Here is the shot from a Sniper XR ATP (EOTS predecessor) promo video. It’s 36 NM, not km.. BIG difference 🙂 IIRC, the system has a image processor that helps to ID images, but I will have to do some digging to verify.

It’s from the 2:35 mark on this YouTube vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTFcmlbn1GQ

There are more vids on the LM Sniper ATP website.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Sniper/index.html

Read that article. It seems that they think it went black as the AF has updated the Fact Page on SBR. It is unlikely that they would update the page if the program was not being worked on, at some level, in another program.

Here is a Patent Link

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=pGsoAAAAEBAJ&dq=5499784

I am thinking of changing my sig to avoid any possible confusion (#3 is the relevant section) 🙂

1. Acceptance of our Terms

By viewing, accessing or otherwise using any of the information created, collected, compiled or submitted by SpudmanWP, you agree to be bound by the following Terms and Conditions of Service. If you do not want to be bound by our Terms your only option is not view or otherwise use the information of SpudmanWP. You understand, agree and acknowledge that these Terms constitute a legally binding agreement between you and SpudmanWP and that your reading of the above post shall indicate your conclusive acceptance of this agreement.

2. Provision of Information

You agree and acknowledge that SpudmanWP is entitled to modify, improve or discontinue any of his posts at his sole discretion and without notice to you even if it may result in you being prevented from accessing any information contained in it. Furthermore, you agree and acknowledge that SpudmanWP is entitled to provide information to you through subsidiaries or affiliated entities.

3. Program Development

SpudmanWP acknowledges that while in the process of reporting, commenting, or otherwise providing information on programs under development including, but not limited to JSF, J-20, JDRADM, JDAM-ER, JSOW-ER, F/A-XX, UAI, etc that he may on occasion use the wrong frame of reference in relation to current capability. This reference shall in no way be taken as a sign of dementia, early onset Alzheimer’s, or any other symptom of a mental defect. These instances should be understood to be a simple reference mistake brought on by circumstances including, but not limited to a typo, lack of food, lack of sleep, responding in kind to a previous poster’s reference, etc. SpudmanWP acknowledges that these programs still have development work to achieve prior to their IOC into their respective services and that these programs may be changed or cancelled prior to their planned production.

4. Disclaimer of Warranties

You understand and agree that your reading of SpudmanWP’s post is entirely at your own risk and that his information is provided “As Is” and “As Available”. SpudmanWP does not make any express or implied warranties, endorsements or representations whatsoever as to the reading of SpudmanWP’s post, information, content, materials, or products. This shall include, but not be limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement, and warranties that access to or use of the service will be uninterrupted or error-free or that defects in the service will be corrected.

5. Limitation of Liability

You understand and agree that SpudmanWP and any of its subsidiaries or affiliates shall in no event be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or exemplary damages. This shall include, but not be limited to damages for loss of profits, business interruption, business reputation or goodwill, loss of programs or information or other intangible loss arising out of the use of or the inability to use the service, or information, or any permanent or temporary cessation of such service or access to information, or the deletion or corruption of any content or information, or the failure to store any content or information. The above limitation shall apply whether or not SpudmanWP has been advised of or should have been aware of the possibility of such damages. In jurisdictions where the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages is not allowed the liability of SpudmanWP is limited to the greatest extent permitted by law.

6. External Content

SpudmanWP may include hyperlinks to third-party content, advertising or websites. You acknowledge and agree that SpudmanWP is not responsible for and does not endorse any advertising, products or resource available from such resources or websites.

7. Entire Agreement

You understand and agree that the above Terms constitute the entire general agreement between you and SpudmanWP. You may be subject to additional Terms and conditions when you use, purchase or access other services, affiliate services or third-party content or material.

8. Changes to the Terms

SpudmanWP reserves the right to modify these Terms from time to time at our sole discretion and without any notice. Changes to our Terms become effective on the date they are posted and your continued use of SpudmanWP after any changes to Terms will signify your agreement to be bound by them.

Who knew reading all those Microsoft EULAs would come in handy. 🙂

I never presented it as what the F-35 is doing today, but what the F-35 will do when it goes IOC.

On the programming front, the increase is needed time has a large part to blame on the time it takes to integrate each sub-block as it comes out of programming. That has nothing to do with CATBIRD. I could show you dozens of quotes praising CATBIRD and it’s contribution to the program, but I think you would just call that marketing 😉

If you don’t believe the tactics of the graph above, then how about a real world example? Read up on Package Q (wiki) & here. It contained 56 F-16s, 14 F-15s (escort), 6 F-4s (SEAD), & 2 EF-111s (Jammers). This does not even touch the support assets (IFR, escorts, etc) that were also required. Package Q ended up with only a fraction of the targets being hit, 3 lost F-16s and two pilots captured. In a testament to good leadership, the USAF restricted Baghdad targets to the F-117 (ie decided to use 5th gen tactics) for the remainder of the war.

While Package Q represented an older way of attacking (gravity Mk-84s instead of SDB, LGB & JDAMs), it still shows that 4th gen assets require a much larger support chain (greater IFR, escorts, jamming, SEAD, etc) than 5th gen assets. That cannot be refuted and has been proven in combat. That is the point I am trying to make.

Yada Yada, when is this wunder waffen gonna be ready again?

Blk2 (USMC IOC) in 2013 & Blk3 (Everyone else) in 2015/16

I see the House has passed a spending cuts budget…

They cut the F-35B, which is in “probation” but actually increased F-35A production.

The point is there are cheaper platforms already doing, albeit using a different method, exactly what the wunder waffen is (according to some) supposed to be the only platform capable of doing.

For what the F-35 can do by itself, most 4th gen systems require more IFR, A2A & SEAD escorts, larger (read more expensive) weapons, greater reliance on AWACS & ISR assets (and their IFR & escort needs), more complex supply chains, etc.

You’re right, that does seem like a simpler & cheaper way to do it… NOT. 🙂

Why do you want or need to get in so close to a potentially lethal oppposing system anyway? Sure that makes sense if you are performing CAS but for anti surface to air, doesn’t make sense.

The F-35 can carry 8 internal SDBs and if there is a hill in the way (conveniently shown in the above Rafele pic 😉 ) up to 24 external SDBs.

With two wing tanks (in a non-opposed long range mission) the F-35 can still carry a total of 16 SDBs & 4 AAMs.

The primary reason for getting up close, when needed, is ROEs. Depending on the situation a positive ID of the target & it’s surroundings may be required. Coming in from down low does not make that possible. Remember the Iraqi army placing AAA in the middle of the markets?

Really? I hear lots of things that it is supposed to have, that lots of people like to claim are sooo far in advance of everything else…don’t see anything actually doing it yet…

Then you are not looking hard enough. Every major hardware part of the program has been through thousands for lab & flying hours. Even the APG-81 has flown against real-world exercises against multiple modern jammers at Northern Edge years ago. Other systems like EOTS, EODAS, RwR, RAM, etc have been tested over and over again long before they ever touched a F-35 airframe.

and it is rather likely that defence spending even in the US is going to get cut.

US military budgets are like the tide, they flow in and out based on which party is in control. Let’s see where it is after 2012 when the BigO get’s tossed.

—edit—

What I said above in picture form 😉

Open in new window for larger pic.