As a request to someone else in another forum, I was digging through the SAR reports to track how the costs have progressed since 2001 (contract signature) and what trends were apparent.
While there is no argument that the program has gone significantly over budget, it’s not as bad as it was and it’s getting significantly better. The cost estimates peaked in the FY2012 SAR and have steadily gone down since. Specifically, they have reduced the estimated lifetime procurement cost (over FY2012) by 21% and the R&D budget by 5.5% over the last 5 years. The procurement reduction is very telling and only points to further reduced costs.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248724[/ATTACH]
And if the IAF commits to the F-16 Block 70, rest assured that they will seek and get all the source codes that will allow them to continually develop and support the fleet for another 40 years.
Keep in mind that the F-16 is part of the UAI program so that future weapons/pod upgrades and integration do not require the source codes or a Block upgrade to accomplish, assuming the weapon/pod mfg makes the UAI “drivers”.
Just a note on DDM-NG.
It’s a direct drop-in replacement for the previous DDM. While the sensor itself is capable of providing real-time IR video to the rest of the avionics system (just as the F-22’s MAW does), the avionics system itself cannot do anything with it at this time (again, just like the F-22).
The avionics in the Rafale would need an upgrade in order to process the video data in order to use it for any purpose other than its existing MAW functionality.
In terms of combat avionics, “tacking” means you “know” where a target is, ie a good solid range is a known factor.
That’s why radars have a “detection” range and a “tracking” range.
TBH , i dont remember Northrup Grumman lists passive ranging as a feature of DAS ( i could be wrong however ) ,they also didnt said F-35 need another aircraft for over shoulder shot so i think we can ignore triangulation here.
Remember that “Tracking” is more than “detecting” and requires a range.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248706[/ATTACH]
Likely there to expand the sensor net and provider a stealthier “deep magazine” for their F-35s.
even though as an infrared sensor that lacks LRF, it can only provide bearing
Passive ranging with EODAS can/could happen in two ways:
–Automatic triangulation with another F-35
–Range estimation based on image recognition & last know positions
Well, some people seem to argue that in a few years flying F-16 and F-15 will be extremely risky, and only the F-35 will do….
Only in the context of “since you are replacing them anyways”. Remember that whatever you buy now, has to serve for 30+ years. Military planners think in terms of decades instead of years when planing new purchases.
USAF has recognized that one shortfall of Gen 5 jets is lack of deep magazines.
I think it’s more an issue of keeping 4th gen relevant until it’s replaced combined with the economic realities of both the F-22 numbers and the shift to the right in F-35 production.
ah OK !
Modern JDAMs, multi-mode Paveways, and SDBs use GPS in the same way, INS with GPS for increased accuracy.
And what happens when there is no GPS signal? After all it is a satellite signal. Even heavy clouds affect it! You can’t beat physics!
It’s the traditional INS with GPS for increased accuracy. If no GPS is present, then it can rely on it’s normal INS modes.
Yeah, I am not sure why they accomplish this, my guess is they slave the missile’s seeker head to the plane’s EOTS rather than the opposite so when the missiles is launched it “knows” which way to turn to achieve lock. Lot’s of instantaneous calculations must be taking place there..
You are thinking old school.
In the F-35 it works like this and is the same for either a LOAL 9x or AMRAAM shot:
1. The F-35 calculates the target’s GPS location and velocity (ie bearing, acceleration, and speed) based on any & all sensors or datalinks available (ie sensor fusion).
2. It passes that information to the 9x or AMRAAM (9x Blk2 & 120D use GPS internally while older missiles use traditional INS) along with the F-35’s GPS coordinates & velocity.
3. The missile is launched & will follow the flightpath calculated using data from #2
4. Any F-35 in the area can supply updated data via datalinks where appropriate
5. THe AMRAAM D can also answer back via it’s 2way datalink
The key takeaway is that the weapon is not “linked” to a particular sensor or a particular fighter after launch.
Has it been resolved?
I did read once that the issue was with test equipment that was not certified for the heat levels in the F-35, but I cannot confirm the source.
Given that Gilmore has not brought it up since the original report, it’s likely been fixed.
With all that “active stealth”, it’s funny that you never hear of them ruling the skies at Red Flag :stupid:
Register and it will take you to the webcast.