It’s not simply a dumb backend attached to a bomb, but rather the frontend is a brain & (optional) sensor package attached to enhance delivery of a payload. The payload is essentially yet another system integrated into the backend
The original program used ins, GPS, and command links They’ve used laser guidance and millimeter wave to expand the utility of SDB. Put whatever frontend you want on it, but it’s still an SDB.
The issue is more about tort than playing fair. The system has bugs, it’s a given. It might even have backdoors to turn it off. But the flaws that kill their own are the ones that will affect you first. Hiding flaws that could be found by partners is a lose-lose proposition for all of the participants.
How is it a rebuttal? It doesn’t refute what I said, it’s a picture of a DIFFERENT weapon.
New nose, same backend.
Actually MiG, they bought the flight test data from the Yakovlev 38 and 141 programs for the F-35. (The similarities are painfully obvious.) So they would have done it without input from BAe.
Yes, the code expectation is obvious. This isn’t Windows 7 where they offer the OS as a “lease”. When you are buying the platform and it requires software to work you do expect the software access to troubleshoot problems. This is life or death for their service men.
Nope, that’s unrelated to the YC-14 design. It’s a YC-15 on steroids: same configuration, but everything much bigger, & over twice the power, empty weight, payload & max T/O weight.
You got me. I always confuse the two. The yc-14 was the overwing engines whereas the yc-15 was the blown flaps.
And designers in the 50’s worked with worse materials and opted for fuselage mounted engines…
Those are SDB Is. They don’t hit moving targets.
Says who?
edit: djcross posted the picture of the obvious rebuttal to sferrin 🙂
Trojans are just as easy to hide in hardware. The real crux is the hidden microcodes that the source will allude to being in the hardware. You want to know all the undocumented aspects of the hardware if you are going to certify it being reliable or problem ridden. You can crash quite a few microprocessors out there by using hidden features within them, which is all you need to compromise the control of the system as a whole.
Too bad the US didn’t go forward with the YC-14. 🙁
They did, its called the C-17.
michelf touches on the idea that the improvements are within the realm of possible. Very rarely has the infrastructure not been improved with the advent of new aircraft models. This is a completely normal evolution of the force structure. In reality the upgrades match pretty close in timing for scheduled maintenance and improvements of the same airfields. It merely piggybacks the new construction onto the current programs of reconstruction that would have taken place anyhow.
I wouldn’t want the foreign services getting a sneak peek at the F-22’s strategies and abilities. Save them as the ace in the hole, so to speak. Twenty years from now, when the newness is worn off and something better is available we can squander this ‘hidden quantity’. Until then please keep it safe from prying eyes.
It may be a pig, but its an incredibly powerful and thunderous pig.
F-35 isn’t the only platform that would be supported by Growler.
Increasing thrust would help fix the power limitation for the weapon system. You could afford a stretch with the extra power, too. Using more fuel to increase thrust really highlights your internal fuel limitations, which would be the motivation to avoid the change. A stretch gives them room to grow and avoid getting pigeonholed out of future competitions.