F-35B Has Flown With Meteor Long-Range Air-To-Air Missile
The U.K. Royal Air Force announced today that an F-35B has made the first test flights with inert Meteor missiles. The F-35B used was a U.S. Marine Corps example from the Integrated Test Force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. So far, 'multiple sorties' have been carried out to gather environmental data as part of the campaign to integrate the Meteor onto the F-35. According to captions provided with related imagery, the first Meteor sortie was flown by F-35B test aircraft BF-18, piloted by Royal Navy Lt. Cdr. Nicholas Baker, on November 20, 2024.
Photos published by the Royal Air Force show the Meteor — which has cropped fins for internal carriage — inside one of the two weapons bays of the F-35B, alongside an AIM-120 AMRAAM. The latter weapon is the F-35's current standard beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile, and the Meteor was designed from the outset to have better range and overall kinematic performance than the U.S.-made missile.
In a media release, Air Commodore Al Roberts, the Royal Air Force's Head of Air-to-Air Missiles, said:
'This milestone is a testament to the effective collaboration between the multinational governmental and industrial partnerships that we have in place. Inclusion of Meteor onto the Lightning II will bring this formidable air combat capability to the U.K. and to the burgeoning F-35 community, significantly enhancing security among allies.'
Eventually, the Meteor will be used by the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B flown by the United Kingdom and Italy, as well as the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A operated by Italy. The fighters will carry a maximum of four Meteors, all internally, preserving the aircraft's stealth characteristics.
In January 2024, the U.K. Ministry of Defense confirmed plans to integrate the Meteor — as well as the SPEAR 3 precision standoff air-to-ground munition — on U.K. F-35Bs 'by the end of the decade.'
Previously, the U.K. government had said that British F-35Bs would be armed with Meteor by the 'middle of this decade,' while a date of 2027 at the earliest had also been given in a government report dated February 2022.
Drop pit testing of AMRAAM, SDB-II, and METEOR from F-35 pic.twitter.com/RKdVnlpigQ
— Doha (@Doha104p3) January 5, 2025
The Meteor, which is already in service on British Eurofighter Typhoons and which completed operational testing and evaluation (OT&E) on Italian Eurofighters in late 2023, is a weapon that TWZ has discussed in detail in the past.
The standout feature of the Meteor is its novel propulsion system, based on a solid-fuel, variable-flow, ducted rocket — better known as a ramjet. This kind of motor can be throttled during different phases of flight. This means it still has sufficient energy during the terminal attack — when traditional air-to-air missile motors are normally losing energy and, therefore, agility.
Thanks to its propulsion system, the Meteor's all-important 'no-escape zone' is much larger than for comparable weapons. This means the enemy's chance of evading the missile at the endgame of the engagement, using high-energy maneuvering, is considerably reduced. Another advantage of the being able to throttle the motor is that the Meteor's autopilot can calculate the most efficient route to the target for very long-range shots.
As with most contemporary air-to-air missiles, the maximum range of the Meteor is a closely guarded secret. However, most sources agree that it can likely engage targets out to around 130 miles from its launch platform. Whatever the case, like any air-to-air missile, its range is highly dependent on a variety of factors, including the track of the target and the height and speed of the launch aircraft.
Along with its ramjet motor, the Meteor boasts a two-way datalink, supplementing the missile's active X-band radar seeker. The datalink provides the missile with inflight updates as it flies out to the target, feeding it mid-course guidance updates from third-party sources as well as from the launch aircraft. Meanwhile, the pilot in the launch aircraft can use the datalink to get information on the Meteor's fuel, energy, and tracking state. That can help determine if and when to fire another, disengage, or even assign a different target of opportunity.
All of this makes the Meteor a formidable weapon for a fourth-generation fighter, but it will really come into its own when integrated with the F-35.
To start with, the F-35 has an unrivaled sensor suite, meaning it can provide more accurate and timely targeting data to the Meteor. At the same time, thanks to the Meteor's datalink, the missile can also receive mid-course updates from other sources. In fact, the F-35 might not need to use its radar at all to engage the target, meaning it can maximize its stealth attributes. It should be noted that the AIM-120D AMRAAM also has a two-way datalink with third-party targeting capabilities, although it lacks the performance advantage conferred by the ramjet motor.
