Ground tests at Edwards Air Force Base have moved the Meteor air-to-air missile and the F-35A a step closer to flight testing.
Lockheed Martin, MBDA and the F-35 Joint Program Office completed ground vibration testing and weapons-bay fit checks aimed at validating how the missile and aircraft interact during stowage and release. According to the companies, engineers assessed structural responses and clearances to confirm that Meteor can be carried safely inside the F-35A’s internal bay, which is essential for maintaining the aircraft’s low-observable profile.
Images released by the programme show Meteor installed inside the bay while technicians measured its behaviour at varying vibration frequencies and checked its position relative to aircraft structures, systems and neighbouring stores.
One final ground trial remains before flight tests can begin. The work follows the Royal Air Force’s earlier announcement that Meteor has already flown on the UK’s F-35B as part of a separate integration effort led by Britain, while Italy is sponsoring the F-35A campaign. The companies say pairing the jet’s sensor suite with Meteor’s performance is expected to provide the capability advantage sought by both operators once integration is complete.
Earlier this year, we reported that a US Marine Corps F-35B completed the first flights carrying an inert Meteor missile, part of the effort to integrate UK weapons onto the aircraft. These sorties took place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River through coordinated work among UK and US government teams, the Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment and Support, MBDA, and Lockheed Martin. The inert round gathered environmental data to support the broader integration effort. Meteor is already central to the UK’s air combat loadout on Typhoon.
The UK is leading integration on the F-35B while Italy sponsors work on the F-35A, which will allow both variants to field the weapon. Air Commodore Al Roberts, who oversees air-to-air missiles for the RAF, previously stated that this progress reflects the strength of the multinational cooperation behind the programme and that bringing Meteor to F-35 will raise the combat capability of the UK and other users in the growing F-35 community.
‘When facts change, so do I’ – Maynard Keynes.
This excellent news. It would be interesting – but I suspect highly sensitive – to know why this sudden (meteoric in recent defence timetables) transformation to the missile integration question I among many thought very cynical ‘not invented here’ attitudes has come about. But enhancement or what!? Chritmas comes early.
Because it’s not “sudden”.
Last month UKDJ reported that people in the know said integration was still five years away, five years after it had been promised five years before. Perhaps you corrected that opinion? If so I missed it.
The full delivery of Block 4 is 5 years away. But thankfully LM is being sensible and delivering it in a series of small updates. Hopefully Meteor integration is in the earlier updates, though I suspect like the other 70+ weapons awaiting integration it’s probably a lower priority than updates to core functionality of the aircraft.
My typing! Honestly!
It will be comical when it gets integrated on the F-35A and not the B.
My take is much sooner on the ‘A’ than the ‘B’,it would be tragically Ironic if that is how it pans out.From memory the Meteor had to have a slight Re-Design to fit into the smaller Weapon’s Bay on the ‘B’ too.
The physical fit and release looks like it is being done already.
The core software will be the same but the release parameters will be different for the two different types.
Mmm carrying it is one thing but without LM actually doing the software integration it’s just a small step not a giant leap. Does anyone know if any foreign missile system has actually been integrated into any Non Israeli F35 yet ?
It could all be to do with the RAF’s desire to buy a fleet of F35A *if* it has some of their nice homegrown weapons hanging off it.
It is the sort of deal that the Tangerine would like to announce.
RAF having primacy on a big box of F35A toys would help out RN too if they had higher priority on the BRAVO variants?
Realistically if there is a big longterm uplift what is RAF going to want
– trainers
– P8 say 3 more?
– E7 say 5 more?
– F35A say a nice big fleet of bought such that Typhoon does not recreate the T23 trick
– secure funding for Tempest
– A400M a few more
– airfield defences
– a mountain of munitions
Good list.
Can I add a few thousand extra people to replace the 5k the idiots Cameron and Clegg cut in 2010?
God, how to prioritise that lot if not all are possible….
E7.
P8.
GBAD Airfield.
Munitions.
More Fast Air.
Tempest.
A400.
Just my opinion.
Key thing is the spend profile.
How many years is the program delivered over?
Unit costs are pretty clear – the way the accounting is done isn’t!
Really the question is what is the gap until Tempest is delivered.
Assuming RAF gets 1/4 of the uplift [the every hungry DNE will needs its slice], then profile the uplift and figure out how much extra area is under the graph.
Firstly simply multiply the numbers we have with known costs and see if that is more/less/same as area under the graph.
Adjust numbers so it is the same.
Then prioritise delivery around keeping production lines constant so P8 and E7 probably take priority.
Then fit in the A400M around production.
After that look at packing in the F35 deliveries keeping enough black ink to pay from the necessary munitions buildup.
Slips of magnetic strip on a whiteboard slid backwards and fowards…..
I believe other countries have their equipment spend and purchases fully detailed to their Parliaments for study each year, with costs?
Ours seems different, and hidden behind smoke and mirrors.
Why?
I often think corruption, then tell myself, surely not??
Why do we account the way we do?
What is a realistic, valid reason that one can accept?
As you said on another article, we pay so much all the time for seemingly so little.
