM-260 is that the new missile will have the same general diameter and length as AIM-120. This will, among other things, allow it to be carried inside internal weapons bays on stealth fighters that were designed to accommodate the AMRAAM.

The dimensional requirements mean that a ramjet powerplant, as used in the pan-European Meteor missile, is impossible. So, a new type of solid-fuel motor seems to be a given, perhaps a dual-pulse type to ensure energy across the flight envelope just like on the PL-15. As Aviation Week’s defense editor Steve Trimble has pointed out, this new propulsion unit could be combined with miniaturization of other components as a way of increasing the fuel load to eke out yet more range. Advanced highly-loaded grain propellant, which is also being developed for use in other air-to-air missiles, could help improve performance without increasing the overall form factor.

Trimble has pointed out that different options exist for the warhead, including a directional warhead, which could be smaller than the standard type, but with more accuracy meaning that it could be scaled down. Another option, as we have discussed in detail before, would be a hit-to-kill type missile, with no actual explosive charge, which is another concept that has been discussed in the past in relation to more compact air-to-air missile designs.

As well as the new missile itself, the Air Force is meanwhile busy working on other measures to extend the range at which enemy aircraft can be engaged in the air. This includes fielding new and more capable sensors, such as powerful active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars and infrared search and track systems.

Meanwhile, it’s worth noting that the AIM-260 will very likely be joined by other advanced long-range air-to-air weapons. Separate to the JATM program is the Long Range Engagement Weapon (LREW) project, being developed by Raytheon. Boeing recently unveiled a concept for a two-stage weapon, the Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or LRAAM

Well well well. Seems they have been secretly testing this new missile for a while now and will enter service early next year and will be carried by F-18E, and other US 4th gen fighters... pic-oil must be taking some meds for his headaches right about now. Lol.

PL-15 and PL-21 are huge missiles the PL-15 being the size of aim-54 phoenix so for the aim-260 having similar range of these two missiles and having the size of the aim-120 that is some advanced tech.
If AIM260 is so impressive, why integrating Meteor on F35 ?