Have the laser guided rockets been funded yet?

Using CEC, the new frigates are additional VLS spaces for the Hobart class.

I thought the terrain following was to avoid GCI radar and SAM’s.

And aircraft.

Its a simplified example, but possibly shows what the generations are about. Its that or its a shopping list of features to include or exclude an aircraft for whatever reason.

SM2/SM6
ESSM
5″
US Helicopters
Aegis
US Torpedoes
US Powertrains (less of an issue)

…….

European MU-90 torpedoes are replacing US Mk46 series. However they use the same modified launcher? – MU-90 can be preset with many engagement options, such as no go zones.

I doubt you’d get Mach 1.25 at 200 feet with 48 external Mk82 bombs.

If we call the F-111 a third generation bomber which uses terrain following at night or all weathers to defend from third generation fighters such as MiG-21, early MiG-23, etc.

Along comes the next generation MiG-29/Su-27 fighter, with a game changing technology (look down radar and shoot down capable R-27 [Alamo] series). It stays at altitude and has a higher intercept speed than the terrain-following F-111.

The immediate response is a self escorting fighter such as the F-15E. The final response to fourth generation fighters is a fifth generation technology such as very low observable airframe (F-35, PAK FA, F-22) or VLO cruise missiles such as JASSM, Storm Shadow, etc.

The first 10 are planned to be delivered from 2014. These will initially be in the US for pilot and maintainer training.

In 2017 4 operational testing aircraft will arrive in Australia for integration work with existing ADF systems. These would be the first arrivals.

IOC is planned in 2018 at Williamtown for the first 16 aircraft squadron as Block 3 standard.

Hydraulic, pneumatic, cooling water, fire main, fuel flow rates and pressures.
Electrical maximum demands, voltage drops, system loads, protective device selection, electrical cable sizes.
Acoustic, magnetic and radar signature reduction.
Shock protection, missile exhaust plume effects on ships systems, small boat and aviation systems design.
Ventilation and smoke zones, data, damage control, etc, etc.
Drawings of all the above (don’t get me started on this one!).

Compare the above systems with existing, design new systems including specifications and requirements. How can a ship be accepted for service if the Navy can not measure actual performance against design specs?

All is takes is a couple of different systems, slightly different internal arrangement and it can have a huge effect.

When HMAS Melbourne was commissioned we had to crawl around machinery spaces and validate systems – it was no fun at all, but you picked up heaps.

AFAIK its always been ‘RCS equal to that of a metal sphere the size of a golf ball’, etc.