HM Treasury fails to deliver All-Of-Government integration preferring to submit to the financial sector.
Thus Strategic Defence Review transformation for All-Of-Government; Foreign Office, Treasury and MoD, approach, closely followed by All-Of-Nation meaning recognition that Freedom is Not free and everyone must care about Defence.
Finance Ministers across Europe need to improve their Banking Licences to include a requirement of investment in Defence Investment Bonds (carrot) or Windfall Taxes for non compliance (stick) thus providing the Defence spending to reduce risks with better security and stability.
Since Defence Investment Bonds are investment not reckless spending on consumption the rates are much less than typical government borrowing, consistent with lower risks to security and stability.
We bailed out the bankers in 2008, so it’s their turn to invest in Defence that they rely on for their business prosperity.
Shocked that non American kit is fitted on F35
Shocked that non American kit is fitted on F35
As far as I’m aware missile, ASRAAM is fully integrated, whilst JSM is part way through the process. Non-missile wise, there’s Paveway IV, which is technically a US weapon, but the navigation unit design was paid for by the UK.
Can any AMRAAM or Meteor be carried on wing pylons in “beast mode” if required? It’d be a bit non stealthy but it’s extra.
And still no gun pods for the F35Bs? Do the Italian F35Bs have them? Be a quick addition, for counter drone?
Do you reckon the UK will go for any more F35Bs beyond the current 62? Seems a smallish quality for the two carriers and reserves. If they topped the quantity up to 144 a 72/72 A/B split might keep both RN/RAF happy, or not?
AMRAAM can, but not on the outside pylons, which are reserved for Sidewinder and ASRAAM. Hopefully Meteor will be capable of integration to the other pylons too.
DB mentioned JSM above too. You’d think whatever the Italian’s habe the RAF will also have as i believe they’re getting Spear3.
You got to feel sorry now for Typhoon, is that going to get anything new especially with its radar upgrades? FCASW?
As Jon says below, yes AMRAAM can be used under the wing. Lockheed Martin have also been looking at twin launchers fitted to the underwing pylons to give the aircraft more sustainability for air combat. The F35A and C will be getting the Sidekick modification. Which allows them to carry 3 AMRAAMS in each bay instead of the normal 2. The B version’s weapons bay is not deep enough, so will only hold 2 AMRAAMS (Meteor). For the A and C versions, it will increase the internal + external loadout from 8 AMRAAMS to 10. The twin pylon launchers are expected to increase that to 12 to 14 (max). For the B, it will be stuck with two BVRAAMs per bay, along with two under each wing, for a total of 6 BVRAAMS. But if we get the twin pylon launchers, this could go up to a total of 10 to 12 (max) BVRAAMs.
Sadly I’m not privy to the minds in the MOD anymore. The carriers are very high profile, as they’re are seen as the Government status symbol on the World stage. Meaning to appease Government, I’m sure the MOD will make sure at least one carrier has the minimum requirements for operations. The current number of F35Bs is not enough to sustain two squadron, plus a surge squadron, as well as maintaining the tasks the RAF require. I have a feeling we will be seeing a second larger batch of F35As being ordered. The question is will these aircraft be instead of additional F35Bs or as part of the larger 138 jet proposed order? I Personally I think they will be part of the total order rather than halting the B orders. Meaning, we should still see a steady trickle of F35Bs coming in to service. But I think you are right in that the numbers will reach a threshold, and the rest will be the A version.
The number of F35Bs currently sits at 37 jets. Though if I remember correctly, three of these jets can’t be used for operational taskings, as they are wired up for test and evaluation. I would like to think the we will receive at least 48 F35Bs. As that would allow for two Squadrons on a carrier plus enough for a surge, whilst the rest are either being used for training or going through maintenance. It would be nice to think the number would be higher, allowing for possible two carrier operations, but I think that’s highly unlikely in today’s budgetary and manpower climate. Plus the RAF were always promised to get the F35A to replace the Tornado.
Is ASRAAM capable of being carried internally? I’ve only ever seen photos of it on the wing tip pylons.
Currently it’s only cleared to be carried on an underwing launcher. The bay is an interesting question, as it uses two methods of attaching air to air missiles. A missile fitted to the bay door uses a rail launcher, much like those fitted to the pylon. Whilst the one in the bay, uses an ejector mechanism. These are gas operated rams, that throw the weapon out of the bay past the boundary layer. Pretty sure ASRAAM could be fitted to the door position. Not so sure about bay position.
Good news, although timing on the software integration remains vague…I still maintain that it shouldn’t require block IV if it can operate just fine on 4th Gen aircraft.
Hopefully we’ll have a similar announcement for fit tests of Spear 3 soon!
I doubt it, given the Spear-3 hasn’t completed development yet. As much as we dunk on LM, MBDA should take major responsibility there.
Yeah, I take a look at the MOD’s Major Project RAG when they issue it- Spear 3 is always very hazy as to exactly why it’s delayed. Whether there are genuine development delays on the weapon itself, or because its not able to be paired with the only platform its currently assigned to (F-35) for testing and integration. Or both (most likely).
