F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[KenV]

The F-35 is planned to network MADL through satcom using MUOS. But that slipped to Block 4 Indeed. But a formation of F-35s does not need a satcom link to fight (and win) at all. The satcom link is only needed to get the data the F-35 generates and pipe it to the headquarters guys. If I were in that cockpit, I'd prefer to leave the headquarters guys in the dark until I had completed my mission, lest the desk jockeys be tempted to micro manage my fight from afar.

[ORAC]

Really KenV?

You should tell the USN who accept that the F-35 is not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defences without a F-18G EW escort (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/f-35s-stealth-ew-not-enough-so-jsf-and-navy-need-growlers-boeing-says-50-100-more/).

With which they cannot share enemy threat data without turning on their L16 and exposing themselves to threats such as the DWL002 (http://errymath.********.co.uk/2014/05/dwl-002-passive-detection-radar-system.html#.VaOxdXg-OgM).

[LowObservable]

Engines,

Interesting point about MADL's data rate. When I heard a (very rare) brief on Swedish fighter datalinks in 2003, a key point was that the system was designed to minimize the volume of data. (The speaker used the analogy of identical twins who understand one another almost without speaking.)

CM - I don't know how well MUOS is expected to work at high latitudes, being geosynchronous. Conformal antennas don't make life easier (envision standing in an open manhole with your eyes just below pavement level - you can't see the other side of the street). The B-2 was supposed to get a system with two big conformal antennas, one on each side of the dorsal hump, but it was cancelled. The last I heard, Saab was going to put DRS' Face III (which uses Iridium) on Gripen.

And Ken - There are multiple video-capable HMDs on the market (BAE Striker, Elbit Targo, Thales Scorpion to name but three) that are simpler and less costly than HMDS, which was designed using older technology for very specific requirements. And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.

[NITRO104]

LO,
I'm not arguing the processing power of PC or the game code itself, but as CourtneyM (IMO correctly) noted, level of detail and the value of input alone.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but ID-ing fighter's radar at 290nm in the cluster**** of EW going on all over the place while the guy is just pinging the space in RWS, is a bit SciFi to me.
But as I said, I may be completely wrong here and modern RWRs are indeed sensitive and powerful enough (as in PRF/modulation separation) to do that.

[glad rag]

Two comments:

1. The whole point of the helmet is being completely missed. The F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has spherical coverage in the RF and IR spectrum. A conventional HUD does great when all your sensors are optimized/limited to a narrow tunnel in the forward hemisphere. Making a HUD with spherical coverage (including backward and down) is literally impossible. The solution was a helmet that becomes a HUD with totally spherical (4Pi steradian) coverage. This enables the pilot to literally look down through the bottom of the airplane or backward through the engine and tail of the airplane and see (at both long and short range) EVERYthing that his sensors are seeing. That's why the F-35 has no HUD. And the helmet is integral to the ability of the avionics systems to display fused sensor data. That simply cannot be done on flat panels and HUDs in a single crew airplane. And BTW, has anyone priced a conventional holographic HUD lately? No you say? Well a holographic HUD costs only slightly less than the helmet system. So cost wise, its nearly a wash. Knocking the price of a helmet display is about as sensical as knocking the price of stealth. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world of air warfare. And calling it a "contradiction in design" indicates (please excuse my bluntness) a rather gross misunderstanding of the design.

2. Characterizing the F-35 as "such an abysmal dogfighter" is in my opinion both utterly false and hugely irresponsible. It's ONLY short coming is in close-in dogfight maneuverability which while not stellar, is far far far from "abysmal". And in every other realm of the dog fight it is stellar and if flown and fought properly, should enable the pilot to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Because no matter how stellar a close quarters knife fighter you are, such a fight is immensely dangerous and much better avoided in the first place. This is a lesson learned the hard way by the pilots of zero fighters well over half a century ago and a lesson many on this forum have apparently never learned.

Thanks KenV, it's always good to see the other side of the coin..


..coin-gettit?

gr.

[Lonewolf_50]

Because the Marines want to be a replacement Air Force for the Nuclear Navy No, they don't. That is a complete misread of the USMC mission statement. The question we were faced with, doctrinally, was the "expeditionary" deployment of Harriers (and later JSF?) to "austere fields" as a concept that was or wasn't even valid. Having a fast jet detachment / VSTOL/STOVL with the MEU/ARG is a concept that was alive and well even when we had 13 carriers.

