SpudmanWPI can 😉
Internal missiles, as a whole, suffer from vibration less.
It’s common sense. Stick your hand out the windows for an hour or two while driving.
There is also the issue of internal missiles being closer to the center of rotation that means that they will vibrate less.
SpudmanWPReally, what further investments? Brazil is the only thing I can think of and they use H&D.
Again, no source?
SpudmanWPThey did not want the H&D for their tankers, they wanted the boom to work with the EF & F-18.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,240172,00.html
The defense ministry says it gave each contender a score in four areas. A maximum of 50 points was available for aircraft performance, 22.5 for cost, 22.5 for domestic industrial participation and 5 for after-sales support. The F-35 scored first in performance, after-sales support and even cost, which seems surprising for an aircraft that is still in development and for the next few years will be available only at low and costly production rates that Japan is all too familiar with.
The ministry says the F-35A was the cheapest because the Typhoon and Super Hornet would have needed modification for flying-boom inflight refueling. This extraordinary argument assumes either that Japan must use flying booms, not the probe-and-drogue system generally preferred for fighters, or that probe-and-drogue equipment could not be cheaply added to the country’s four boom-equipped KC-767 tankers, as it has to so many tankers elsewhere. The assessment of the F-35 as the cheapest option must have suited the ministry’s need to sell the decision to generally pacifist voters who are worried about the budget deficit.
SpudmanWPYou cannot compare the simple civilian GPS to the MilSpec GPS with INS that the F-35 has. Notice too that that article did not say how close the drone was to the jamming signals.
As far as that RQ-170, there has been no official info on the RQ-170 and could have simply lost power and crashed.
SpudmanWPSpud – Boeing would have paid for it. And if they thought that there was more benefit to be had form having the option, they would not have charged Japan the full price. The Japanese argument is bogus.
So you think Boeing would swallow the hundreds of millions of dollars involved out of the goodness of their heart? Source?
SpudmanWPYou were right the first time, it’s off-topic:
1. The drone was owned by the university and was not a government drone.
2. It was one of those civilian quad-copter types.
3. It has civilian grade GPS, not Mil-Spec jam resistant GPS.
4. The F-35 is not a drone and cannot be hacked to go off course.
5. It’s old news that came out a while back and has been debunked.
SpudmanWPThere are many aspect that drive RCS beyond shape like RAM, RAS, edge treatments (embedded wire, etc), etc. Are you really buying into the ability to run RCS measurements from photos? Read APA much? 😉
Japan would have to pay for the development, testing, and installation of boom refueling for the F-18/EF on their own. Remember that it would have to be spread across only 42 planes.
The Q&A site only says that a supplier has not been chosen, not that development has been stopped or that the plan for Blk5 has been changed.
SpudmanWPOn one presentation I saw, F35 vs F22 it said 4 internal missiles, for the A, I would assume that the B did not have that capacity, as it is limited to 1,000lb bombs, as opposed to 2,000 lb bombs in the A and C.
All F-35s can handle 4 AAMs internal.
SpudmanWPOh, OK. But, I thought NGM was on the chopping block? (or has that changed?)
NGM, as an acquisition program, has been delayed due to lack of need since the F-35 has been delayed. NGM development is still ongoing in the DARPA T3 program which has not been delayed and should be flying a demo in a year or two.
FY2013 budget – Title: Triple Target Terminator (T3)
Description: The Triple Target Terminator (T3) program will develop a high speed, long-range missile that can engage air, cruise
missile, and air defense targets. T3 would be carried internally on stealth aircraft or externally on fighters, bombers, and UAVs.
The enabling technologies are: propulsion, data links, and digital guidance and control. T3 would allow any aircraft to rapidly
switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capabilities. T3’s speed, maneuverability, and network-centric capabilities would
significantly improve U.S. aircraft survivability and increase the number and variety of targets that could be destroyed on each
sortie. The program is jointly funded with, and will transition to the Air Force.FY 2011 Accomplishments: ($18.891 mil budget)
– Conducted preliminary design review of T3 concepts.
– Initiated T3 critical design activities.
FY 2012 Plans: ($30.820 mil budget)
– Conduct hardware-in-the-loop integrated subsystem testing.
– Conduct propulsion system ground testing.
– Fabricate and ground test demonstration vehicles.