It can be easily imagined how, using its low-observability characteristics, powerful integrated sensors, and advanced networked information systems, the F-35 can go into aerial combat and 'see and not be seen.' The Meteor will meanwhile allow it to engage aerial targets at very long range, including destroying hostile aircraft long before they even know that a hostile fighter is present. Holding the enemy at risk at longer range is becoming more important as advanced infrared search and track (IRST) systems — which are notably aimed at detecting stealthy aircraft — improve and proliferate. .
The Meteor is intended to harness the improvements that the F-35 will bring as part of a massive upgrade initiative known as Block 4. Central to the enhancements is a new multifunction active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar designated as AN/APG-85, which will be coupled with advanced electronic warfare capabilities. The new radar should be able to engage targets at significantly greater ranges and provide improved resolution. This should really come into its own in the kinds of long-range engagements for which the Meteor is optimized. The upgrade will also include a huge enhancement to the F-35's already potent electronic warfare system, and it will address the F-35's Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The EOTS provides an infrared search and track functionality, which is set to be drastically improved as part of the Block 4 upgrade.
Confusingly, while the United Kingdom in 2023 said it planned to retrofit Block 4 across its entire F-35 fleet, as well as incorporate new build examples of the aircraft acquired in the future, it had previously hinted that only a portion of the existing fleet might undergo the upgrade. Regardless, it's not entirely clear how realistic — or affordable — it would be to integrate Block 4 and the related hardware and software for some of its earliest deliveries. Nevertheless, to provide for the integration of Meteor (as well as SPEAR 3 and the penetrator version of the Paveway IV), the Block 4 upgrade will be necessary.
In fact, delays to Block 4 have very likely impacted the timeline for introducing Meteor to operational F-35s, which has slipped to the right.
After all, Block 4 relies upon a new suite of hardware and software, known as Technology Refresh-3 (TR-3), which modernizes the F-35's core processor, memory unit, panoramic cockpit display system, and related avionics. TR-3 has been billed as the F-35's new 'computer backbone,' since it promises to provide 25 times more computing power than the existing TR-2 computing system, but its development has been dogged by problems. These issues left new F-35s being parked up and not delivered after they were built, a situation that lasted for roughly a year.
Adding the Meteor to the F-35 reflects broader trends in aerial combat, stressing the value of increasingly long-ranged air-to-air missiles. The United Kingdom is already looking at a Meteor successor for its future Tempest combat aircraft, while, in recent months, the U.S. Navy has introduced, at least on a limited level, an air-launched version of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) under the AIM-174B designation.
Of immediate relevance to the F-35 is another long-range air-to-air missile, the AIM-260, also known as the Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM). The JATM, details about which are still highly classified, is expected to ultimately supplant the AMRAAM, and, crucially, the F-35A and F-35C should be able to carry six examples.
All these developments are being driven primarily by the emergence of ever more capable very long-range air-to-air missiles in China and Russia.
Meanwhile, for the United Kingdom in particular, there are also questions about how many F-35s they will actually buy.
Before the end of this year, the United Kingdom is set to receive the last deliveries from its initial order of 48 aircraft, known as Tranche 1.
Originally, plans called for a total of 138 F-35Bs, although consistent budgetary concerns have led to an apparent rethink, and there now seems little prospect that this will be realized.
There are meanwhile plans to place a Tranche 2 order for 27 F-35Bs, which will provide a total fleet size of 74 aircraft, although this is still to be signed off. Regardless, a fleet of around 74 is the bare minimum needed to properly meet aspirations for the U.K.'s carrier-based air wing.
Beyond that, however, the U.K. Ministry of Defense has urged caution, saying only that it remains open to the possibility of purchasing further F-35s beyond the 74 now specified.
