They have similarly sized radars, and F-35s with AESAs actually exist…

The point is that a longer ranged weapon plays to the F-35’s strengths… it can already strike from longer ranges than it can be detected. With meteor it wouldn’t even be sporting.

Don’t forget the F-35 more advanced ESM and it’s ability to coordinate attacks with fellow F-35s without giving it’s position away.

If you are going to smile.. .show some teeth 🙂

[ATTACH=CONFIG]249351[/ATTACH]

The Mk3 is just the latest version and can be launched from naval vessels as well as aircraft.

Given that they are both built by Saab… it’s a no brainer.

I honestly don’t know enough about what “allotted to set not-to-exceed prices” is to definitively comment on it.

However, the 2nd part of your question is easy. At the beginning of every LRIP contract the DoD gives LM a “down payment” to get the ball rolling while they hammer out the details of the contract. It usually takes about a year after the down payment for the negotiations to finalize the deal and for LM to start getting paid directly for the LRIP in question.

Here is the problem, the DoD did not want to do that this time as they wanted to combine LRIP 9 & 10 negotiations without any kind of pre-planning. This means that it is now two years after they started LRIP 9 and the contract has not been signed but LM has still been building the jest for the LRIP & paying subcontractors for their work. A few months back the DoD gave LM another $billion as an extra “down payment” but your link above is stating that since LM is in the final phase of construction for that LRIP, it is burning through the money quickly.

Per normal financial practices any “down payment” that LM receives will be deducted from the final contract award prior to them getting paid. It is not “extra” money that LM makes.

Certainly in the test I referenced the F-35 was not talking directly to the SM-6 but linking back via MADL to the host AEGIS site. I don’t know about the test you are referencing, would appreciate a link if you have it, but would expect it to be similar but perhaps conducted via Link 16.

I am not aware of a mechanism for F-35 to talk directly to the SM-6.

Here is the 1st one that I found (missile launched without a pre-defined target).

US Defense Secretary Announces Navy Can Blow Up Anything It Wants, Any Time It Wants
By Ryan Faith February 3, 2016 | 3:30 pm
The US has already run tests with the SM missile and the F-35 fighter-bomber, in which an SM missile has been fired from a ship but with no target identified. An F-35 in flight took control of the missile in midair, and then as the missile proceeded downrange, handed control of that missile to another F-35.

https://news.vice.com/article/us-defense-secretary-announces-navy-can-blow-up-anything-it-wants-any-time-it-wants

Here are the details on the second (most recent) that shows that the F-35 talked directly to the AM-6. This actually is quite easy since the SM-6 has an AMRAAM front end so would also have the datalinks.

The mission was the latest in a test series for Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air, or NIFC-CA, a program designed to link U.S. Navy ships and various airborne sensors, such as the F-35, into a single integrated sensor network. During this capability demonstration, the SM-6 received continuous updates from the network, including the fighter aircraft, leading to the successful intercept of the target.

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/sm-6_first_of_a_kind.html

it was concluded it wasn’t a DSI but more like a shock cone.

um, The only difference between a shock cone and a DSI is the lack of a diverter & movement with DSI.

F-23 is DSI, pure and simple.

JDAM anti-GPS jamming tests

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/1998-04-23-Boeing-Anti-Jam-GPS-System-Demonstrating-Outstanding-Performance-in-Testing

GPS jamming Seekers

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2015/05/31/guided-bomb-makers-gps-jammers-battlefield-spoof-munitions-laser-jdam/28117951/