I don't know about that,but we do have AIM-120C already. We are getting Meteor for the Rafale too.
AFAIK AIM-120D is reserved to USA, UK and Saudi-Arabia, maybe Australia too, any way, Raytheon has sever issues : half of the AMRAAM's guidance system is made of electronic parts that are no more manufactured for a while, so the most likely is that you need to refurbish existing AIM-120C with the new engine: Raytheon has maintenance contracts, they need to keep their spare parts stockpile for this purpose... Any way, the max range is disproportionate compared to the small NEZ (no escape zone) and AMRAAMs are rather easy to jam or dodge... Consider the obsolete MICA, its 50km NEZ is about the double of an AIM-120C so, even if the max engagement range was 80km for the MICA-EM and 50km for the MICA-IR, once you target something outside the NEZ, well, at best, it may be a tanker, AWACS, cargo or airliner, but one thing for sure, if fighters are spotted, the AWACS will do a U-turn, while its escort will put itself in sweep formation...
If I remember well, the only AMRAAM confirmed kill over 30km took at least 5-6 missiles and the MiG-29 had no ECM, RWR, MAWS, IRST, not even a radar: that is the way Belarus has sold MiG-29 to Serbia and Su-27 to... USA (!), so the '29 had to bleed energy to dodge everything and finally became a sitting duck. Serbs were using the '29s to drag NATO aircraft into SAM-traps... The MICA-NG with a 80km NEZ must be really hot : 50G manoeuvres, the EM version has 120km max range and 80km for the IR one.
During the 2011 Libyan campaign, a NATO brass nicknamed the MICA as "Silent Death": none of the targetted aircraft have seen it coming!
This is just sad. Greece is not doing well economically. It is basically a bankrupt country. It should rather focus on its citizens rather than buying F-16V which it really cant afford.
Thanks to EU measures, this is not the case any more, they even end with an excess money allowing to upgrade the military.
BTW, they get already owned F-16s upgraded to the F-16V program.
Technically speaking, it'd be more interesting to go after all the retired Mirage-2000:
1. Safran has shown a 100kN non-afterburner version of Rafale's M88 and says they can deliver under 18 months, while they've stopped to make the M2000's M53 in 2008-2010 and now are making spare parts only on demand at high price and will stop in 2030. The M88 is way more advanced and the most reliable jet fighter engine on market, they can even make it with vectored thrust, moreover, it's much smaller with less diameter than the M53, this would allow to stuff about 1000L more internal fuel.
Mirage-2000 can already fly Mach2.2 with 95kN and have up to 7t payload... With 100kN of dry thrust, this would mean the ability of a Mach2.2-2.3 in supercruise (!).
It doesn't takes more than 6 months to fit a smaller engine into a jet fighter and fully validate it. The Mirage-III/5 upgrade has seen its Atar-9C replaced by Atar-9K50 as well as, for the Kfir GE J79 and GE F414...
2. Rafale's systems have been designed to upgrade the Mirage-2000 as a plug'n'fight drop-in, in other terms, integration would be freaking easy, SPECTRA would dramatically reduce the radar cross section, AMRAAM is a joke compared to both Meteor and MICA-NG
Now I understand that Greece has a rather large F-16 fleet and... they should also consider upgrading these with M88, even if F-16V's engine is more powerful, the M88 is much lighter and smaller, thus compensating the lesser thrust, then, the F-16's engine is so big that it'd make room for even more internal fuel than a F-16 can have into conformal fuel tanks...
Another big advantage : with two M88, a Rafale's hourly cost is about the half of F-16's spending, so, the hourly cost per F-16/M88 may fall to around $5000-7000 per hour instead of $$22,514 (source : USAF comptroller’s office, 2013) and since Greek pilots are those flying the most in NATO...
Generalising the M88 might be an investment but it would be very fast-compensated with a dramatic slash on costs of use.
The Mirage-2000 fleet may reintroduce the old M2000Cs Greece retired in 2021, as well as getting French or Brazilian ones becoming Mirage-2000NG (moreover, it'd even be feasible to get the retired Nuclear-capable Mirage-2000N, which would be useful e.g. if we put up an EU Nuclear Sharing program based on ASMPA-R...
So Greece can definitively retire its 33 obsolete F-4 Phantom-II as the thrust increase and the high dry thrust will allow a payload even higher than the F-4 or F-16, moreover, thanks to the Meteor and the OSF-IT, if an unfriendly nation, the only one in NATO under CAATSA sanctions, sees its sanctions ending and finally get F-35, or even if they end purchasing Su-57, J-20 or J-31, these would be dead meat nonetheless for Rafale, but also for upgraded Mirage-2000NG...
With 154 F-16s with let's suppose 2 pilots per F-16 flying an average 234h a year (NATO recommands 180h, few fly as much, the lowest annual flight hours in NATO being... USAF with an average 127 hours, near the minimum to keep pilots flyworthy!), the F-16 fleet costs Greece about $1.623bn a year. M88 would reduce the fleet's cost to $450M/year !!!
With Rafale's flyaway cost having been reduced thanks to mass orders, Greece would be able to purchase 1 Rafale squadron a year, just on the money spared on the F-16 fleet !!! Moreover, with the upgrades, be it systems+engine for M2000 or engine for F-16, when the airframes will reach their limits, the elements can be retrofitted on new Rafale airframe...
The F-35 has barely no real interest : it's a money pit with disastrous availability, you won't even fly into a whole year what you can push a M88 in intensive use into a single month, consider about $700M of special hangars per squadrons which will receive shitloads of cruise and ballistic missiles within minutes after the start of a conflict... Thanks to the new form of stealth discovered by ONERA, Rafale F4 is now even stealthier than a F-22 and the latest upgrade to the radar and systems are more advanced than what F-35 is planned to receive in 2030, and it's still nowhere near to achieve what was planned for 2016...
I sometimes wonder how people leading a MoD can understand so poorly the systems and economics, as well as the logistics inherent to their functions, they all seem more into politicizing the procurements believing they'll get some favours e.g. from the US DoS which is rather dubious : bootlicking just gets you crumbs, especially with the Yanks. There is definitively US stuff I'd go for, but surely not when it comes to aircraft or ships: their stuff can truly perform but only if you can have enough to swarm, which can also be done with everything EU-made that is NATO-compatible, but if you have to act in a context with no US/NATO support, e.g. against a non-EU rogue NATO country violating the charter, both parts may be embargoed by the US, as well as they may side with the other, they may even backstab, e.g. Suez 1956 : they sided with Nasser and the Soviets against UK/France/Israel...
aviationweek.com
taskandpurpose.com
www.airforcemag.com
www.thedrive.com
theaviationgeekclub.com
www.newamerica.org
www.slideserve.com
www.popularmechanics.com
www.onera.fr
