OMG, I never would have guessed that a Block 1A F-35A would have restrictions placed upon it due to flight testing not being done. :rolleyes:

On the engine issue, keep in mind that these are initial training flights and 52 hours by 4-6 hours a week is one change every 2-3 months…..

How many hours do they plan on flying a year?

@Seahawk:

That time is over. Today it is “we got $XXXX to buy YY numbers of that type of equipment, what is the best I can get for that money?”

Hardly… if there is one thing that this administration has taught us is that it’s “never” out of money. Just look at O’Care. It was billed as a way to save money and now the news is that it will add 6 trillion to the debt within 10 years. He said that the average family’s cost will drop by $2500 by the end of his first term… How did that work out?

What they have done, and will continue to do, is weight the program benefits against what it will cost and make a purchase decision. They may trim the annual buy to fit within a certain budget and plan to make up the buys later, but they are beyond the “reduce capabilities” point as a way of saving money.

Here is the breakdown as of 2012:

GBI is 8/15, 1 Aborted = 53% Success (this the the large, silo-based system)
THADD is 10/16, 3 aborted 63% Success (keep in mind that the 6 misses were the first 6 attempts and they have hit everything since).
PAC-3 is 24/28 2 ‘no-test’ | 2 ‘no-target’ 86% Success (most misses were prior to 2002)
AEGIS SM-3 is 19/24 79.1% Success

So the PAC-3 has the best record of 86%

There are two ways to take a plane out with a missile:

The first is to have a seeker and maneuver ability “good enough” to get “close enough” to explode and damage an object going an average of less than mach 1 and is the size of a 30 ft by 30 ft square.

The second is to have a seeker and maneuver ability to hit a 1 ft by 3 ft object going more than mach 3.

Previous AAM designs have gone for the first option due to the limitations of technology while PAC-3 & CUDA have gone for the second.

Remember that if you do not have a warhead or proximity fuse, then more space can be dedicated to the motor which means a longer range capability.

btw, The PAC-3 and CUDA are not pure HTK designs. They contain a small explosive charge that fragments the missile’s seeker section so as to hit the target with a ~3ft ball of shrapnel rather than a single 7 inch wide (bigger for PAC-3). If the main missile passes you by within inches, you will still get hit with a lot of that shrapnel.

And when did anyone at LockMart last design an AAM?

When did Boeing? It did not keep them from picking most of the JDRADM/NGM development contracts.

You also never know if there are sub-contractors involved. ATK is the likely motor MFG and Lockheed would likely adapt the PAC-3 seeker and maneuver jets.

AMRAAM is the only combat tested AAM? 😮

Oh dear God….

That is so much my BAD 🙂

That is what I get for working till and posting at 1 in the morning.

Sorry, I meant to say Active AAM.

As a 19K I have used both NVGs (IR and LI) and thermal imagers (rifle, tripod, and vehicle mounted) and I can tell you without a doubt that thermal wins every time.

NVGs have problems with any light flares, washout at range, and does not provide the capabilities of EODAS.

Here are some examples of what a NVG shows and is clearly inferior to what EODAS provides.

Now compare that to EODAS

Look at the video again and show me a NVG that can show you that much detail at those distances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYU#!

It’s not just about pixel count, but about what kind and how the data is being presented.

—— DAMNIT ———-

You sucked me in again…. this is the news thread, not the debate thread. 😉