Inert bombs used for accuracy testing do not explode. 😮

What are the detonations at 0:38 and 0:39 (and on 0:34, 0:35)?
Inert filling?

As for your assertions about HARM, you’re generally right.
However, HARM doesn’t fly ballistic after emitter shutdown, but towards emitter’s last INS position (HARM isn’t a Shrike).
Judging by the amount of fired HARMs and amount of scored hits, it’s very unlikely that all those HARMs fell 100+m wide of mark.
It’s more likely that on occasions, missiles detonated within (or close to) nominal “deadly” blast radius, but for various reasons failed to destroy the target.

GBU-40 will have problems with arriving over the target in time, especially in case of tanks and similar highly maneuverable vehicles.
This is why Maverick (or some other AG missile) still is and most probably, will remain in arsenal.

But to be honest technology evolves and with dual-mode seekers it becomes more difficult to escape destruction than before and the terrible miss rate of HARMs was also owed to a lot of pre-emptive shots which weren’t really aimed at destroying the target, but supress it, hence SEAD.

True, and 17 kg is enough, but only in a case of a direct hit.
You can even use Sidewinder in AG role, if it proves to be accurate enough.

However, a CEP of 5-8m for a 17kg warhead is way too much, against targets that survived HARM’s 68kg blasts.

This thread has gone ridiculous, as threads driven by fans, usually do.

Secondly, their radars can’t track VLO targets at 90km. They’ll be lucky if they can track them at 20-30km.

Are you making this claim out of your extensive experience operating S400 against LO designs like F117/F22/F35, or you simply “know” that based on your vast radar/stealth expertize?

I guarantee you if an SDB hits within 5-8m, it’s going to ruin your day.

Well, if you guarantee that, then it must be so…LOL!

when i went to school that doesnt make it 3 times as dear on a cost per LB thrust basis
its about 50% dearer for a LRIP engine per LB

JJ, you went to school?
Well if so, then you should have learned that if F414 has half the thrust of F135 and costs 1/3rd, then it’s more $/thrust effective. Period.

the f135 is said to drop about 40% in price, that will come out to near enough the same price for 2xf414 or a f135 per Lb

By whom?

if you then factor in the rising cost of the f414’s as per your example 1/2m ea per yr, there may be a cross over point where 1 f135 will be cheaper than 2 f414 and including maintenance it should definitely have a lower life time cost

Another thing you don’t get here, is that F414’s price doesn’t go UP, but is within normal FY market and inflation fluctuations.
F135’s price is hit by those same factors too, but it’s still way over it’s constant price, effect of which will be seen in less price decrease during the same period.

F414 is actually about $4m per piece, while average price for F135 for FY2010 is $14.3m per piece.
If you’re referring to USN FY 2010 budget, it’d be good to make a distinction between propulsion unit and single engine.
The price of $7.9m (in 2009), or $9m (in 2010) is for the F18E’s propulsion pack, which consists of a pair of engines.
So, the F414 is about 3-3.5 times cheaper than F135.

LOL read my post again

and just so this doesnt get lost in the pages of nonsense that will follow, this was the 3a contract
9b/112 EF’s= 80m euro or 67m pound or us$100

JJ, this is NOT a flyaway price, but a price for a batch and you don’t have a clue what it includes (apart from additional engines, which clearly points to NOT being flyaway price).
Where does it say it’s flyaway price??

arguing with you is fun
i got 59m from scorpion for t-3a and rounded it to 60m
which sounds like a flyaway if the contract was for 80m
but by all means put up a creditable link to prove your point on the flyaway, as i’m not making a direct claim as i havent even looked at an EF contract
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1610218&postcount=307

Yes well, here it is…http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/27/224146/ila-2008-indian-bids-add-spice.html

Flyaway £42m and this is a price for INDIA!! (doesn’t say but most probably T3, since this one is offered to India), not a partner nation.
So yes, Mr.Lake is most probably right on £37.76 for T2.
You came here with £60m tag and I’d like to know, where from.

LOL and on top of all, you’re quoting Scorpion82, which haven’t wrote a word “flyaway” once and gave price in € not £, in the post you’re quoting?

the claims are solid
well the author didnt say where he got his numbers from because his estimate of 70m GBP / $107.6m USD might include other things
the purchase of the 2 UK Test LRIP is $126m each now, so the production price should be less than $107m for the f-35b

but even worse case scenario, it is 70m pound flyaway
the T2 EF is ~60m pound and T-3a would be dearer
and only a fool would say ef is better value

Mr.John Lake reported RAF receiving T2 EFs in 2009 for a £37.76m per plane, which is today about $50m, but was somewhat more in 2009 due weaker Dollar.
This is a flyaway price, of course, but can you actually produce a source which says that EF costs £60m, apart from Wikipedia estimation??
(which BTW ranges from €63m to £69.3m, meaning the author doesn’t have a clue)