There is no EW and no kind of "numbers" in the ARG to handle the capability of a CVN.

[Heathrow Harry]

Engines- thanks for soem really well balanced and informative pots

the only thing I'd comment on is your statement

"Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right"

IIRC the Israelis and the Japanese (and possibly the Koreans) tried to buy the F-22 but were turned down as the technology was considered too advanced to be sold on...........................

[Engines]

HH,

I did say 'might' - I certainly wasn't privy to the deliberations of the USAF's export control people. Technology release was most certainly an issue. I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking. Unsurprisingly, this idea got few takers.

However, the GAO reports on the F-22 programme make sobering reading - very long delays, huge production costs, really poor initial availability in service, and simply eye watering bills for getting a very limited air to ground capability. And with some airframe issues. I was reliably told that when the F-22 had its weight crisis (and it had a biggie) a sign went up in the airframe design area that read 'Not a pound for air to ground' - this was as the airframe was being cut back to remove every single piece of metal designed against an air to ground loading spectrum.

For what it's worth,. I see F-22 (and possibly Typhoon) as the last examples of the 'single role performance at any cost' combat aircraft of the 80s and 90s. Both of them are wonderful at their designed role, but both cost a simple fortune and both were (again only my view) too heavily optimised for their primary role. In both cases, affordability became a big issue. Honestly, I see PAK-50 and the Chinese equivalents as going down the same route.

Again, just my views. I know others will differ - I'm not trying to criticise or put any one or any aircraft down - just my view.

Best Regards as ever to those at the front line putting the kit to the best possible use,

Engines

[Courtney Mil]

The "Not a pound for air-to-ground" was the Mac Air mantra about the F-15. From quite early on there were aspirations to include a mud-moving role and the engineers were allowed to include areas for growth into this as long as there was no weight penalty whatsoever. :ok:

[Radix]

.............

[Courtney Mil]

How you going to lock the missile to a target if it's in an internal bay?

[Rhino power]

How you going to lock the missile to a target if it's in an internal bay?

Isn't that what the $400K, super lid is for?

-RP

[LowObservable]

I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking.

One of those moments when it's hard to resist putting up your hand and saying "Two questions: What are you smoking, and did you bring enough for everyone?"

[Willard Whyte]

How you going to lock the missile to a target if it's in an internal bay?

Electrickery.

https://annebloggen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/bulb.jpg?w=535

And quite frankly a C11 wizard talks as much sense as LM.

[FODPlod]

F-35B Begins New ‘Operational Readiness Inspection’ This Week Before IOC Decision (http://news.usni.org/2015/07/13/f-35b-begins-new-operational-readiness-inspection-this-week-before-ioc-decision)
...PENTAGON – The Marine Corps added one final test before deciding whether to declare initial operational capability for the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): a first-ever Operational Readiness Inspection...

...Davis said he would not prejudge the results of the ORI, but he expects the squadron will prove ready for IOC. During operational testing aboard USS Wasp (LHD-1), JSF-trained pilots worked alongside the ship’s crew that had never worked with the aircraft before, creating a steep learning curve for both the Marines and the sailors onboard. But Davis said everything went well – they flew all required test points, qualified all pilots for day operations, qualified some for night operations, and trained some of the landing safety officers and deck crew for future JSF operations. The Marines even flew an F-35 engine out to the ship on a cradle slung under an MV-22 Osprey, which many believed would be challenging if not impossible to do, Davis said.

After dropping live ordnance earlier this month, all that stands between the F-35B and its introduction to the fleet is the ORI – an assessment that comes from the British military. Davis said he did an exchange tour when he was a captain, and before certifying the first GR5-variant Harrier squadron, an assessment team came in to ensure the squadron could meet the full range of NATO requirements. Davis said he liked the idea of having one last check from those who know the program best before officially green-lighting the squadron, and he decided several months ago to bring the tradition to the U.S.

“A lot of people said, or had conjecture, that the Marines, me, were just going to declare IOC regardless. You have 10 jets, you’re going to declare,” he said. “We have a very stringent requirement for what the airplanes are able to do, and we were hell-bent on measuring and making sure we had what we said we were going to have in order to declare initial operating capability.”

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil:
How you going to lock the missile to a target if it's in an internal bay?
Isn't that what the $400K, super lid is for?

-RP

Yes it is one of the many things the expensive electric hat is for, but if the missile is in the internal bay and can't see the target, it can't lock onto and track it.