However many F-35s the United Kingdom eventually buys, the forthcoming introduction of the Meteor will bring a significant boost to the stealth fighter's already impressive air combat capabilities.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
7 hours ago
- Atlantic
This Year Will Be the Turning Point for AI College
A college senior returning to classes this fall has spent nearly their entire undergraduate career under the shadow—or in the embrace—of generative AI. ChatGPT first launched in November 2022, when that student was a freshman. As a department chair at Washington University in St. Louis, I witnessed the chaos it unleashed on campus. Students weren't sure what AI could do, or which uses were appropriate. Faculty were blindsided by how effectively ChatGPT could write papers and do homework. College, it seemed to those of us who teach it, was about to be transformed. But nobody thought it would happen this quickly. Three years later, the AI transformation is just about complete. By the spring of 2024, almost two-thirds of Harvard undergrads were drawing on the tool at least once a week. In a British survey of full-time undergraduates from December, 92 percent reported using AI in some fashion. Forty percent agreed that 'content created by generative AI would get a good grade in my subject,' and nearly one in five admitted that they've tested that idea directly, by using AI to complete their assignments. Such numbers will only rise in the year ahead. 'I cannot think that in this day and age that there is a student who is not using it,' Vasilis Theoharakis, a strategic-marketing professor at the Cranfield School of Management who has done research on AI in the classroom, told me. That's what I'm seeing in the classes that I teach and hearing from the students at my school: The technology is no longer just a curiosity or a way to cheat; it is a habit, as ubiquitous on campus as eating processed foods or scrolling social media. In the coming fall semester, this new reality will be undeniable. Higher education has been changed forever in the span of a single undergraduate career. 'It can pretty much do everything,' says Harrison Lieber, a WashU senior majoring in economics and computer science (who took a class I taught on AI last term). As a college student, he told me, he has mostly inhabited a world with ChatGPT. For those in his position, the many moral questions that AI provokes—for example, whether it is exploitative, or anti-intellectual, or ecologically unsound—take a back seat to the simple truth of its utility. Lieber characterized the matter as pragmatic above all else: Students don't want to cheat; they certainly don't want to erode the value of an education that may be costing them or their family a small fortune. But if you have seven assignments due in five days, and AI could speed up the work by tenfold for the cost of a large pizza, what are you meant to do? In spring 2023, I spoke with a WashU student whose paper had been flagged by one of the generally unreliable AI detectors that universities have used to stem the tide of cheating. He told me that he'd run his text through grammar-checking software and asked ChatGPT to improve some sentences, and that he'd done this to make time for other activities that he preferred. 'Sometimes I want to play basketball,' he said. 'Sometimes I want to work out.' His attitude might have been common among large-language-model users during that first, explosive year of AI college: If a computer helps me with my paper, then I'll have more time for other stuff. That appeal persists in 2025, but as these tools have taken over in the dorms, the motivations of their users have diversified. For Lieber, AI's allure seems more about the promise of achievement than efficiency. As with most students who are accepted to and graduate from an elite university, he and his classmates have been striving their whole life. As Lieber put it, if a course won't have 'a tangible impact on my ability to get a good job,' then 'it's not worth putting a lot of my time into.' This approach to education, coupled with a ' dismal ' outlook for postgraduate employment, justifies an ever more ferocious focus on accomplishment. Lieber is pursuing a minor in film and media studies. He has also started a profitable business while in school. Still, he had to network hard to land a good job after graduation. (He is working in risk management.) Da'Juantay Wynter, another rising senior at WashU who has never seen a full semester without AI, told me he always writes his own essays but feels okay about using ChatGPT to summarize readings, especially if he is in a rush. And like the other students I spoke with, he's often in a rush. Wynter is a double major in educational studies and American-culture studies; he has also served as president of the Association of Black Students, and been a member of a student union and various other campus committees. Those roles sometimes feel more urgent than his classwork, he explained. If he does not attend to them, events won't take place. 'I really want to polish up all my skills and intellect during college,' he said. Even as he knows that AI can't do the work as well, or in a way that will help him learn, 'it's always in the back of my mind: Well, AI can get this done in five seconds.' Another member of his class, Omar Abdelmoity, serves on the university's Academic Integrity Board, the body that adjudicates cases of cheating, with AI or otherwise. In almost every case of AI cheating he's seen, Abdelmoity told me, students really did have the time to write the paper in question—they just got stressed or preoccupied by other things, and turned to AI because it works and it is available. Students also feel the strain of soaring expectations. For those who want to go to medical school, as Abdelmoity does, even getting a 4.0 GPA and solid MCAT scores can seem insufficient for admission to the best programs. Whether or not this is realistic, students have internalized