FY 2013 Plans: ($38.500 mil budget)
– Conduct captive carry test of flight test article.
– Conduct ground launch of test article.
– Conduct airborne launch of test articles against three target types.
I would dispute it (the first sentence) is necessarily a good thing – ‘cos BVR has not been demonstrated to actually work yet*! 🙂
AMRRAM is perfectly capable of HOBS & WVR engagements. There have been many WVR improvements made to in the in past few versions. You do not have to have TV to be a WVR missile.
Most likely, no version will. The rhetoric around the six-AMRAAM fit has been toned down since 2007.
Mainly due to the delay in IOC has pushed back post-SDD updates. Btw, if they toned it down in 2007, why did they talk about the Skunkworks study in June of 2010?
Squeezing In Two More Shots: Lockheed Martin’s “Skunkworks” operation has figured out a way to increase the F-35’s air-to-air magazine by 50 percent, company officials told the Daily Report Thursday. With “very modest” changes to the weapon bay and “no changes to the outer mold line,” it will be possible for F-35s to carry up to six AIM-120 AMRAAMs internally instead of the four that it can now bear, one official said. (In this configuration, the F-35 would carry no internal bombs.) With six AMRAAMs inside, the F-35 would match the radar-missile capability of the F-22, but without the Raptor’s two infrared AIM-9 missiles. The company is briefing the Defense Department about the potential weapons bay refinement, which could be done as a product improvement in later lots. Limited internal carriage for air-to-air weapons has been one criticism of the F-35 in some circles.
but no firm weapons and suspension and release equipment candidates to accomplish this have been identified to date.
Well duh, since 6xAAM is part of Blk 5 and Blk 5 has not started, then the needs for that have not been identified yet.
By the time F-35 is in service in large numbers, the adversary will have had 25-30 years to work on the problem of defeating F-35-level stealth.
What do you define as “large numbers”? 25-30 years assumes they have any clue as to the F-22’s or F-35’s true RCS and what it is capable of in terms of electronic attack.
Can anyone explain why EF and Boeing would not have cheerfully slapped a receptacle into the Typhoon or SH if that was what it took to compete in Japan?
Because the added cost to develop and test would drive the cost up, which is the point to the Japanese comment.
SpudmanWPThey will?
Is that at the expense of 2 IR AAMs?
6 AMRAAMs would mean no internal IIR, which is a good thing since BVR does not involve IIR yet. NGM includes a multi-mode seeker so every NGM is IIR, radar, and HARM.
SpudmanWPThe testimony was a PUBLIC event. As such (as stated several times during the testimony by numerous), a separate, closed door session could be convened where classified information could be revealed.
SpudmanWPDoubtful, but that’s a moot point as due to if Russian or Chinese fighters are likely, then the USAF and USN will also be there with the F-35A and F-35Cs (not to mention the F-22).
SpudmanWPHow can they evolve? They are not even in production yet.
By 2025 the F-35 will have 18 years of production and post-SDD development under it’s belt. How much will Russia or China have? Let’s see what they R&C can do before we start claiming that the F-35 in 2025 will not be able to handle them.
By 2025 the F-35 will likely have 6 internal AMRAAMs or 6+ NGMs.
SpudmanWPAll comparisons of the F-35 point at engagement with contemporary fighters. It’s always about ”they emit, we don’t, we can see them, they can’t see us, one Fox-3 and you’re good to go”. Noone seems to be bothered with the situation after 2025 where the F-35 would be facing mostly T50s, J-20s or maybe those J-60s or how do they call them.
If all this cost is aimed at providing the operator with some questionable “advantage” for a decade or so, then I wonder if it’s worth it, at all.
You are assuming that the F-35 flying in 2025 is the same as an IOC F-35. It will be at least Blk5 and be flying with much better weapons than are flying today (AIM-9x Blk4+, AIM-120D+++, NGM, Meteor++, etc).
Btw, Blk4 development is already being funded today.
SpudmanWPI suppose you mean cueing. EODAS itself can’t guide a missile in flight, it can just cue it prior launch generating angular target coordinates. Updates could be send by data links, but which DL is compliant with the system fitted on the AIM-9X blk 2?
Currently the EODAS feeds both range info and cuing into the mission computer, not just bearing. Whether this is by triangulation with fellow F-35s or by range estimation based on targets size is not know. As to the specific DL used, that is not known.
Sign In