[Rhino power]

Yes it is one of the many things the expensive electric hat is for, but if the missile is in the internal bay and can't see the target, it can't lock onto and track it.

True, but isn't that the idea of a HOBS missile? The target doesn't have to be within the missile seeker's FOV, the pilot cues the missile toward the target until after launch, where after the missile's own seeker takes up the job once it's out of the weapons bay?

-RP

[LowObservable]

I believe that LeMay introduced the ORI as CINCSAC. No golderned press releases. You knew it was on when the boss's C-135 showed up on finals.

[FODPlod]

LO - Ships and submarines have an ORI after OST (Operational Sea Training). It is a planned event and I assume the same applies to a newly commissioned squadron of a/c.

Are you thinking of TACEVALs (Tactical Evaluations) which I remember from RAF Germany and were conducted without warning?

[LowObservable]

I'm thinking of SAC ORIs. Not familiar with others.

[sferrin]

Wow. Given the name of this site is "Professional Pilots Rumor Network" I would have thought more understood that "LOAL" stood for Lock On AFTER Launch. :D

(BTW, to one poster, "HOBS" stands for High Off BoreSight. That just means it can take a shot at very high angles off centerline by using an HMCS. Still has to lock on before launch. Yes, a missile can be both; the AIM-9X Block II for example.)

[glad rag]

Wow. Given the name of this site is "Professional Pilots Rumor Network" I would have thought more understood that "LOAL" stood for Lock On AFTER Launch. :D

(BTW, to one poster, "HOBS" stands for High Off BoreSight. That just means it can take a shot at very high angles off centerline by using an HMCS. Still has to lock on before launch. Yes, a missile can be both; the AIM-9X Block II for example.)

Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..

Welcome to the forum btw.....

[LowObservable]

I am not quite sure when, if at all, anyone used the term LOAL in this thread. Not in the last couple of years.

HOBS and LOAL are related. The more you get into HOBS, the more challenging LOAL gets, particularly at shorter ranges. The F-22, T-50 and J-20 devote a lot of weight and volume to covering the HOBS envelope while staying LOBL. Pit bulls and gunny sacks, even with datalinks.

[sferrin]

Post #6766 right up the page.

[sferrin]

"Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..

Welcome to the forum btw....."

I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "Lock On" eh? "Septics"? Is that anything like "Limey"or "Pome"? Apparently I'm not up to your educational standards.

[MSOCS]

sferring - thanks for making a genuinely valid contribution but don't expect many on here to either attempt to understand or acknowledge the point you are making.

Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..

gr, that chip on your shoulder must be getting heavy by now....

[t43562]

As mostly a spectator, I have seen the signs on other forums. It's going to take a lot of effort, now that various re-inforcements have arrived with their entrenched opinions, to refrain from battle.

A stain has appeared on the aircraft's record, some say it's fatal, some say it means nothing at all. Surely anyone without an entrenched opinion must think the answer lies uncomfortably in the middle? Why perform a test if the results don't matter? On the other hand why plod on with something hopeless?

[NITRO104]

I guess you are unfamiliar with the term "Lock On" eh?Let's put it this way, if you get pressed by a bandit and I press him, but you decide to take an over the shoulder LOAL shot with me in your frustum, we'd have a chat you wouldn't like after and IF I make it back.

[Courtney Mil]

Post #6766 right up the page.

I mentioned neither HOBS nor LOAL, I implied target obscuration.

Here are the issues (and welcome any updates as to where the Programme is going with these). I am deliberately talking about a generic, advanced IR mx, NOT a specific model, for obvious reasons, and taking LO's points a little further.

HOBS is, as I have said many times before, nothing new. It's simply a matter of cuing the missile seeker to a position defined by a sensor - not just the electric hat, but radar, IRST, etc. The target does need to be within the seeker gimbal limits, not obscured by fuselage or wing and needs to be able to be kept in the mx fov during fly-out. However, it is also important to know what the seeker is tracking, most importantly the bad guy in your nine o'clock or your wingman just beyond him, for example - the electric hat is very good at that.

LOAL is altogether different. This popped into the public's imagination when folk started talking about the "over-the-shoulder" shot, which is such a complex subject it would probably need a thread all of its own. Anyway, you can tell the mx where to look for its intended target and you can tell it what the target is doing at launch. You can't tell the mx what the target does after launch, you can't tell the mx what else might be in the (expanding) uncertainty box and you can't easily determine what the mx has targeted when and if it finds something to go after. Some of these issues COULD be overcome by command datalink, but that now stops your generic, advanced IR missile being fire and forget and adds a load of complexities to your office, not to mention additional emissions from your stealth bomber.

