That contract did cover C7 and future D with the related equipment. Maybe I overlooked it, but the number of D is limited and no delivery dates are given. 😉

3x contracts, 2 worth USD$412m each and 1 worth USD$180m.

The problem with interpreting these contracts is that they are for production of operational C-7 and D model missiles, as well as captive carry and other training variants.

However in the two early contracts (April 16 2007 and May 28 2008) a total number of 194x operational AIM-120D missiles were announced.

The later contract (August 2008) is also for USD$412m and it therefore seems reasonable to assume another 90 – 100 operational missiles were ordered.

So far 280 – 300 AIM-120D missiles have been ordered for US forces according to these contracts alone and as they are quite obviously ordered in batches, it is hardly unreasonable to assume they will continue.

The delivery schedule is also stated quite clearly in those articles…

Delivery is scheduled to begin in 2010 and continue through 2011

Should we really believe that the system on both aircraft malfunctioned at the same time for no external reason at all? 😎

It’s a new fighter that has only just been delivered and is still being introduced into service. Both radar warning systems activating simultaneously, when no threat is apparent, sounds like a software issue to me. Unless you want to put a tinfoil hat on, of course…

I’d expect such teething problems aren’t a huge concern at this early stage…

The C8 is the D variant. It is no longer an ordinary upgrade. But it may be that the development of the D has run into problems too and we will see a further interim version of the C variant. 😮

I doubt that multiple production contracts would have been signed for the D model, if it were still in “developmental hell”…

http://www.deagel.com/news/Raytheon-Awarded-US-Air-Force-Contract-for-AIM-120CD-Missiles_n000004309.aspx

http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1182948&highlight=

http://www.deagel.com/news/Raytheon-Awarded-Contract-for-AIM-120D-Air-Vehicles_n000001826.aspx

And now we come to the core of the problem. We don’t know which radar Israel has in mind but you already KNOW it can’t be superior to APG-81. You don’t GUESS it, you already KNOW it.. So, how come if you don’t even know its name?

I don’t know ANYTHING about this radar. You can’t provide A) any link, b) a name, C) ANY information whatsoever. I never said I KNEW it to be inferior, I believe however that it is NOT likely to be superior.

Learn to read properly. I have never stated I knew the Israeli radar would be superior. I stated I THOUGHT it would be superior otherwise Israelis would not ask for its integration. It was presented as a GUESS and it was pretty logical (and still is)

Pretty illogical if you ask me. What makes a radar “superior”? Detection range? Discrimination? Low side lobes? Multiple target tracking capability? Low probability of intercept capability? Superior SAR mapping and GMTI modes?

Name one technical reason WHY this radar is superior to the APG-81 and I will admit, you will have a basis for believing it to be superior.

Until that time, all you have is your own hope that the APG-81 and the F-35 as a whole, turns out to be less than successful.

That means you want to say that an inferior radar operating at different frequencies might turn out qualitatively superior to a superior radar operating at usual frequencies? And that the difference is so great that it’s worth the expense and risk of operating an inferior design? Is that what you want to say here?

No. I suggest you read up a bit on ECCM and the relevence of radar frequency agility in efforts to combat ECCM challenges. Then perhaps you might begin to understand what I was referring to earlier…

What I am trying to achieve here is clear: I want to force you to finally provide answers you would be held accountable for. The answers you have evaded so far..

Frankly, I got enough of idiots who call everyone with different opinion a moron, without actually knowing anything about the matter discussed. I got enough of timewasters who provide answers in style *we don’t know anything about the Russian/Israeli/French design but will be greatly inferior to American one because we Americans have oh so much experience and so great budget*.

Not once have I resorted to Ad Hominem attacks hereabouts, whilst others have accused me of an inability to read. Hello, pot, this is the kettle…

You want firm answers?

Okay.

1. Name the radar system you believe is “qualitatively superior” to the APG-81 and likely to be installed by Israel IF they are allowed to substantially modify their own F-35 fighters.

2. Name and explain the technical features that make it so superior.

Then we’ll have a discussion and we can see about some “firm answers”.

I must disappoint you but a gap between AIM-120A/B and AIM-120C is much smaller than a gap between AIM-9B and AIM-9X. The C was developed so that it fits into internal bays in the first place – other updates were of secondary importance. While it’s obvious that the C model is likely to be better than A (less prone to jamming), the difference is maybe as large as the one between Lima and Mike Sidewinders. So don’t mix the AIM-9B in, makes your claims look more pathetic than they are.

Is it now?

AIM-120A –

No Home on Jam capability.

Monopulse guidance radar.

Hardware incapable of software upgrades and therefore non-reprogrammable without a hardware change. The significance of this is that ECM threat libraries could not be upgraded on the missile without physically changing guidance control system.

WGU-16B guidance unit.

AIM-120B

HOJ capability introduced.

WGU-44/B guidance unit.

Software (including ECM capability) reprogrammable capability introduced, allowing software changes throught the missile’s umbilical, using CFMRE.

AIM-120C received:

New guidance control unit.

New warhead.

Improved rocket motor.

Additional ECCM capabilities.

Clipped wings to allow internal carriage (far from the most “important” upgrade).

AMRAAM P3I C-5/7 variants include:

New longer rocket motor and propulsion unit.

Multiple new guidance units.

