http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-154c.htm
Contains references to 2009 events.

Also says I’m correct:

JSOW-C achieved initial operational capability in February 2005 with the U. S. Navy and Marine Corps. It is currently being produced for U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornets and has been ordered by Poland and Turkey for use on F-16 Fighting Falcons.

So F-16s at that Green flag may have had JSOW-C and SOM. The updates mainly reference the C-1 version.

RCS? Numbers please.

Right here, see Typhoon vs Rafale.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm

Also says:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

Although not of the classic angular, zigzag edged shape usually associated with stealth designs, Eurofighter Typhoon’s shape balances aerodynamic requirements, such as low drag and high lift, with the need to minimise reflected radar energy in all directions, producing a signature which is smaller than that of all other fighter aircraft currently in production.

So with the F-22 no longer in production and the F-35 not yet in serial production, that just leaves Typhoon vs Rafale. So that’s independent source number 3 now!

1. http://www.ipcs.org/pdf_file/issue/SR126-NSP-IndiaandtheRafale.pdf
2. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm
3. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm

But we’re yet to find a single source for DDM-NG aircraft tracking.:apologetic:

STFU? How very mature.
Your link says nothing about AGM-154C being in service with the USAF. All USAF AGM-154 are As or Bs. The C is US Navy only.

Let’s turn this around. Prove it.

Oh BTW, Turkish F-16s also have SOM, which is basically the same capability but twice the range and jet-powered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOM_(missile)

It proved what wrong on DRFM? Where did I say USAF didn’t fund DRFM? And does the doc show 131A in service today? It’s R&D only.

R&D for 5 years on a pod? Please.

“All you need to know is that it was.” Where and how? Don’t try to weasel out. R7 is the only HTS claimed to work with anything other than HARM and entered service in 2006, and when have F-16s done SEAD since then?

Libya maybe?

By the way, USAF doesn’t use AGM-154C either.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agm-154-joint-standoff-weapon-jsow/

Guidance and navigation

The JSOW is guided towards its targets by a highly-integrated global positioning system (GPS) or inertial navigation system (INS). The AGM-154C variant is additionally equipped with a terminal imaging infrared seeker for terminal guidance.
The missile can be launched from both high and low altitudes. It accurately navigates towards the target through selected waypoints. It receives the targeting information in preplanned mode from the cockpit of the launched aircraft. Onboard sensors or other third-party targeting assets provide information after the launch.
The JSOW C-1 variant is equipped with a two-way strike common weapon datalink (SCWDL) for striking moving marine targets.

Aircraft compatibility

“The JSOW can be launched from air force, navy or marine aircraft.”
The JSOW can be launched from air force, navy or marine aircraft. The missile is integrated on the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier, B-2 Spirit and B-52 bombers, and A-10 aircraft.

Now please just STFU.

Lukos – you are graduating from cats to dead horses. There was never any USAF money in AARGM. The USAF has not bought any AARGMs. “Advanced HARM II” in your post is not AARGM. I cannot determine the age of the information in the source document – it was published on FanKiddyNet in 2008 but is clearly older than that because AARGM was a program by then. It appears to be the only place where that identifier is used.

Yes it is, what else would it be? It was intended for all those aircraft mentioned on page 23. You are the only one raping a dead horse.
http://dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/AARGM.pdf

No airforce money? Do you even read the links?
http://www.js.pentagon.mil/descriptivesum/Y2012/AirForce/0207040F_7_PB_2012.pdf

Exhibit R-2, RDT&E Budget Item Justification: PB*2012*Air Force DATE: February 2011
APPROPRIATION/BUDGET ACTIVITY
3600: Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force
BA 7: Operational Systems Development
R-1 ITEM NOMENCLATURE
PE 0207040F: Multi-Platform Electronics
COST ($ in Millions) FY 2010 FY 2011
FY 2012
Base
FY 2012
OCO
FY 2012
Total FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
Cost To
Complete Total Cost
Total Program Element 14.370 15.574 -** -** -** -** -** -** -** Continuing Continuing
675310: EA Pod DRFM Upgrade 14.370 15.574 -** -** -** -** -** -** -** Continuing Continuing

The R7 pod is doubtless cool but entered service almost 10 years ago. So once again, the best that the F-16 force could have brought to GF is a ten-year-old targeting system, analog RWR, non-DRFM jamming and 1990s ARMs.