Would I like my wingman shooting a LOAL mx into my furball? Erm, not really, thank you.

A couple of thoughts on such a mx in a generic stealth bomber's internal weapons bay. First, as we're discussing, it can't see out. Second, we're trying to launch a forward-firing weapon from an ejector; no reason that shouldn't be made to work, but something's going to need a very significant modification and a sod of a lot of clearance work - especially if your generic advanced IR mx doesn't have any wings. I think the trapeze plan has been dropped?

EDIT: just seen that you made the same point whilst I was typing, Nitro. :ok:

[KenV]

Really KenV?

You should tell the USN who accept that the F-35 is not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defences without a F-18G EW escort.

With which they cannot share enemy threat data without turning on their L16 and exposing themselves to threats such as the DWL002.


Hmmmm.

1. So much for keeping the responses "professional" and avoiding the personal jabs. Sigh.

2. USN does NOT accept that the F-35 is "not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defenses." That is a false characterization. All versions of the F-35 are sufficiently stealthy in all aspects without an EW escort. In addition, the F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capability. USN has Growlers because the majority of its fighters for the foreseeable future will NOT be all aspect stealthy and will require an escort jammer.

Separately, USAF is relying more on stealth than USN and relying more on F-35's self-jamming capability that they feel no need for an escort jammer. Apparently so does the Royal Navy, which owns no escort jammer and has no plans to acquire one.

[KenV]

And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.

Isn't that interesting. My view is that "the data" indicates the F-35 has stellar performance and the characterizations of "abysmal" performance are "completely unsupported by data." As for "most of the world", may I respectfully inquire why so much of the world is buying the F-35? Do people really believe that nations make such decisions based on "marketing puffery" and not on hard data, including reams of classified data?

[MSOCS]

I think the trapeze plan has been dropped?

I believe you're right CM so the points made, valid as they may mostly be, are kinda moot anyway! I'm not sure why we are discussing LOAL of an IR rocket from inside a bay. Doesn't mean HOBS and LOAL aren't valid though - agree with some of the CFoF issues you and NITRO bring up. All a bit nasty if the rocket isn't properly cued or updated.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, yes, of course, MSOCS. You're right that all my last few posts are specifically about IR from the weapons bay because I was responding to a point about exactly that. Sorry I can't tell you which post; I can't even remember where I left my car keys let alone a post from more than a couple of days ago! :sad:

External carriage should be the same as any bomber. I think they've already done some of the carriage trials and I would expect the appropriate clearances to come at the appropriate time.

That said, my points about HOBS and LOAL still apply, it's just that (mostly) you don't need to rely on LOAL to launch from a wing or fuselage station, which (apart from stealth considerations) is a good thing.

[KenV]

So the F-35 doesn't need the Aim 9X at all. There is some cost savings! Which they've already identified btw.

May I respectfully point out that a point of a high off-bore sight weapon like the AIM 9X is to avoid the knife fight in the phone booth. The pilot looks, cues, and fires and then the missile does the maneuvering and closing with the target instead of the whole airplane.

It didn't look like it was immensely dangerous for the F-16. May I ask how one comes to this conclusion? How many actual close-in dogfights has the F-16 engaged in over its life time? Being optimized (in the 70s!) for the close-in daytime, good weather dogfight and actually fighting that way are two very different things.

When carrying the Aim 9X the F-35 couldn't sneak up on the F-16 either.May I ask how one comes to this conclusion? The F-35's stealth and its array of passive sensors make it more capable of "sneaking up" than just about any other fighter. (The F-22 possibly being excepted.)

Unless it carries it internally. But that precious space is limited. This is the contradiction in the design that is being pointed out.It is only a "contradiction" if the user decides to use the F-35 primarily as a stealthy air-to-air platform. One more time, it is designed primarily as a penetrating air-to-ground platform with an excellent air-to-air capability. And stellar in long range air-to-air. And loaded up with external stores which compromises its stealth, F-35 is damn good, generally on par with a Super Hornet, which no one calls a slouch, much less "abysmal".

[Hempy]

I'd be interested if you could post a link to you so called 'hard data' KenV. The countries involved in the F-35 program signed up before there was any 'hard data'.

[LowObservable]

Not only may you "respectfully inquire" but you could find out for yourself.

