Excuse me?

Block II was NOT procured by U.S.

It was totally driven by FMS.

I am confused anyway because all we fly in a Carrier Battle Group is
SLAM-ER used with AWW-13 data link pods on the Hornets.

I'm certain P-3's fly the same thing, so I don't know where this
"Block III" BS comes from?

Maybe the Block III is an upgrade to the Block II for FMS?

What role would it have for U.S.? When we are already using
SLAM-ER????

Please make me smart on that?


On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 03:16:08 -0000, "scott s."
wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote in
:

"scott s." wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: "scott s." wrote:
:
::
::My experience was that Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers were
::the main drivers for Harpoon developments.
::
: lock
: Really? I don't suppose you could demonstrate this by telling us
: which FMS customers drove which developments?
:
:
:Sorry, but I don't think I want to go there.
:

Then I don't believe it.

I ask the question because MY experience is that FMS customers want
the kit that is currently being used by US forces. They seldom pay
for their own special developments of new capability.

[When they do it is usually as a direct sale and not FMS.]

There are some direct sales of Harpoon, but in most cases they want
the launching system as well as the missiles, and that typically
requires some FMS so they can get USN support for things like
logistics. The main problem was that CNO surface warfare decided
that Harpoon was no longer a priority, and didn't want to fund any
further development. We had a program going that would rehost
the SWG-1A within the Tomahawk SWG-4 but that was killed by OPNAV.

Of course, you are free to believe what you want.

scott s.
.