US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
The AMRAAM was a natural development from the deficiencies associated with the Sparrow primarily by the lack of an active terminal homing.
AMRAAM was more than just natural development: natural development is something like sidewinder evolution.
Look at the size of their respective rocket motors.

Sparrow(and now, ironically, PL-15) was simply a much heavier missile, which could gain even more from improved chemistry and much lighter avionics.
But the point was to give 100% BVR capability to originally WVR-only F-16 family(by far the most numerous US and NATO fighter), instead of focusing on getting even more performance from F-15 family.

Navy, on the other hand, had no such plans: the plan was to squeeze out every inch of performance from the F-14D. +their lightweight fighter, the Hornet, was originally better at dealing with bulkier payloads than the Falcon and wasn't handicapped even by sparrow weights, so it could accept it as well.
But with the end of the CW, F-14D was dead, and wannabe "AIM-152" was very soon dead, too.
 

Brumby

Major
AMRAAM was more than just natural development: natural development is something like sidewinder evolution.
Look at the size of their respective rocket motors.

Sparrow(and now, ironically, PL-15) was simply a much heavier missile, which could gain even more from improved chemistry and much lighter avionics.
But the point was to give 100% BVR capability to originally WVR-only F-16 family(by far the most numerous US and NATO fighter), instead of focusing on getting even more performance from F-15 family.

Navy, on the other hand, had no such plans: the plan was to squeeze out every inch of performance from the F-14D. +their lightweight fighter, the Hornet, was originally better at dealing with bulkier payloads than the Falcon and wasn't handicapped even by sparrow weights, so it could accept it as well.
But with the end of the CW, F-14D was dead, and wannabe "AIM-152" was very soon dead, too.
You are making stuff up.

The following is taken from "PAST TRENDS IN PROCUREMENT OF AIR INTERCEPT MISSILES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ADVANCED MEDIUM-RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE PROGRAM (AMRAAM) produced by the Congressional Budget Office October 1982"

Excerpt from the summary page :
Experience has shown that there are some fundamental problems associated with operating the Sparrow that stem primarily from its mode of guidance. Operating the Sparrow restricts the flight path of the pilot during missile flight, making him vulnerable to counterattack by his target or by another aircraft. A pilot attacking a target can fire several Sparrows at that target, but cannot engage another target while his attack is still in progress. Finally, the Sparrow is not compatible with the F-16, which will be the most numerous U.S. fighter.

In order to overcome these deficiencies, the Air Force and Navy have been developing a new Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile as a successor to the Sparrow. AMRAAM will employ active terminal homing similar to that used on the Phoenix to allow it to operate autonomously after launch. It will be operational on all modern U.S. fighters and interceptors: F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18. The Phoenix itself would not be a viable substitute for the Sparrow since it is twice the weight and about six times the cost of the Sparrow, and requires a very costly radar on the launch aircraft in order to achieve long-range performance.
In essence, the Sparrow was deficient as a BVR missile because it lacked active terminal homing which was addressed by AMRAAM.
 

Jura

General
Texas Sending Another 1,000 National Guard Troops to Border
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

El Paso, Texas sounds like great in Central Europe, many people here, including me, would imagine cowboys, a sheriff with the Colt 45, bounty hunters, saloon doors etc. LOL though they aren't there, I guess
 

Jura

General
sort of remarkable
Richardson to Contractors: “Push Back” Against Pointless Requirements
6/20/2019
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Lt. Gen. Duke Richardson, who will soon take over as the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, told members of industry on June 19 they should resist if the service tries to add unneeded requirements to programs, and he told his own acquisition officials they should heed industry’s requests in this regard “unless it hurts.”

Speaking at Air Force Materiel Command’s Life Cycle Industry Days in Dayton, Ohio, Richardson told industry attendees if the government wants something in a contract “and it’s not value added, push back.” Unneeded requirements can’t be tolerated, he said, because every step and contract action delays programs and adds cost. He promised that the Air Force will listen.

“We act like we have an infinite bag of money,” Richardson noted, and acquisition can’t go on that way. “If you’re running a fixed-price contract, think about it as if it was cost plus. And if you’re running a cost-plus program, think of it as fixed price.”

Such ideas have “transformed my thoughts on acquisition,” he said, and led him to be much more accommodating to industry—and other parts of the Air Force.

On the Presidential Aircraft Replacement program—the new Air Force One—Richardson, who was the program executive officer supervising the program, said his default answer was, “if it didn’t hurt us to give some, we gave some. If it hurt, then we thought about it a little more.” The PAR contract was “not easy,” he said, taking five months to negotiate, but ultimately, “we gave where we could, and everybody said yes” to the final agreement, and “I’m proud of the deal we got.”

What he wants, he said, is a “just right” amount of government oversight on a program.

“I want you to ask, … If this was your money, would you do this?” he said.

Richardson said he generally doesn’t like to waste time revisiting or rethinking decisions that have already been made, but will do so if the facts have changed and there’s new information that has a bearing on a program.

What’s paramount, Richardson asserted, is that both the government and the contractor have to “deliver on our commitments.”

Richardson said he doesn’t believe the acquisition apparatus should merely try to execute what the user’s requirements specify.

“I do think I have a role in requirements,” he said, adding that the acquisition and operations communities have to have a “unity of purpose” to buy equipment effectively.

In his new job, Richardson said he’ll be the “organizer,” while his boss, Will Roper, will be “the idea guy. … He’s got lots of ideas.”

The acquisition community is “all fired up” about new transactional authorities from the Section 804 language, and he wants to seize on that energy to move even faster in procurement. The law, though, is all about “tailoring contracts,” he said, and the authority to do that was already largely in place. He cautioned that if implemented improperly, using the new authorities could “actually lead to more reporting” and oversight.

He wants acquisition officials and contractors alike to drop their existing ideas “when you are presented with a better one,” and “not care about who gets the credit” for a win. He also wants to see vendors cheering each other’s successes, and a focusing on “the nation,” not just the bottom line.

Richardson said he’ll be tolerant if new ideas are tried and fail. “I don’t want us to take away the wrong lessons,” he said, and confront a chorus of people saying, “I knew we shouldn’t have done that.” He noted that he once wrecked his car when he hit a deer, but the lesson learned shouldn’t be, “Don’t drive at night.”
in reality though manufacturers will try to fill their coffers to the brim
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Yes contractors wish to make a profit by selling their wares. That’s rule zero of economics.
Yet Government contracts tend to increase costs by adding complexity. For example a maker like Sig or Barretta in the US has to open a special factory and line just to make “Military weapons” even if said products with a few changes are identical to a “Civilian weapon”.

NASA doesn’t want contractors making improvements to their products during mission flights for them. So SpaceX who used Falcon 9 Launches of Commercial products to learn how to land and reuse rockets faces issues as if they wish to deploy an improved rocket for NASA use they have to fly a certification flight before hand.
 

Top