the message that they should be racking up more achievements and experience: putting in clinical hours, publishing research papers, and leading clubs, for example. In response, they seek ways to 'time shift,' Abdelmoity said, so they can fit more in. And that's at an elite private university, he continued, where the pressure is high but so is the privilege. At a state school, a student might be more likely to work multiple jobs and take care of their family. Those ordinary demands may encourage AI use even more. In the end, Abdelmoity said, academic-integrity boards such as the one he sits on can only do so much. For students who have access to AI, an education is what you make of it. If the AI takeover of higher ed is nearly complete, plenty of professors are oblivious. It isn't that they fail to understand the nature of the threat to classroom practice. But my recent interviews with colleagues have led me to believe that, on the whole, faculty simply fail to grasp the immediacy of the problem. Many seem unaware of how utterly normal AI has become for students. For them, the coming year could provide a painful revelation. Some professors I spoke with have been taking modest steps in self-defense: They're abandoning online and take-home assignments, hoping to retain the purity of their coursework. Kerri Tobin, an associate professor of education at Louisiana State University, told me that she is making undergrads do a lot more handwritten, in-class writing—a sentiment I heard many times this summer. The in-class exam, and its associated blue book, is also on the rise. And Abdelmoity reported that the grading in his natural-science courses has already been rejiggered, deemphasizing homework and making tests count for more. These adjustments might be helpful, but they also risk alienating students. Being forced to write out essays in longhand could make college feel even more old-fashioned than it did before, and less connected to contemporary life. Other professors believe that moral appeals may still have teeth. Annabel Rothschild, an assistant professor of computer science at Bard College, said she's found that blanket rules and prohibitions have been less effective than a personal address and appeal to social responsibility. Rothschild is particularly concerned about the environmental harms of AI, and she reports that students have responded to discussions about those risks. The fact that she's a scientist who understands the technology gives her message greater credibility. It also helps that she teaches at a small college with a focus on the arts. Today's seniors entered college at the tail end of the coronavirus pandemic, a crisis that once seemed likely to produce its own transformation of higher ed. The sudden switch to Zoom classes in 2020 revealed, over time, just how outmoded the standard lecture had become; it also showed that, if forced by circumstance, colleges could turn on a dime. But COVID led to little lasting change in the college classroom. Some of the students I spoke with said the response to AI has been meager too. They wondered why faculty weren't doing more to adjust teaching practices to match the fundamental changes wrought by new technologies—and potentially improve the learning experience in the process. Lieber said that he wants to learn to make arguments and communicate complex ideas, as he does in his film minor. But he also wonders why more courses can't assess those skills through classroom discussion (which is hard to fake) instead of written essays or research papers (which may be completed with AI). 'People go to a discussion-based class, and 80 percent of the class doesn't participate in discussion,' he said. The truth is that many professors would like to make this change but simply can't. A lot of us might want to judge students on the merits of their participation in class, but we've been discouraged from doing so out of fear that such evaluations will be deemed arbitrary and inequitable —and that students and their parents might complain. When professors take class participation into account, they do so carefully: Students tend to be graded on whether they show up or on the number of times they speak in class, rather than the quality of what they say. Erin McGlothlin, the vice dean of undergraduate affairs in WashU's College of Arts & Sciences, told me this stems from the belief that grading rubrics should be crystal clear in spelling out how class discussion is evaluated. For professors, this approach avoids the risk of any conflicts related to accommodating students' mental health or politics, or to bureaucratic matters. But it also makes the modern classroom more vulnerable to the incursion of AI. If what a student says in person can't be assessed rigorously, then what they type on their computer—perhaps with automated help—will matter all the more. Like the other members of his class, Lieber did experience a bit of college life before ChatGPT appeared. Even then, he said, at the very start of his freshman year, he felt alienated from some of his introductory classes. 'I would think to myself, What the hell am I doing, sitting watching this professor give the same lecture that he has given every year for the last 30 years? ' But he knew the answer even then: He was there to subsidize that professor's research. At America's research universities, teaching is a secondary job activity, at times neglected by faculty who want to devote as much time as possible to writing grants, running labs, and publishing academic papers. The classroom experience was suffering even before AI came onto the scene. Now professors face their own temptations from AI, which can enable them to get more work done, and faster, just as it does for students. I've heard from colleagues who admit to using AI-generated recommendation letters and course syllabi. Others clearly use AI to write up their research. And still more are eager to discuss the wholesome-seeming ways they have been putting the