My understanding is that the problem is primarily financial, rather than technical.
The Tornado F3 CSP (Capability Sustainment Programme) was originally intended to give the aircraft full AMRAAM and ASRAAM compatability, but that both missiles were integrated less fully to save money.
In the case of ASRAAM, the integration was not digital, restricting it to AIM-9 acquisition modes and making it impossible to use ASRAAM's full off boresight potential. Nor was a helmet sight funded. This would not have been technically challenging.
In the case of AMRAAM, the decision was taken that it would be ok to launch these on an inertial track, without the two mid-course updates which give the aircraft much of its deadly accuracy, allowing the missile to alter course before its onboard active seeker took over. Senior MoD sources decided that the required datalink was unaffordable, that simulations showed that "you are better off not using mid course guidance with AMRAAM" and that enemy aircraft could be picked off using ASRAAM as they made "evasive manoeuvres against the F3's initial AMRAAM shots". The planned AMRAAM optimisation programme was therefore cancelled.
There is little doubt that this modest and inexpensive programme would have given the F3 a more robust AMRAAM capability, and would have prevented the present 'situation'. Is it not thus the case that fingers should be pointed more at short-sighted and money-fixated senior officers, civil servants and politicians than at any supposed shortcomings in the F3 itself?
It was interesting that the Telgraph quoted an MoD source as saying that: "The Amraam missile is not part of the RAF's inventory at the moment."
I was under the impression that AMRAAM had already entered service (with squadrons and not just the OEU). I was even slightly convinced that the weapon had been deployed on Resinate South. Does this mean that the weapon has actually been withdrawn from use?