LM wins Aussie fire control contract

Published: Sept. 27, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Print story Email to a friend Font size:CANBERRA, Australia, Sept. 27 (UPI) — Lockheed Martin has won a $20.6 million contract to improve Australia’s MK92 Fire Control System.

The upgrade is required “to support the introduction of Standard Missile 2 — SM-2 –capability into the Royal Australian Navy Adelaide-class guided missile frigates — FFGs,” Lockheed Martin said in a statement Tuesday.

Lockheed Martin said its MK92 system “provides integrated X-band radar surveillance, target tracking and weapon fire control capability for naval gun and missile applications.”

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin will provide MK92 alterations and related support services for the design, development and integration of the new system features supporting the new missile capability. “The upgrade is part of the Royal Australian Navy’s SEA 1390 Phase 4B program and will be performed by Lockheed Martin Australia in Sydney, as well as Lockheed Martin’s business in Moorestown, N.J.,” the company said.

“The upgrade will ensure robust capability of the Royal Australian Navy FFG fleet against threats that have developed since the introduction of the current combat system,” said Paul Johnson, managing director of Lockheed Martin Australia. “The project complements our Aegis combat system integration work currently underway on the Air Warfare Destroyer project.”

“The MK92 upgrade represents the very first introduction of SM-2 into an FFG-class surface combatant anywhere in the world,” said Stan Ozga, Lockheed Martin’s director for Naval Radar Programs. “With this contract, Lockheed Martin will deliver a major improvement to the FFG anti-air warfare capability and continue more than two decades of support to the operational needs of the Royal Australian Navy customer.”

Lockheed Martin said that “more than 125 shipboard MK92 systems have been produced and are currently deployed in nine different navies — including the Royal Australian Navy — around the world. It has been installed on more than 70 guided missile frigates, as well as a variety of other surface ships including coast guard cutters, corvettes and fast attack craft.”

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Briefing/2007/09/27/lm_wins_aussie_fire_control_contract/8329/

I love those XFV-12!!!!!

Good job.

1Saludo

Don´t forget F-35 in Superman Returns…

And “the final contdown”… F-14, A-6, A-7, Zeros…

There was a (bad) spanish film about the life of a young pilot with some C-101… and and old film “no le busques los tres pies al gato” about the life of a Spanish F-104 pilot… and some more made when Franco dictatorial about the armed forces…

I remember a fil about a dessertion of a Irak or Siria pilot to Israel…

1Saludo

What the hell…???

I´m sure that it comes from a Mi-4, but that new cabin????

1Saludo

Some very thoughtful insight crobato. I rather enjoyed that last post. I’m not so sure I agree with the following though:

Your last sentence in particular troubles me because if you think about it……there are many aircraft throughout history that are considered legends or classics precisely because they were in the right place at the right time. I think a perfect example if the F-4 when it went into Israeli service. It provided the IAF with the capability to do many things that were just not previously possible with their existing fleet of aircraft.

Before I go off on a tangent though let’s look at the Harrier itself. First off let’s clarify that the Harrier was not at any point designed as a fighter. The original intent of the design was as a VTOL strike aircraft that could operate in areas with little or no runway. The whole rationale behind this was the possibility that the Soviets might overrun and/or destroy NATO air bases within a matter of days or weeks due to their superiority in numbers. As with anything, there are always compromises to be made. The Harrier compromised some of the outright hauling capability of aircraft of the time period (i.e. F-105, etc.) as well as the speed and range of other bigger jets for the ability to operate in places that jets like the F-105 (which needs about the same runway length as a 747) could only dream about. Thus, Harriers could be widely dispersed, and they would be readily available to provide a quick response to any potential Soviet ground threat.

As it turned out, the Harrier (when flown by a properly trained pilot) proved that it was quite a good attack aircraft, and in later models was actually able to carry quite a sizeable payload to pretty good ranges even when compared to other conventional aircraft.

