Thnks for that specs sheet, MadRat..

I must have missed the C-5M data on there tho…;) Since we’re face-lifting the intriguing discussion of a transport-missile truck, one could wonder if older C-5As upgraded to full C-5M status would contain enough effect to weigh the cost benefit? Or forget it..

edit: nvm, it’s getting ridiculous 🙂 Maybe better afterall to just re-engine B-52 with 4x 40k lbf class engines and the B-1 with F119 (plus new canopy) and call it a day.

If the embarked air wing’s sole purpose is to fight A2A combat, then CVF is a dismal failure.

Aircraft carriers are meant to project power from the sea… F-35A/B/C was designed to kill those uncooperative ground targets [sophisticated SAM networks] in denied areas

The intent of the above 2v2 example was not to configure the most dominant A2A aircraft conceivable for USN service, no. It was just portraying an example to better explore an actual mid-term, relevant 2018 capability in that role. (hardly a role to discount).

But to address your point, one might suggest that a FOC block III F-35C (W/SDB?) in 2018-2020 will probably not be establishing it’s primary role as hunting S-400 sites (despite all the popular PR hype today). To the contrary, they’d (very small numbers of F-35s) probably want to leave those alone and avoid the contest. I.e., given an hypothetical retaliatory counter-strike sortie requiring an F-35C strike in 2018, the role would logically require a stand-off strike truck – effectively evading the heavy SAMs en route to strike launch points (while not wasting a time-sensitive open window and the ordnance looking for them and decoys).

At some point, they might design a Wild Lightning II, sure, but for the mid-term at least it’s poised as a strike truck deterrence.

I’d agree with Obligatory re: a wing-mounted regular version Meteor being the most cost-effective way to start off. Especially with those 2x Storm Shadow rounds hanging underneath (as depicted in linked pic). Kinda defeats the purpose of trying to hide your AMRAAM missile inside.

And regarding this quote: (US Air Force officials, meanwhile, are seeking approval in the next budget cycle to develop a new, long-range missile to replace both the AMRAAM and Raytheon’s AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile.)

I’m still going with studying an air launched ESSM variant and for the dual-role case stated above especially, maybe it could incorporate the conformal W-band mmW seeker (from the AGM-88E) along with the enhanced -9x IIR seeker? It just seems there might be some already existing OTS programs including proven platforms which could be more rapidly developed at far less expense. Not saying they shouldn’t continue the long-term JDRADM program in conjunction, but imho DoD needs to think about making smarter defense development and acquisitions thats all (not just talk about it), and to maximize/evolve already existing solutions.

I have to wonder if the still yet to be negotiated LRIP IV lot contract was going to be tied to a fixed price based also on let’s say 42 FY11 jets?

The current avg FY11 per unit cost estimate based on 42 units is apparently about $206m ea. We’ll have to wait and see now how any revised FY11 Procurement numbers will further affect price for that lot, let alone the above said FY10’s.

One can only imagine now what Congress will be able to or willing to fund in terms of FY12 procurement and how that factors in too.

Regardless, this 20% off $76million per jet distraction, etc, is unfortunately irrelevant to actual budget and acquisition planning being based on the full Procurement Unit Cost which can get way up there, unexpectedly.

🙁

I might be overplaying the capabilities of CIWS (suspect I am as Norway is happy with NSM and Sweden with RBS-15, both high sub-sonic) but it seems to me that modern CIWS are increasingly capable of dealing with current anti-shipping missiles, and one way of defeating them is super-sonic sea skimming missiles.

Given the draw down of subs in the RN it would be nice to have the ability to threaten an enemy task force with either a torpedo launched by an Astute class submarine or by F-35 launched anti-ship missile. I guess I am just greedy 😀

Greedy would be wanting your F-35 operational by 2018 🙂

But perhaps an off-the-shelf alternative capability for modernizing your anti-ship deterrence could include mating your GR4 launch platform w/ a modified, air-launched, supersonic ‘diving’ SM-6? (minus the booster). Maybe a configuration equipped with say a dual AGM-88E seeker + added IIR seeker (of the SM-2 IIIB)? Not sure how feasible… but anyway, just my 2 explosive cents..

OK, thanks for that summary, Nocuts. Fair enough and those are good questions to ask. I too was contemplating a further upgraded license-build rather than native production build LCA, if feasible politically, technically and cost-effect wise.

Was also assuming some updated +10% EJ200 mod being required for naval.

So if say 6-7 yrs is on the table to play with, then the pertinent parties could possibly get cracking and keep on target? Just hoping RN gets the best overall possible long term solution considering all the potential, significant consequences of gambling wrong. Might have to take a more dramatic compromise than ever forecasted, IMO, that’s all. Tough business.

Unfortunately, if the £ is somehow re-valued between now and say 2015 at a lower valuation compared to USD today, that 10£ would then further inflate accordingly.

Anyway, not to ruffle feathers too much on this sensitive subject (as an outsider) and in no way to disrespect RN and MoD decision making (and of course, the fanboys God bless us all)… but once again, I just keep going back to contemplate whether some kind of quid pro could be worked out with Typhoon being selected in MMRCA; with RN and perhaps Italian AM (and possibly Spain too?) selecting the ski-jump capable naval Tejas under development in exchange? Part of the sub-assembly (and thrust vectoring EJ2000) could be produced in EU too? I know about the Tejas being controversial and delayed, etc, etc, but just trying to assess if by let’s say around 2015, a worthy naval Tejas could finally be ready to go as a viable option?

Does anyone here seriously believe that such a missile launch would be located with pin point accuracy at 800 mi? Honestly you must be very naive if you believe that. 800 mi is beyond horizont and may no even be visible until the missile has gained some altitude and is a fair bit away from the launch position. Even with a 0.5 degree accuracy the error margin is to large over such distances! And who says the accuracy will be good enough, especially if the aircraft aren’t flying several miles apart.

Regardless of how accurate the PR claim about it’s performance results, the DAS in question manufactured by NG and designed for F-35 integration will be a worthy sensor system and one which no doubt raises the bar for rest of field to follow accordingly. Improved, larger IRSTs and these potential 360 spherical EO awareness suites will surely become part of the latest ‘systems race’ on both manned and unmanned airframes.