The simplest, and most sensible thing in my book, would be to integrate onto Typhoon and kick MBDA’s arse about it until it’s in service. But that would cost money, and require the client to have difficult conversations with the vendor…
To be fair SPEAR 3 has been successfully fired from a trials Typhoon operated by BAE Systems on a range in Sweden in 2024. My reading of the delay in to service is that the MoD / RAF have always planned SPEAR 3 to go onto the F-35, but given the successful trial on Typhoon, delays in the Block 4 upgrade on F-35 and rapidly deteriorating geopolitical situation I would integrate it onto Typhoon. Such a move would open up sales options with other Typhoon operators as well. I might even be tempted to push it forward on Gripen as well given that aircraft is winning sales as well…
That’s not to say MBDA / LM haven’t messed things up mind…
Cheers CR
There is apparently a pre block IV integration (this could be part of it) that involves items that don’t require additional engine or power system upgrades. I haven’t seen any announcement of what would be integrated as part of that though.
Spear 3 will be 2031+ now.
Well, Meteor makes perfect sense for this pre-Block IV integration- that’s good news. Will be interesting to see what’s on that list, if it ever gets published…
Hmm have we fcuked again, that’s a tight fit for the A version (length). How the hell is Meteor going to fit in the B Version, but saying that the overall Dimensions are the same for AMRAAM. Maybe they are confident that integration on the A version is the same integration for all variants. Maybe AMRAAM was qualified on the A version only and just a check firing on the B/C. Seen some comments about outer pylons and AMRAAM and whether sidekick could take 6 missiles in the weapons bay. So here’s my take with the improved Pk of Meteor, do you need 6 missiles in stealth mode? F-35 could get 30-40 kilometers closer than Typhoon before needing to fire, improving the incredible kill zone even more. Not to mention off platform and sensor fusion targeting, so is 6 needed. Obviously 6 is better than 4 but is it really needed? In terms of turning it into a missile truck 8x Meteor 2 x ASRAAM is this ever going to be needed? There are only 2 threat scenarios one for the carrier and 1 for mainland uk. For the carrier in times of war you’ll need 4 x Aircraft for point defence, this is due to 4 ship sensor fusion fidelity is vastly superior to 2 ship, 48 AMRAAMs 8 ASRAAMs to bring down anti-ship missiles before the Type 45 and other escorting ships will take over…I suppose because we’ve been too frugal on the number of VLS tubes on the ‘45 we will need this as a minimum. For mainland UK will the UK QRA fleet need bolstering for a ALCM attack by Russia from Tu-160/Tu-95/Tu-22M? At best they’d only be able to field 50-60 planes maximum due to serviceability and keeping some in other theatres, and they have to get through the Baltic first as they have very limited tanking for the Tu-22m’s. Tu-95’s are going to get wasted straight away, the TU-22m would max only be able to carry 2 missiles each. Tu-160 8 missiles each but there’d only be 10 of them max. Let’s assume Tu-22m’s is 25 planes (56 probable are only serviceable). So let’s assume the TU-160 all get through they have the range to swing way north around Norway/Finnish coast. TU-22M 50% get through and along the way only 10% of the TU-95 get through, that’s 200 missiles that can be fired, but the RAF manage to shoot down 5 TU-160, the remaining TU-95s and 50% of the remaining TU-22m (13), these are big birds and with our tanking support Typhoon can fly out to 1200 km from the UK, we already know they’ve launched. So RAF you’ve shot down 5 backfires, 10 Bears, 13 Tu-22m’s using 33 missiles. You’ve got 4 squadrons of Typhoon’s 3 Lossiemouth 1 from Conningsby, 1 of these squadrons is Tranche 3 ECRS2. This squadron utilises the Meteor to its fullest in terms of range and look down shoot down. 6 meteor 2 ASRAAM per plane. 11 planes per squadron serviceable 66 Meteor 22 ASRAAM per squadron x4 total 264 Meteors and 88 ASRAAMs, we’ve used 35 missiles to shoot down 28 bombers, leaving 229 Meteors and 88 ASRAAMs. The remaining bombers have managed to fire all missiles 100+ missiles, do we need F-35b as additional missiles trucks? Assumptions there’s also 1 Type 45 and one Type 23/26, all our tanking support is being used 14 (5 called back from civilian use), 4 for other op, remaining 10 in the uk. This is current with ECRS2 deployed. No F-35A being available. I think the RAF think they have enough to cover any threat. Most arm chair Generals on here look at aircraft numbers and think that’s not credible numbers. Ok what can the UK do to increase capability? Straight off the bat they could increase the missile load out of the Eurofighter, there a double rail for the inner pylons where you can have 14 Meteors and 1000lbs bag plus 2 x AMRAAM it’s a concept from Eurofighter so they see it as possible. Cannot remember about conformal fuel tanks for the Tranche 2’s but in this Air Defence mode it would help, the planes are not going to need to manoeuvre against bombers. So buying more airframes isn’t always the answer, after the bomber have been destroyed these numbers can be re-deployed.