The Harrier’s use in the fighter role (aside from general back-up day fighter roles that AIM-9 armed GR.3/AV-8A’s could carry out) was really only born out by the fact that the U.K. decided to get rid of its conventional aircraft carriers, thus taking away a significant portion of the FAA’s ability to defend its ships (a service provided by Phantom FG.1’s). As a compromise, a much lighter breed of carrier was designed and a radar-equipped version of the Harrier that was also designed for operations at sea was born……enter the Sea Harrier. With its roots in the design of a subsonic VTOL strike fighter, obviously the Sea Harrier was not going to be a supersonic design (although it will exceed Mach 1 in a shallow dive), it did prove to be very agile with a decent radar and superb weaponry (30-mm cannon and AIM-9L). The combination of its agility and the AIM-9L (as well as proper ground control from Sea Kings and FAA ships) allowed the Sea Harrier to fight against aircraft that were almost twice as fast. Good pilot training also contributed to their success……FAA Sea Harrier pilots truly were masters of their aircraft.

I don’t judge the Harrier one of history’s greatest fighters because of its astounding success in the Falklands, but one of the reasons I do judge it one of history’s greatest combat aircraft is the fact that an aircraft born out of a requirement for a subsonic VTOL strike fighter was able to be adapted into a decent VTOL air defense fighter for the FAA.

With the advent of more modern radar and the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the FA.2 was born, and the Sea Harrier became more dangerous than ever, proving in exercises that properly flown FA.2’s were formidable opponents even to more conventional supersonic jet fighters.

The American AV-8B variant even has a BVR capability now with APG-65 and AIM-120………how many other attack aircraft can you mention (prior to the Su-34) that have a good capability as a fighter due to features such as those?

Of course the Harrier shouldn’t just be judged on its surprising set of good qualities as a shipboard fighter, but in its overall success throughout its career. It has been exported to quite a few nations, and it has seen combat on an off since the Falklands in 1982. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t carry the weight of weapons that something like an F-15E would, but the newer AV-8B+ and GR.7/9 models are able to carry quite a good-sized warload into combat and they are able to deliver it with the utmost of precision. Sure, the Harrier is hard on the maintenance, but with its unique capabilities you’re going to have sacrifices. The same applies to its speed, range, and payload compared to more conventional aircraft.

The bottom line though is that the Harrier took an unproven concept, and not only did it prove that concept, but it established it as a benchmark of modern warfare. This is proven in the fact that of the five initial operators of the F-35 (i.e. USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, and FAA), three of them are buying the VTOL variant). It is proven in the fact that the Russians attempted to create a counterpart in the Yak-38 only to develop the even better Yak-141 later on.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I hope I got my point across. I’m just saying the Harrier should not be judged for its relative lack of capability in certain areas but in the realization that despite the fact that a compromise was reached in its design, it still managed to prove incredibly successful and thus the influence for many future designs.

See the Harrier for what it is…….not something trying to be a fighter, but something else that just happened to have some decent fighter qualities among its other traits.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harrier RULES!!!!!

I´m 100% with you.

1Saludo

May 30, 1995

The Boeing 777 jetliner becomes the first airplane in aviation history to earn FAA approval to fly extended-range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) at service entry.

Significance of Type: The B-58 Hustler garnered a number of “firsts” during its relatively short service career. It was the first supersonic bomber, the first bomber to reach Mach 2, the first aircraft made of stainless steel honeycomb sandwich and the first aircraft to have stellar-inertial navigation. The B-58 also set more world speed records than any other type combat aircraft.

http://www.strategicairandspace.com/collections/B-58.html

It isn´t the first to make a supersonic ejection of a bear???

1Saludo

😀

There cars are different
see

they are as similar as the Tu-204 and the Boeing 757 are to each other

http://img.lenta.ru/articles/2006/05/19/arrestair/picture.jpg

http://www.know-library.net/images/thumb/e/ea/320px-Condor_Boeing_757_Sonderlackierung.jpg

But i am sure when the PAK FA is flown and showed to the media many will say it looks like a copy of the F-22 :rolleyes: 😀 😉

otro saludo другое приветствие

Yes I know that… but they are very very similar… and there was another (Mazda 121, which was a version of the Ford Fiesta), and several years ago there was a commercial trade between Mazda and Lada… who knows they didn´t buy the engienering blue prints… like they do with Renault and their engines…

I only put that ford photo because it was very interesting for me, they seems very similar… I don´t like to discuss anything more… ¿ok?

Between the F-22 and PAK-FA… well we must wait

1Saludo