| Author |
Message |
|
maus92
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 12:06 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 21, 2010 - 06:50 PM
Posts: 1209
Location: Annapolis, MD
Status: Offline
|
"Funding for the next-generation missile was “removed from the budget” owing to “affordability” demands, says Marilyn Thomas, deputy budget director for the Air Force. The weapon, once dubbed the Joint Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile, was intended to merge the functionality of two workhorse weapons: the Raytheon AIM-120 series for medium-range attack (aka, the Amraam series) with that of the anti-radiation HARM missiles designed to destroy air defense sites.
The service has long contended a single weapon is needed to do both of these missions in order to maximize the use of the small weapons bays of the stealthy F-22 and forthcoming F-35 fighter."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ,%20Bomber |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 2:23 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
spazsinbad
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 12:14 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 05, 2009 - 10:31 PM
Posts: 8020
Location: OZ
|
Interesting slant from above article:
"...Meanwhile, the Air Force decreased its planned buy of F-35As from 24 to 19 aircraft for fiscal 2013; this is up one from 18 approved in the fiscal 2012 budget.
The Navy, however, is boosting its buy of F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions from three in fiscal 2012 to six in the 2013 request. This increase was made possible by progress from Lockheed Martin and the government program office in tackling a host of F-35B development problems that plagued the flight test effort in 2010. Those problems prompted then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates to put the variant on “probation” pending a turnaround.
The U.S. Navy, meanwhile, is keeping its buy of carrier variants to four aircraft in 2013. This brings the total F-35 procurement request in fiscal 2013 to 29 at $6.15 billion, substantially lower than Lockheed Martin had hoped for early in the program. Research and development is slated to continue at nearly $2.7 billion between the two services in fiscal 2013...." |
_________________ RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shingen
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 01:33 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
A BVR and WVR missile have different parameters needed to be good and those are different than what an ARM needs. Is this surprising?
Also, how good is the 120D? Do we really need JDRADM? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
tacf-x
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 01:46 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Sep 17, 2011 - 03:25 AM
Posts: 431
Location: Champaign, Illinois
Status: Offline
|
AIM-120D is good, but JDRADM was to be optimized from the start to fit into internal bays and be superior in terms of kinematic performance and range.
All of the technologies involved with JDRADM were relatively well matured so I seriously don't see why this program was axed so easily.
It would have the ability to perform quite well in both BVR and WVR ranges and its selectively aimed warhead would have helped against a multitude of targets including ground-based radars. It's a shame that such an available advancement in technology is once again axed. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shingen
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 01:59 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
How much $ to finish the program?
How much per missile? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
southernphantom
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 02:29 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 749
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
| I almost started screaming at my computer when I read this. -120D is good, sure, but a) it's probably an interim until JDRADM and b) can it also nail SAM sites?? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
popcorn
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 02:54 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Sep 24, 2008 - 09:55 AM
Posts: 2087
Status: Offline
|
| I was expecting this when I'd read that it was a candidate to be cut. It would have been an advantage being carried internally. So we can look forward to AMRAAM undergoing enhancement with a longer range and multiple impulse motor and who knows what else. The E variant of the AGM 88 is actually a very advanced and capable missile supporting 2-way data links and an active mmW seeker.ll |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
archeman
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 03:01 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Dec 28, 2011 - 05:37 AM
Posts: 314
Location: CA
Status: Offline
|
I think that this is a case where the requirement survives but the project didn't.
In that case I think that a similar project with similar goals will pick up and move on in the future.
Since the budget is out of easy fat to cut there is only meat left.
JDRADM must have been sacrificed to keep the destination platform alive. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 06:23 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
|
shingen wrote:
A BVR and WVR missile have different parameters needed to be good and those are different than what an ARM needs. Is this surprising?
Also, how good is the 120D? Do we really need JDRADM?
If you don't mind F-35s flying into the teeth of an IADN with fat AGM-88s on the external wing stations, then no, you don't. |
_________________ The sky is blue because God loves the Infantry.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
munny
|
Posted: Feb 14, 2012 - 11:23 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 13, 2010 - 01:39 AM
Posts: 533
Status: Offline
|
| I guess this is a result of the SDB 2 doing so well in testing. I wonder if they can fit 4 aim120's + 4 SDB internally in the future though. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gums
|
Posted: Feb 15, 2012 - 05:27 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Dec 16, 2003 - 05:26 PM
Posts: 1441
Status: Offline
|
Salute!
The seeker/missile form fit is not a problem, but I can't speak to the warhead size specifically. So I see the program back on its feet in a year or so.
We had "home on jam" missiles 40 years ago besides the Shrike and STD ARM. We even used IR missiles like the AIM-4 to hit campfires in the 'nam era. Imagine that?
Without the "statement of work" to look at, it's hard to see what the problems could be.
My own experience in the business is that DoD keeps changing the specs and "requirements" after the programs are in progress.
Many classified details to understand, so I won't go any further.
Gums sends...
P.S. For those still interested in the "Thumper Buster" ( a means of zapping those dudes with the 140 dB thumping speakers next to you at a traffic signal), maybe we could develop a mini-missile with a modified iPod seeker. I still prefer a focused RF beam that introduces the same 140 dB into the system as we saw in "Back to the Future", heh heh. |
_________________ Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
|
|
|
|
 |
|
destroid
|
Posted: Feb 15, 2012 - 05:47 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 05, 2011 - 12:20 PM
Posts: 58
Status: Offline
|
| Interesting, does this mean the Euros will be able to lay claim to best BVR missile in the Meteor? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
spazsinbad
|
Posted: Feb 15, 2012 - 05:54 AM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: May 05, 2009 - 10:31 PM
Posts: 8020
Location: OZ
|
"Gums sends...
P.S. For those still interested in the "Thumper Buster" ( a means of zapping those dudes with the 140 dB thumping speakers next to you at a traffic signal), maybe we could develop a mini-missile with a modified iPod seeker. I still prefer a focused RF beam that introduces the same 140 dB into the system as we saw in "Back to the Future", heh heh."
I want to see a 'CONE of SILENCE' GizMo to use on all those doods talking to themselves loudly (yeah yeah talking on mobile phones) in inappropriate places (use youse imagination/creativity/experience). GET SMART seemed to have a good working prototype for said "Cone".
Fahgeddabout the 'shoe fone' idea though. Will never work - pong attack!  |
_________________ RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: Feb 15, 2012 - 03:10 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1200
Location: Phoenix, Az
Status: Offline
|
|
munny wrote:
I guess this is a result of the SDB 2 doing so well in testing. I wonder if they can fit 4 aim120's + 4 SDB internally in the future though.
As soon as the 3 AIM-120s per bay get funded, yeah. 3 AIM-120s in one bay and 1 AIM-120 with 4 SDBs in the other. |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Feb 15, 2012 - 04:53 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
Personally, I am not too worried about the delay in NGM funding.
With the delay in F-35 IOC, the timeline for the need for NGM is also pushed to the right. |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|