technology to use—by simulating interactions with historical authors, for example, or launching minors in applied AI. But students seem to want a deeper sort of classroom innovation. They're not looking for gimmicks—such as courses that use AI only to make boring topics seem more current. Students like Lieber, who sees his college education as a means of setting himself up for his career, are demanding something more. Instead of being required to take tests and write in-class essays, they want to do more project-based learning—with assignments that 'emulate the real world,' as Lieber put it. But designing courses of this kind, which resist AI shortcuts, would require professors to undertake new and time-consuming labor themselves. That assignment comes at the worst possible time. Universities have been under systematic attack since President Donald Trump took office in January. Funding for research has been cut, canceled, disrupted, or stymied for months. Labs have laid off workers. Degree programs have cut doctoral admissions. Multi-center research projects have been put on hold. The ' college experience ' that Americans have pursued for generations may soon be over. The existence of these stressors puts higher ed at greater risk from AI. Now professors find themselves with even more demands than they anticipated and fewer ways to get them done. The best, and perhaps the only, way out of AI's college takeover would be to embark on a redesign of classroom practice. But with so many other things to worry about, who has the time? In this way, professors face the same challenge as their students in the year ahead: A college education will be what they
Business Insider
16 hours ago
- Business Insider
'Breakthrough EVs': Ford Stock (NYSE:F) Notches Up on New Battery Details
An electric vehicle (EV) is only as good as its battery, at the end of the day. Legacy automaker Ford (F) is likely aware of this, and has a novel new prospect coming as a result. The new line of EVs Ford has on tap will have an unexpected feature: a much smaller battery. But this is less a problem than you may think. In fact, Ford stock is up fractionally in Friday afternoon's trading. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. So how does a smaller battery win Ford's new EV line any friends? As it turns out, the smaller battery will produce a car with a similar range as those cars with bigger batteries. The battery in question will offer 51 kilowatt-hours of power, which is only about half the size of the batteries currently found in the F-150 Lightning. But if Ford can make an EV that gets the necessary 250-300 mile per charge range that most electric vehicles consider 'table stakes' these days, Ford might be able to make lighter-weight vehicles that are also less expensive, a combination that is only too important in a time when everyone is still feeling the inflationary pinch that started a few years ago and has yet to relent. 'Liquid Carbon' Mustang Of course, Ford is not all about electric vehicles; EVs represent a small portion of Ford's total sales, as gas engines still rule the day. And new reports about the Ford Mustang GTD 'Liquid Carbon' are already delivering some impressive visuals of the kind that might make Porsche (POAHY) quake in fear. Indeed, the GTD Liquid Carbon does look a lot like a 911 GT3 RS. Moreover, it is also a car that has bypassed the paint process and instead stuck with bonded carbon fiber all around. It is not all about looks, though, as reports note the GTD Liquid Carbon features a 'Performance' pack as a standard edition, complete with a DRS flap on the rear win, dive planes, and a 'bigger splitter,' all of which adds up to Ford living up to its promise of ' no boring cars.' Is Ford Stock a Good Buy Right Now? Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on F stock based on two Buys, nine Holds and three Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. After a 8.85% rally in its share price over the past year, the average F price target of $10.74 per share implies 6.24% downside risk.
Business Insider
21 hours ago
- Business Insider
Billionaire Investor George Soros Bets Big on Nvidia (NVDA)
Billionaire investor George Soros has bet big on chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA) in recent months. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. The latest 13F regulatory filing of Soros Fund Management shows that the legendary investor boosted his stake in Nvidia considerably during this year's second quarter. Soros' holding of NVDA stock rose from 17,500 shares in this year's first quarter to 103,000 shares at the end of June. The current stake is valued at $18.5 million based on Nvidia's share price. However, Soros also holds bullish call options on NVDA stock, which are bets that the share price will rise. Add in the call options, and Soros' stake in Nvidia is up an astounding 1,600% from the first quarter. Nvidia is one of the biggest technology bets made by Soros Fund Management. Other Bets However, Nvidia wasn't the only tech bet made in Q2 by George Soros, who famously made $1 billion betting against the British currency in the early 1990s. The famed investor also loaded up on artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure company Broadcom (AVGO), another chipmaker. Soros raised his holdings of AVGO stock to 37,000 shares from 11,000 shares previously. Soros Fund Management also added to its financial technology exposure through Fiserv (FI), increasing its stake to 31,000 shares from just 15,000 shares in Q1 of this year. Fiserv is a financial technology company that helps to facilitate transactions at banks. It is using AI in fraud detection and other areas of banking. Is NVDA Stock a Buy? The stock of Nvidia has a consensus Strong Buy rating among 38 Wall Street analysts. That rating is based on 35 Buy, two Hold, and one Sell recommendations issued in the past three months. The average NVDA price target of $191.26 implies 6.56% upside from current levels.
