Yes, but to hit a non-emitting target you have to know its precise location, & that is still not a given.

It’s likely to be effective, but it’s not a panacea.

So how does one find a target that never emits, again?

How do all those GPS/INS only weapons work again?

AARGM will render useless the “shutdown tactics” that have been employed by radar system operators. If a radar set emits and is detected, even if it shuts down an aircraft employing a weapon such as AARGM or ALARM will most certainly be able to detect them and “fix” their location.

The MMW guidance radar in the AARGM however, should ensure that even if the radar has “scooted” from the area, that it will not survive… Even at the maximum standoff range of AARGM (around 80ks) the radar set has about 60-90 seconds to get out of the area, given the speed of the missile (Mach 4). Even SPG guns are flat out “scooting” that fast. A deployed radar system?

Seems like an increasingly dangerous place to be, to me…

why is every country in the world after buying this aircraft :confused:

Because unlike the people on this board, partner nations have fighter project acquisitions teams.

These people get to see the classified data on the F-35 platform AND the Typhoon platform AND the Gripen platform and whichever aircraft they decide to evaluate that the internet users of the world do NOT. Whilst some guesses can be made on relative merits of various fighters, these are merely that guesses. Governments spending billions are not interested in “guesses” but hard analysis.

That not one single partner nation has pulled out of this project, despite the unending “complaints” the naysayers bring up, is pretty strong anecdotal evidence that this aircraft DOES in fact have something going for it and profit is not it.

What Government overly cares about profit? Revenue, jobs for it’s citizens, yes. Profit, no. Companies care about profit. Governments have larger concerns…

36 planes for 1.4billions… Estimate one plane cost almost USD 40million.. That is quite a bargain.

If they are actually any good…

I’m aware of MBDA own statement and you should have to look at it too, please.

03/05/2009
WORLD FIRST FOR THE RAAF WITH ASRAAM
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_publications.php?page=1&lang=EN&sel_rub=

As i was saying, not there YET and it is only 5 month ago.

= The problem is that no one is anywhere near to demonstrate a viable solution for firing an AAM behind the shooter otherwise than with a link-16 which negates the idea of stalth and in LOAL mode (Naturaly).

5 kilometres seems a tad more than “marginally” behind the wing line…

You are aware that the Rafale can fire a variety of paveways for situations where the capabilities of the expensive AASM aren’t needed?

And when there’s finally the laser guided rocket pod it’s just going to own.

Nic

AND? We weren’t talking about Rafale, but why one would choose to maintain the multiple Paveway variants in the same inventory….

It is my understanding that only Paveway II weapons are integrated onto the Rafale however, not the more recent Paveway III/IV or Enhanced Paveway II and the French aircraft STILL require the assistance of another lasing source…

No, the primary reason was to enable it to turn away, as it was discovered they would need to continue fly towards the red fighter to illuminate the missile and get a sidewinder in return before impact.
The MiG-31 can probably engage at least as many targets simultaneously with it’s ESA and semi active missiles as the F-14 with MSA + active missiles.
Not a problem in Foxhounds case, it will only engage targets that can’t shoot back.
Not sure if it was actually a problem to engage 2 targets simultaneously with MSA+ Sparrows, but if that was the catch, it could have been fixed with (X)ESA alone.

The Sparrow missile (like the Sky Flash) was command link guided. Once one missile was launched it had to be guided the entire way by the FCR or it would no longer be effective. The radars of the day were not capable of guiding more than one Sparrow at a time.

When designing the next generation air to air missile, they looked at adding an active seeker to the Sparrow airframe, but decided not to go with it.

The Sparrow missile airframe was too heavy for the F-16 wingtip rails, which was a primary requirement for AMRAAM, in order to provide the predominant USAF fighter with a BVR capability…

Subsequently all AMRAAM equipped aircraft have been stuck with a missile the size and weight of AMRAAM (ie: not all that big nor long ranging) because of the weight limit of the F-16’s wingtips…

Given how long it has taken to build a replacement, apparently that is not such a big issue…

:confused: $194mil for Super Hornet with few spares and few AMRAAMs and HARMs, is not what I call a good deal…

Depends on how many years of support this contract covers.

Australia’s $6.6b acquisition of 24x Supers covers 13 years of operations for the whole squadron. That $194m is simply the total cost of the package divided by the number of airframes and is a misrepresentation of the cost of the actual aircraft, but no aircraft can be operated without a significant amount of support, so the public should be told what these costs are, IMHO. Marketers might not wish the whole cost revealed, but at least the true costs are open and transparent if they are.

Sticker shock is prevalent these days, but is it better to “hide” the operating costs of a modern air combat squadron by spreading the costs out of 13x years or telling the public up front what it IS going to cost?

Australia’s F-111’s cost more than $150m a year to operate 17x airframes, with this cost increasing every year. To cover that period for F-11’s requires more than $2 billion in operating costs, even assuming that the cost remains the same as now as the aircraft ages…

This money has to be paid upfront or over time if you wish to maintain this type of capability. There are no “2 ways” about it. Fighter jets are an expensive business.

I actually find it quite refreshing to know exactly how much these types of platforms cost…