Yes, an incoming missile can be detected by a fighter’s X-band fire control radar. The caveat is the radar must be in an operational mode that allows it to detect the missile.

And within the radar’s field of regard/view.

I hate having to spell things out. I expect posters to use a bit of wit to connect the dots… alas.

If you are willing to blur the lines so far out of focus that you turn infrastructure projects, that govts are responsible for, into vehicle ‘technology’ investments, that govts most definitely are not, then yes I agree there is little point in continuing a conversation.

So… governments do not invest in research?

Research into say, fuel cell powered vehicles, or lower rolling resistance vehicles, or lower drag vehicles?

None of which would be leveraged by industry within the UK…

Of course not.

Again why, as you seem to indicate, is a government giving money to private industry for things it is not responsible for?.

So lowering the operating cost of private industries (through the things I mentioned) will not improve their competitiveness on the global market now?

Building roads does not stimulate the motor industry.

But of course, reducing journey times and cost between point A and point B has absolutely no impact on the commerce passing between the two. :rolleyes:

Likewise new rail lines do not necessarily lead to advances in rolling stock….

You build a high speed line, the rail companies will put high speed stock on it.

individual rail companies have to determine if a new service will have take up before making a purely commercial decision….Govt should have no position on that.

Yes… ‘cos absolutely no rail companies are interested in HS2. Nosireee.

The infrastructure itself is only exportable as intellectual property and is hardly going to be a money spinner.

You are now passing from the land of pedantic to outright stupid.

Unless you are seriously suggesting no UK based company has ever built infrastructure abroad? No company like, say, Balfour Beatty or Mott McDonald for instance.

:rolleyes:

Well, you can use the same money to built and modernize railways, streets or airports and create a real improvement of the infrastructure that is felt by the public and a bonus for investors.

Imho Europe needs to cut its armed forces way more. No more fighting in far far away land, no more wasting money for such adventures.

+1

Far, far too much money is wasted on Military white elephants.

So has the F-35C. 3 successful captures in fact. Despite this it failed one set of tests, obviously the conclusion therefore can and should be drawn that the aircraft is a failure…

:rolleyes:

Oh, right…

SO. Using the basis that each time an F-35 takes off it has to land, you’d be comfortable with a loss rate of 95%? [/SARCASM] :rolleyes:

Unless you think they only tried a barrier recovery 3 times? [/EVEN MORE SARCASM]

The HMD isn’t required, for the DAS to still function as advertised(targets are still displayed on the cockpit displays),

Just like every other RWR and MAWS?

404DifferenceNotFound :confused:

and I strongly suspect that the issues with the helmet will be resolved long before 2017.

In plenty of time for the F-35’s IOC in 2022 :dev2:

Since there are already design solutions to the F-35C’s hook problem I guess this will be as big a non issue as the melting flight decks of LHDs…

So what kind of spring-damping system do you envisage will be able to keep the hook right on the deck during a landing?

While this band-aid fix might solve the problem partially, I would not expect the hook to perform near as well as legacy systems.

I have been reading this thread with much interest and seeing both sides exchange blows, but to take a quote from the QLR regarding an issue in a “classified area” and turning that into signature issues is just plain crazy, it could be, it could also be many many other “classified areas” of the program.

Hence why I used the word “may” and the term “whats the bets”.

Neither are regarded as conclusive terms.

Given the farce of the program so far, it would not be entirely unexpected for F-35s “key” design parameter to be f**ked up as well.

Not as expensive as trying to get something like the Cessna A-37 or a PC-9 to do ‘naval attack’ or ‘intercept’.

Who is suggesting such a thing?

In your view, what is the most cost-effective aircraft to perform so-called CAS missions against a force armed with S-300 AD systems and fielding armoured battle groups?:confused:

Depends what your parameters are.

Carrierborne? LHD? Off an airfield? Supporting assets?