reduced to 60 from 80
The original buy rate was 110 and production would have ended in 2030 (even including the delayed IOC).
Wouldn’t they recieve new Gripen around 2020?
Remember that according to Saab, a C/D can be turned into an E.
If it can and they need to save money then they would want to keep them.
This never-before-seen nighttime F-35 helmet cam footage is both intense and revealing
Navy Presents Revealing F-35 Helmet Display Videos and Flight Test Dangers (excerpt)
I uploaded it to YouTube for ease of use and compatibility:
The missile will know it’s own precise location based on it’s own reading of GPS and the launching asset or a supporting asset can provide a precise GPS location of the target via datalink.
GPS was a game changer in A2G and while it’s effect in the A2A world will not be as dramatic, it’s effect will be substantial, especially as ranges get longer and jamming gets more pronounced.
Meteor does not cruise at Mach 4 out to 200km.
GPS helps with jamming because it can be updated with the target’s precise GPS location from multiple off-board assets (if available) which can allow the AAM to get much closer to the true target in order for it’s own seeker to burn through the jamming.
Typhoon, F-35 and Rafale
If they all stay in and the detailed bids are made public, it will finally allow for an Apples-to-Apples comparison amongst the three contenders.
Very much looking forward to that.
Spud, given the rather limited flight time of AAMs the INS error is pretty small.
Given that AAMs can reach out to near 100nm, even a small error can keep the AAM from reaching the reletively small killbox where it’s seeker can achieve a lock. Throw in jamming and the AAM has to get even closer to “burn through” the jaming.
Furthermore GPS gives your missile a velocity as does INS btw, but target velocity is not obtained through GPS but MCG from tje guiding platform.
The target’s precise GPS location & velocity are provided via datalink. As I said, GPS removes all accumulated INS errors and even helps with jamming.
GPS has absolutely no bearing on the altitude that the AAM autopilot chooses to fly
Every change in direction that a gyro-based INS makes introduces errors which add up to a greater miss chance in the end.
With a GPS-based INS there are no errors so the AAM can fly whatever profile it wants to since it can make a more accurate attack plan. This was covered in detail during the AIM-120D development as a prime driver for the D’s increased range & NEZ vs the C7.
The seeker & battery of an active AAM are too small to prosecute guidance over it’s entire BVR range, which is why all BVR missiles have datalinks to begin with.
Historically the gyro-based INS is used to guide the AAM to the killbox in order for the AAM’s seeker to obtain a lock. During the flight, the datalink can be used to update the target’s last known position. However, because the INS is based on a gyro, that introduces errors that get worse as the range get’s longer and the flight profile get’s more complex.
A GPS assisted INS removes these potential errors so that the AAM knows exactly where it is, exactly where the enemy is, and exactly what velocity the target is on in order to setup the best interception possible.
GPS would do little good for the SM2 since it is a SAR seeker thereby it’s getting constant updates from the ship.
The original SM6 is based on AIM-102C7’s seeker since the D was not available at the time so it did not have GPS.
SM–6 Blk1 has GPS for BVR & OTH shots.
Given that the Meteor is a fixed inlet air breather with a one-way datalink & non-GPS INS, it stays relatively low.
The “LRIP Price” issue is that it’s an annual contract instead of a Multi-Year Buy which in and of itself can save billions for the contract when used on an F-35 scale.
The nice thing about a lofted flight profile (especially a GPS aided one like the AIM-120D’s) is that the endgame is prosecuted with the aide of gravity rather than fighting gravity like a traditional, strait-on shot.
The key lies in their own quote “three times the NEZ of the missile it was designed to replace”.
When the goals & specs for the Meteor were laid down, the only AMRAAM in operational European use was the AIM-120B. Therefore, logic says that if you set the “3x NEZ spec” based on the only AMRAAM you were using (the B) then it is the B that your “3x NEZ” is based on.
This is of course all IMHO.
If you are looking for 2nd hand airframes that are NATO compatible, single engine operating costs, large upgrade potential, etc… Go for the F-16.
LM has already stated that the latest F-16V can be bought as an upgrade package.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2016/Meet-the-F-16V.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/photos/F-16/F-16V_Product_Card2016.pdf