Since you lost the “AMRAAM has no HOBS” argument, it’s sad that you are now trying to redefine HOBS into a narrowly structured ideal. The fact is that HOBS means just that, a High (as in +90 degree) Off BoreSight missile.. which the AIM-120D is.

While there are better HOBS missiles than the 120D, that was never part of the discussion. What I, and others, have posted was not some PR documents, but interviews and official Government financial docs.

Are you claiming that they are wrong and the 120D does not have HOBS? If so, back it up with something besides your self-defined version of HOBS.

From the 2009 USAF Weapons Gallery
Source

AIM-120B/C/D are upgraded, reprogrammable
variants
of the AIM-120. The AIM-120C currently in production has
smaller, clipped control surfaces to provide for internal carriage
in the F-22A and F-35, and involves HOBS launch
capability. The latest development (AMRAAM Phase 4)
adds an enhanced electronic protection suite, two-way data
link, and GPS-aided navigation in the AIM-120D version.
Production began 2006.

From the 2008 USAF Annual Financial Statement
Source

AMRAAM Phase 4 (AIM-120D) builds on the AIM-120C-7 capability and is progressing. This new AIM-120D missile will add a GPS/INU and a 2-way Data Link to enhance accuracy and control, and thus, increase weapon effectiveness. In addition, the AIM-120D will have increased range and third party targeting which expands the High Off-boresight launch envelope. The SDD contract was awarded in December 2003. Captive flight testing has been initiated on the F/A-18C/D and F-15C/D. SDD is scheduled to complete in June 2009. Proof-of-design units and proof-of-manufacturing units are being used to support simulation/integration labs, production test equipment development, and ground and flight tests. Production for AIM-120D is scheduled to start in 2nd Quarter, FY 2009 and continue through FY 2024.

From 2005 Janes.com interview of Lt Col Tim Morris, the Air Force’s AMRAAM phase 4 programme manager at Eglin Air Force Base
Source

The new datalink will replace the missile’s existing receive-only link and enable the missile to report back after launch its status downrange to the launch aircraft, he said. Among the benefits, this will expand the AMRAAM’s capacity for ‘high-off-boresight’ (HOB) engagements, he noted. HOB engagements are where the missile goes after a threat in its launch aircraft’s rear hemisphere.

btw, the AIM-120D goes IOC in 2011

Once again you are wrong. When the EODAS goes IOC in 2013, the AIM-120 will do HOBS. Will it be as maneuverable as a TVC 9X, obviously not. But the fact is that the AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D are both listed as having HOBS ability.

Whether the A2A cuing comes first, last, or in the middle… it will still have it at Blk3.

btw, ATK (the manufacturer of the AIM-9X and AIM-120’s motors) was recently awarded a contract to design the next gen of AMRAAM motors.

If there is a specific function of the EODAS, or any other system, that you think is not going to happen….feel free to be specific.

{re:360*360} So the capability you quoted doesn’t exist just yet.

We still are years to the full 360X360 capability and everyone is trying hard, Europe, the USA etc.

4 years to be exact. The sensor technology is done, and all that is left is the integration tech and testing.

The first USAF F-35A Block3 squadron goes IOC in 2013 will full IRST and EODAS integration. The initial AAM for the F-35 will be the AIM-120C7 and will quickly transition to the AIM-120D.

The heat management issues were related to sitting on the tarmac with the engine at idle, not flight operations.

And why RCS? It’s not sweeping like a mechanical radar. It’s a gimbaled design that can rotate. And the operational gains are worth the effort if you ask me. Significantly increased FOV and much better performance within the usual FOV. The rotating mechanism is not going to be more expensive to maintain than a conventional mechanically swept dish.

Any time you have moving parts, those parts will wear out. That combined with the constant maintenance checks for mechanical wear and electrical connections wear will increase maintenance costs.

Let me put it this way, the F-35 has been designed so that the maint tech can access all the radar electronics (except the array itself) without having to open the raydome.

This allows for a ten year timeframe between raydome removal. Imagine all the maint time saved by not having to reapply the stealth coatings every time the raydome is removed.

Oh God, I think I am going to barf…. sour taste in my mouth…. here is comes…

I agree with Dare2. 😉

Damn, that tasted bad.

But seriously, a swashplate does not equal a generational leap in AESA tech. It is just a simple way to get a larger field of view at the cost of mechanical failure, increased maintenance costs, and increased RCS.

An example of a generational leap would be the T&R miniaturization seen in the move from the APG-77 to the APG-81. Btw, the APG-77 is being upgraded with teh 81’s T&R modules.

Not so fast…
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=11101

Davies: both carriers will take JSF
Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Both the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers will be able to carry the joint strike fighter (JSF) according to defence equipment and support minister Quentin Davies. Speaking in the House of Commons he also rubbished the Gray Report’s claim that there was a £2bn annual overspend in the MoD’s equipment programme.

In October, it was reported that government would downgrade either the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales carrier, taking away their ability to carry the JSF. Reports stated the MoD was looking to save money on the 65,000 tonne carriers, which are already £1bn over budget.

Davies said reports the carrier plans were to be scaled down were “complete rubbish”.

“There is no suggestion at all, and there has never been in our minds at all, to re-specify the two aircraft carriers,” he said.

“There has been no change in that programme, and neither has there been any change in our JSF programme. We are already committed to purchasing the first three aircraft.”

He also said there was “no evidential basis” to the statement in the Gray report that between £1bn and £2.2bn was being lost each year as a result of failure to control equipment spending.

“The very fact that the range is between £1bn and two point something billion shows how imprecise that statement inevitably would be,” said Davies.