And still far more evidence than of testing with RWR mid-course AMRAAM updates.
Defence journalists do not sign The OSA. And there is no way of knowing what was actually covered by The OSA. Take Porton Down, not disclosed until many decades later.
Let’s approach your logic fail piece by piece:
1. That Sweetman would have gotten in trouble for disclosing AMRAAM mid course guidance vis AN/ALR-94- first off, who is saying that the briefing and simulation he viewed was classified? Is there anything to suggest that the information he wrote in his book or the article in JED was not cleared for release by DoD? Just because the specifics of a system such as the AN/ALR-94 are highly classified, does not mean that general capabilities are not cleared to defense journalists. Especially when a weapon system is controversial and new. The USAF probably saw Sweetman’s piece as good P.R. There were no specifics on accuracy released, no details on how accurate the ranging is, or what is collected by each sensor. You realize that the APG-77 acts as part of the EW system in “receive only” mode, also collecting emissions for the EW array, no?
2. That because you “feel” that Sweetman was inventing this, you disregard it. Simply put, he could have included it in his book then not submitted a paper to JED. These are EW specialists, there was no retraction, or rebuttal. Again, he was reporting what he was shown, this is not op-ed.
3. Lack of press releases- There have been several missile tests for the F-22, -35. Have they ever specifically stated: range of target acquisition, specific parameters for test, what sensor was providing information via datalink? No. There is no reason to.
No, I tell it like it is, you tell it how you want it to be for the benefit of your argument. Something is either classified or it isn’t. And language like, “to some extent, range,” speaks for itself. The old ‘classified’ ruse is something used by people who wish to claim capabilities that don’t exist to their knowledge. That doesn’t mean the capabilities don’t exist, it only means that they don’t really have a clue.
By the way, a system can be classified, but information can still be released on overall capabilities without disclosing the exact methods used, your argument is weak. Specific methods of NCTR beyond blade count is highly classified, yet it has be around since the early 1980’s, do you deny that this capability exists too despite extensive information that NCTR methods have evolved?
Again, this is not Journalistic license. This was written in a respected journal. There is no grey area here except the missing material between your ears. You are over on the “supermanuverability” tread arguing that the Typhoon is more maneuverable than the Su-35 with absolutely no hard information. You are using spec information released by Eurofighter on the 6g envelope of the Typhoon to prove points. Did the Eurofighter P.R. team go to jail for releasing information on the Typhoon’s performance specs? If they can release acceleration data and turn data at certain altitudes, why don’t they release the entire flight manual? (are you seeing the logic fail here?)
Better yet, I think the released Typhoon specs are bogus because I can’t view the flight manual. Since journalists have released some details in ride alongs and reports, why not release the whole flight envelope- details or it didn’t happen! AND since the Typhoon was reportedly beaten in BFM exercises vs. the MKI, then obviously it is not as maneuverable as the Su-35. ( I don’t believe this, but it is representative of your argument here)
Now think about this carefully. Is it even possible for a mid-course update to be passive? Is there such thing as a psychic data link?
– yes for the reasons that have been explained to you repeatedly. You want press releases and reports in glossy aviation magazines about capabilities that are not disclosed other than general statements. BTW, did you read the BAE release about their EW systems from Breaking Defense in July? This should give you a clue about the sensitivity of the topic:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/bae-systems-inches-out-in-public-on-electronic-warfare/
Sign In
