Lockheed Martin contract for AEGIS system development

Careful with that graph Tony – it easy to see the point at which the deficit got seriously bad, and we know what caused it. The recovery was always going to take a long time.

Equally the surplus at the very start of the Labour government was down to existing Tory policy. Now if they’d carried on running that surplus up to 2008 as you should under Keynesian economics, then we might be in a much less bad situation now.

There is no Russian nuclear weapon in Syria. Only chemical. Russians bombed by zarin of unfortunate terrorists

I’ve been told now to ask about Yauza ship sighting wrt nuclear weapons and Syria.

The missile manufacturer and a USN Captain aren’t professional sources/opinions now?

Where do you draw the line with limited LOAL ability before you call it ‘no true LOAL’. Does an R-27ET’s PPS mode count as true LOAL?

So yes, the AIM-9X Block I has a LOAL mode, and note the bit about “increased flare rejection,” and “deficiency in performance against aircraft employing countermeasures (flares)” which also proves you wrong about IIR seekers having some kind of inherent immunity to flares.

I said ‘no true LOAL’ and Raytheon agrees.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/aim-9x/

And given that a Navy captain thinks the same, maybe it’s the case that the LOAL capable was too ineffective or dangerous to be cleared for use in Block I.

As usual, you could have saved some typing with a little thinking.

I’ve witnessed lots of tests where flares didn’t work against an IIR missile and none where they have. Also lots of tests on YouTube with them not working and none with them working, if you need something you can see. Sun is a different matter altogether. Much brighter, very wide band radiation.

What history has shown us, is that advertized Technology does not work like it was supposed to. Rii said it pretty clearly. You need real wartime to see the results.
A very good example would be Ukraine. The **** storm that UAV operators faced was litterly a shock for US foreign advisers. I mean who could have known that UAV could not operate with impunity over enemy battlefields..��
Ukraine also showed what happen when you fly jets and heli without the latest self defense suite aviable.. you lose the air superiority.

I don’t think there’s an equivalence here. Ukraine was never regarded as having state of the art equipment. Most of it was old and Russian, which doesn’t help when you’re up against Russian-backed rebels. And a UAV is basically a glorified RC plane, so yes it’s subject to attrition against air defences, although ECM suites are being looked at I think.

We should not isolate flares as the only counterneasure. Flares is only one in a whole pack of means to spoof any advertized weapon systems. Today where you find flares on a jet, you should also find jammer systems.

But does a jammer work against an IIR missile with an optical fuse? Not unless you have enough power to fry the electronics. An IIR jammer like DIRCM might I guess.

Those appear to be Meteors in there.:eagerness:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxUJLJ-UUAAyJ82.jpg

The usefulness of a datalink during LOAL engagements depends of the match (or mis-match) between the kinematic range of the missile and the target-detection range of the seeker. If the target flies a manoeuvre which carries it beyond the detection range of the seeker, and outside the kinematic limits of the missile, a datalink would serve no purpose. But if a target that flies beyond the detection range of the seeker is still within the kinematic limits of the missile, than a datalink can send updated target information that will allow the missile to bring the seeker to within detection range.

In the case of the AIM-9X Block I, a target flying beyond the detection range of the seeker could still be within the kinematic limits of the missile, so seeker performance was the limiting factor in LOAL capability. But given the emphasis in keeping the missile cost down, this situation was considered acceptable. Adding a datalink to the Block II gave a significant boost in LOAL performance.

If you read my earlier postings, you will see that the quote from Jane’s said that that the datalink “will improve the missile’s off-boresight lock-on after launch (LOAL) capability”, while specifically referred to “a limited LOAL capability”.

So the Block 1 had a LOAL capability, and the Block 2 had a much better LOAL capability.

My original statement that the Block I had a LOAL capability was and is correct. I see no point in getting bogged down by semantic games such as what constitutes “True LOAL”.

Anyway, keep reading those manufacturers’ and users’ public relations handouts, and I will keep attending defence conferences and putting in the legwork at defence shows in order to learn the facts.

Well the LOAL capability was deficient enough in Block I for both the missile manufacturer and a Navy Captain to consider it as having been added in Block II. So I’ll stick with the description of ‘no true LOAL’ as it fairly reflects two very reliable sources that are actually visible.

The importance of datalinks in a WVR LOAL engagement are mostly to make sure that the AAM properly discriminates between Red & Blue in a furball, especially if the targets is using flares or DIRCM. The later would require GPS to ensure that it has the best chance of maintaining a good track of the target.

Well that’s just it. Who could risk an ‘oops sorry mate’ moment? Another reason why I would not consider it true LOAL. And even in testing, friendlies are normally flying behind monitoring an OTS target vehicle.

Considering the harmonisation of tax laws across the EU would certainly be part of the ECJ. And it considers a purposive interpretation of legislation.

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/infringements/eu-court-justice-case-law_en

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/the-eus-court-is-picking-apart-our-laws/

Also:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7027869/British-couple-lose-north-Cyprus-land-fight.html

British couple lose north Cyprus land fight