New warhead.

Upgraded two-way data-link.

No, there’s no difference at all there…

The problem as I see it, is the majority of AMRAAM capability is software based, with algorithms and ECM threat libraries providing the bulk of the weapons lethality.

Hence it’s capability can’t be “observed”.

I read it the other way, -they consider AMRAAM obsolete by 2015 but will have to accept it until then as they have no choice.

RAF has the AIM-120C5 model AMRAAM in-service, which isn’t even the state of the art now. I have no doubt the C5 variant will be getting long in the tooth by 2015.

AIM-120D will be available by then. I hardly think the AMRAAM capability as a whole will be obsolete in 6 years time…

Another thing in the article that gives some insight too though is-

“the MoD said that the Raytheon AIM-120C AMRAAM missiles currently carried by the Typhoon would “provide sufficient capability out to 2015.”

That shows a vote of confidence for the capability of the C model AMRAAM(most likely the C5).

It will be interesting to see if budgets keep getting more severe and Meteor delayed further, whether the AMRAAM might be “sufficient” for a bit longer than 2015… 🙂

My comments on this:

– I don’t bag the F-35 itself, it’s a fine striker, probably the best one up to date.. I bag fanboys who try to enforce a common belief that the F-35 is not only superior to anything else in terms of stealth, but also in flying abilities, maneuvrability, agility and kinematic performance, avionics, BVR, WVR, ECM, ECCM, [insert your own 3- or 4-letter abbreviation]…

It is a strike FIGHTER. Not a “striker”. A striker is an A-6 or an F-111 or a Tornado (non- F-3 of course).

It’s A2A capability is EVERY bit as important to the aircraft’s design as A2G.

I have never once claimed it is superior to anything in basic aerodynamic performance.

I will now though and I think it will be a pretty reasonable aerodynamic performer at it’s best, at least on par with early F-16 and F/A-18 variants throughout the flight regime, perhaps a slight improvement, but not substantially better, at least at it’s introduction to service anyway. Who can say with regard to growth variants?

However that hardly matters.

It’s VLO airframe, data-fused avionics and advanced sensor suite WILL more than make up for any minor aerodynamic deficiencies, and they WILL only be minor, in comparison to any Euro-Canard or Sino-Russian fighter in the lifetime of the aircraft.

If one wishes to talk kinematics, a Meteor equipped F-35 at a reasonable altitude, say 35,000 feet plus WILL possess an A2A missile performance that is kinematically superior to ANY current generation aircraft/missile combo and that includes supercruising F-22’s at 60,000 feet. Future US A2A missiles are likely to be similarly capable, if not moreso.

– Israelis are in fact VERY dissatisfied with APG-68(V)9. They never wanted the radar and repeatedly asked for permission to install EL/M-2032 on F-16Is instead. This was dicussed to death on this forum a year ago or so. Now, be a brave boy and look for it before claiming something again.

I’ve read the anecdotal open source reports on the issue.

Again, show me proof that this was not a desire to provide work opportunities for Israeli industry, rather than dissatisfaction with the capability of the radar itself?

Other Block 52/52+ users are MORE than happy with the radar performance of the APG-68v9 system, by all accounts…

Strange that only Israel is apparently dissatisfied with the capability inherent within…

– fail to see what APG-80 or SABR radar have to do with this topic.

I thought we were discussing AESA radars and AESA antennae arrays, tacked onto existing radar backends? And on Lockheed Martin products, no less…

– how do you know it’s exactly the 2052 type Israelis want to install on F-35? They don’t specifically mention the type

You brought the 2052 into the conversation in the first instance. Are you now admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about?

– fail to see what APG-77 has to do with this. Why do we need to bring in the F-22, at all?

You summarily decided the APG-81 was an inferior radar system based on the specious reasoning that Israel, a non-SDD partner in the program, apparently requested the opportunity to install a radar of it’s own choosing.

I pointed out that it seems a given that the APG-77 is recognised as THE most capable radar in-service at present. Yet even this most advanced radar is being upgraded with technology from the still under-development APG-81.

It seems incredible that the Israelis have managed to produce a radar BETTER than these…

In other words, you are persuaded about Israelis battling for permission to install an inferior radar instead and being unhappy with not being permitted to do so. Is that what you call *logical*? 🙂

BTW, where do you have it from that teh Israeli radar will be of *older generation* that APG-81?

There’s no need to paraphrase. Simply use the quote function…

There is MORE than one reason why Israel might desire a different radar system. Local industry work is a significant reason. Capability difference to other F-35 users in the region is another. Fleet commonality is YET another. Ease of integration with EW systems that are planned for the aircraft. (Radar and EW systems being quite tricky things to integrate, as evidenced with the Wedgetail program).

Need I go on?

Assuming the Israeli made radar IS superior, also assumes that the 9 partner nations, some of whom design and manufacture their OWN fighter sized FCR radars (UK and Italy are 2 such Countries) are satisfied with a less than “cutting edge” radar system. I find that impossible to swallow, I’m afraid.

2052 FCR – which you brought into the discussion is available for order from Elta right now. For the last time, it IS an AESA antennae array, tacked onto the 2032 backend.

Hence why it requires NO additional cooling or power requirements, other than those necessary for existing Elta 2032 FCR systems…

APG-81 is still under development…