That 10 year old targeting system has been able to pinpoint SAM radars for JSOW strike in live conflicts.

How many times do you need to post stuff already proven wrong before you just shut up?

this one is priceless!

So, for the mighty F-35, even if you “can’t find information”, it’s ok for you to consider it “done”, yet for another aircraft “that shall not be named”, you refuse to consider capabilities even when they are documented (usually dismissing even official documents)

As I said: PRICELESS 😀

Well we have now if you continued reading.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134882-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)-Take-two&p=2235141#post2235141

It was also hardly the same think. AARGM and HTS were scheduled for USAF service before now and are well documented. So the logical assumption is that they did have them. DDM-NG tracking aircraft on the other hand isn’t written about anywhere.

I can’t find information on them using them yet but that doesn’t mean they aren’t

I can’t find evidence that pro-JSF forum posters molest cats, but that doesn’t mean they don’t.

Same logic…

Not really. The item exists, is compatible, intended for the aircraft, has been on the aircraft at least once during testing and was scheduled for service pre-now. So the logic would be that it probably was integrated. From an actual integration PoV the work is negligible because it’s essentially the same damn missile as far as the adjoining aircraft can tell. Going back to your analogy, it would require proof of intent, access to a cat and an enlarged feline colon for the same level of proof to be evident.
http://dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/AARGM.pdf

Speaking of evidence though, let me provide you with the proverbial ‘molested cat’:

HTS + Advanced Harm II (AARGM)
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article9.html

The F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D have the HARM avionics/Launcher Interface Computer (ALIC) resulting in a full autonomous employment capability of the HARM missile. This capability adds the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) mission to the already extensive list of missions the F-16 is capable to perform.

The aircraft features full integration for the advanced AGM-88 HARM II and Shrike anti-radiation missiles, a Lockheed Martin Pave Penny laser ranger pod and the Texas Instruments (now Raytheon) AN/ASQ-213 HTS (HARM Targeting System). The pod is mounted on the starboard intake hardpoint and contains a super-sensitive receiver that detects, classifies, and ranges threats and passes the information to the HARM and to the cockpit displays. With the targeting system, the F-16CJ/DJ has full autonomous HARM capability. The HTS pod can be omitted however – in that case, RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft support the F-16 in sorting and prioritizing targets in dense threat environments.

Also confirms that even when the F-16 doesn’t provide a target reference, other support aircraft do, i.e. rarely used with just the missile seeker guessing in TOO mode.

HTS + ATS
http://defense-update.com/20060610_hts.html#.VYh–PlVhLM

Raytheon received the contract for the development of R7 HTS in 2001 and delivered the first pod in September 2006. HTS R7 will target HARM and other PGMs to destroy fixed and mobile enemy air defense elements. HTS R7 precision coordinates will be available to all Joint Forces via Link-16.

Also mentioned in Jane’s in 2008.

I could also throw in JSOW and SDBs.

Besides, only Boeing engineers molest animals.
http://www.courierherald.com/news/35979664.html

A pilot told me that Rafale fanboys do too, but it isn’t written anywhere.

So, HARM doesn’t necessarily need geolocalization clue prior to launch, does it ?

In the case of A through D variants, it depends if you actually want to hit anything, or just give the SAM radar a fright. Your statement that they rely on this exclusively is false, in 2 out of 3 modes they don’t.

Lukos – there is no need to post links that confirm what I told you, to wit, there are no AARGMs in the USAF inventory. A simple “sorry for posting bull****” would suffice.

HTS R7 may be quite good, but whether it was available in this exercise is unknown. As M31 points out (although I did so earlier) we don’t know these vital details, so only dumb fanboys will go running around proclaiming the F-35’s invincibility.

I can’t find information on them using them yet but that doesn’t mean they aren’t and for test purposes the missile is the exact same weight and size as existing variants and needs only a GPS/INS cue, i.e. the interface is the same, and it’s in service.

Nobody said it was invincible but you seem set on on proving it’s crap regardless of what evidence you’re presented with.

Surely the dumb fanboys were the ones who proclaimed Rafale invincibility after the Rafales flew sorties over Libya through an air defence network that was crippled/stored away and didn’t work very well even in 1986.