Talk:Paveway

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Dysprosia, I'm not aware of "paveway" being in common use in the sense of something people walk on. I've heard of "pavement" and "sidewalk", but not "paveway" -- Cabalamat 01:51, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is currently litigation in place about the validity of the Raytheon claims to a trademark. Not that there is a problem with having the TM here, but understand that most of the folks who worked on Paveway for years in the USAF and TI think its a total joke that Raytheon asserts ownership of a name the government created, and TI used without protection. The courts will figure it out.

As far as E-Paveway, both Raytheon and Lockheed provided dual mode evaluation units to the government for evaluation as part of the procurment that Lockheed eventually won, but I can't find any records of Raytheon ever having a contract for this version in the US, as the current article states as of 14 December. If there was any contract, it may have been only a token amount of money to set the rules for the contractor funded evaluation. This makes it sound like both firms had production qualfied dual mode Paveway II products but only Lockheed has that.

Also, the article states that Lockheed has the "initial" contract, but there is only one, and there are not plans in the federal budget for another. Lockheed won a winner take all deal - this makes it sound like the government plans to recompete, and it does not.

This article feels like there is a subtle pro-Raytheon spin. The fact are that Raytheon has lost a large portion of the LGB business to Lockheed Martin, mostly due to poor management choices in merging Raytheon, E-Systems, Hughes, Chrystler Aerospace, and Texas Instruments.

Revisionist history about the trademark and market leadership does not change the fact that the old sole source franchise was lost in the wake of change.

The trademark for Paveway is in dispute and will be settled, probably in court. It is not an invalid claim by Raytheon, however. At least no more invalid than the Lockheed-Martin claim to the JASSM trademark, JASSM being the Air Force program name for the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile, which was awarded (under the same name) to both Lockheed-Martin and McDonnell-Douglas. The original LGB program was BOLT (BOmb Laser Terminal). The first series was retroactivelly called Paveway I when the Paveway II line started. The fact that TI used the name without protection was a mistake on their part, but did not affect them as there was no competition at the time they made the systems. The name transferred to Raytheon when they bought Texas Instruments Defense Systems Electronics Group (DSEG).

The statement regarding the DMLGB program is patently false. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Raytheon has been producing an enhanced version of the "Paveway II" (GBU-12/16/10 and others) since 2001. See http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/enhancedpaveway.cfm for a short writeup on the "EP2" for the UK. See also http://www.f-16.net/news_article1851.html regarding Danish purchase and testing of the Raytheon "EP2". It is also in production for other countries, as well as the U.S., and cleared on several aircraft. The U.S. contract information is difficult to find publicly, but it most certainly was not "a token amount of money to set the rules for the contractor funded evaluation." It was not with the US Navy (who ran the evaluation) at all.

The Lockheed-Martin entry is still neither qualified nor in production yet.

References & citations, please![edit]

As far as I can remember (don't have references handy) the info in this article seems reasonably accurate. However no references are included or cited, to allow its verifiability. Can any of the "key editors" of this article please help?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving targets[edit]

Worth a mention?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-plans-to-order-up-to-1600-gbu-49-bombs-for-forei-448238/ "The requirement is for a 227kg-class bomb that is compatible with an F-35 using Block 3F software, and that can “consistently” hit moving targets traveling in a constant direction and at a constant speed up to 113km/h (70mph) and manoeuvring targets with speeds up to 64km/h." Hcobb (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]