To develop the terrain avoidance system they relied on a smartphone equipped UAV with the phone running the algorithms, yet they have the F-16 using them now. With MALD its the RCS morphing that's critical not just speed and altitude, for the latter a suitable asset can always be chosen
Any MALD type/role decoy, especially one designed for the air has to successfully accomplish two things -
1) Mimic the flight performance of the aircraft it is meant to be a decoy for. This means that it needs to perform at some of the altitudes, and at some of the speeds your strike package is expected to perform at in order to obtain the desired effect.
2) It needs to mimic the signatures of the aircraft it is replicating (radio-frequency repeater tasks from your RFD payload)
One is useless without the other. If the enemy has half a brain it can figure out that the threat it is confronting is not what it is made out to be. Hence you put these sort of requirements into the design of a capable decoy that can perform with a reasonable degree of success against a competent enemy. Similarly ground based radar / IAD decoys are designed to look like their actual radar counterparts and are given electronic signatures that closely resemble that of the actual system in addition to having other features (supply and support) that trick the satellites or aerial assets into believing that they are legitimate targets.
If you have this as a decoy -
using an electronic signal mimicking this -
You are unlikely to get many ARM's diverted to destroying you and Jihadi Joe can continue with his uninterrupted dose of Al Jazeera.
Well, if they want they could arm the MKI with the AAD, 3 nos for boost phase intercept (BPI) but not sure if they can guarantee loiter times over hostile airspace. Unlike the PDV, the AAD isn't a two stage missile, not sure how much altitude it can gain. while such a "mobile battery" is entirely possible with terminal phase intercept, will IAF spare any away from the front lines? For BPI a more practical approach is to target the remote launchers themselves and HTT-40 with some precision bombs might work
The concept has been tried out and worked in the USAF by the MDA. They took the warhead out and made the NCADE into a "Hitile" (added range) and strapped on a aim-9x seeker for a completely fire and forget performance. The problem is that your assets allocation for such a mission is huge and you really need to divert a $hit load of tactical platforms if you want to do anything worthwhile even with the ability to be at 50K feet and supersonic. The consensus at the time was that a PAC-3MSE would work the best given it would have better kinematic and range performance but that puts other strains such as size of the weapon and again the same issues with amount of resources to be allocated comes up. What was the conclusion? Think of this mission as a " lucky chance" type of a thing so that you have a weapon on you if required. The Next Gen. Missile was slated to get this capability (cruise missile defense) but there are/were no plans to have dedicated interceptors for such a mission because it is a huge drain on resources.
You complicate the matters further by putting a very complex and high-capability interception routine on a trainer aircraft that cannot exist at medium-high altitude and has a dash around mach .4 or .5. It only adds to the situation especially when your platform is severely payload restricted both from a weapons point of view and an electronics package point of view (weight and power). A very very (can't stress the very enough) bad idea, no matter which way you look at it. Hence you won't see it implemented by any nation anytime soon if ever.
You'd be lucky to get 15 nm range from an AMRAAM ( and I'm being very generous here) when launched at 15,000 feet at mach .4. Cruise missile defense intercepts are also not as straight forward as air to air launches where you have closure rates that greatly add to your weapons-range and performance.
Like I said, there is a reason why 100% of the airborne tasks for a CMD/BMD mission is ISR and early warning and is likely to remain as such. If you substitute a turboprop for a jet figther you loose the kinematic advantage of the weapon, and also loose the ability to quickly cover large areas of land. Your ISR is useless if your asset cannot get in time for the intercept or if the intercept itself is severely impacted by the energy your platform is able to (or in this case unable to) impart on the weapon. You are also severely crippled by the ability to carry a larger weapon or boosters, or multiple weapons. This means that you need to have a ton of aircraft with overlapping orbits to overcome their inability to actually conduct a meaningful "intercept" and that not only is a bad idea logistically speaking (poor allocation of resources) but over a large area of land it is likely to severely stress your ability to provide meaningful/actionable Cuing and jam-proof hand-offs given that a majority of the intercept calculations are to be perform remotely given the limited ability of the platform.