However.

The US customers have no choice in the matter in any case. The Marines are happy because procurement is from the Navy aircraft budget and there has been no hint that they are expected to give up any other force structure to pay for the F-35. The AF's last leaders who advocated another fighter were fired.

The partner nations signed on when the jet was promised as 2700 pounds lighter, far less expensive to buy, available in 2012-13 and with equal operating costs to an F-16, and when Rafale and Typhoon were not in service and JAS 39E did not exist. None except Denmark has formally reviewed that commitment, despite the changes since that time.

Consequently, none of the "experts" in the other nations have access to the kind of data about non-F-35 solutions that would allow them to make a professional judgment as to whether (for instance) JAS 39E would meet their national needs at one-third the LCC. You don't get that access without a real competition (and not a Netherlands-style beauty contest).

Korea carried out a rules-based competition, which the F-15SE won. The decision was then reversed using additional criteria that were secret, so there are no grounds for assuming that U.S. political pressure was not influential if not decisive.

The F-35 won in Japan, against Typhoon (almost unthinkable) and Super Hornet, which was at that time still hobbled by official and unrealistic insistence that its OSD would be around 2030. It was chosen by Israel, for specific missions (read "A2G"), but Israel is not spending its own money.

[LowObservable]

HOBS and LOAL are both valid technical solutions (BVRAAMs are all LOAL) but it's the combination of the two that gets tricky, particularly at close range where the angle rates are highest. While in theory the datalinked IR AAMs (AIM-9X Block II and ASRAAM MLU) can do it, CM has outlined the limitations of launching from a ventral bay where LOS is interrupted.

So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.

"Over-the-shoulder" can be LOBL if the target is near 9-3 when the missile is fired - I believe that's the main selling point for Python 5.

[KenV]

Anyway, you can tell the mx where to look for its intended target and you can tell it what the target is doing at launch. You can't tell the mx what the target does after launch, you can't tell the mx what else might be in the (expanding) uncertainty box and you can't easily determine what the mx has targeted when and if it finds something to go after.

May I respectfully point out that the AIM-120 from day one way back in the '80s had a datalink that enabled the launch aircraft to guide the missile's flight and tell it when to turn on its internal sensor for terminal homing? In other words, if there was uncertainly about where the missile had gone and what it was going to see when it got there, the missile's internal sensor would simply not get turned on. The missile has improved mightily since.

Would I like my wingman shooting a LOAL mx into my furball? Erm, not really, thank you.May I respectfully point out that the point of an LOAL shot is to AVOID the furball, and not to engage one.

[KenV]

Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode. May I respectfully point out that neither does the F-22. (When the F-22's trapeze is extended to allow the Sidewinder to see the target, the F-22 stops being stealthy). Does that make the F-22 "abysmal"?

[melmothtw]

Come on Ken, you've got some good arguments, but regrettably they're being undermined by the passive aggressive manner with which you're framing them ("May I respectfully point out...").

There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.

[LowObservable]

:ugh:

I think everyone here understands the difference between weapons carriage that is stealthy until the WVR fight starts, and external carriage. In WVR, RCS by definition no longer matters. So your point is entirely invalid. Again.

[a1bill]

@Courtney, I'm sure someone would know. I would have thought the wingman would have the encoding to mid-course update the missile if needed or even launch and target a missile from the leading platform ?

[sandiego89]

gald rag: Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..


Wow, an unrelated tragic mistaken shoot down, a conspiracy theory and a derogatory slur all in one line. You are quite efficient glad rag. Not funny or clever by any means if that was your intent, but efficient.

[glad rag]

So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.



This is quite shocking...but if they don't need them :hmm::hmm::hmm::hmm:

Lingchi indeed.


http://lessonpix.com/drawings/161/100x100/Orange+Rectangle.png

[glad rag]

Wow, an unrelated tragic mistaken shoot down, a conspiracy theory and a derogatory slur all in one line. You are quite efficient glad rag. Not funny or clever by any means if that was your intent, but efficient.

tragic mistaken shoot down?

a conspiracy theory??

a derogatory slur ???

My, you really want to have your cake and eat it.

http://lessonpix.com/drawings/161/100x100/Orange+Rectangle.png

[malcrf]

KenV

F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capabilityI'm not totally convinced that this is a helpful capability..............

[Lonewolf_50]

Come on Ken, you've got some good arguments, but regrettably they're being undermined by the passive aggressive manner with which you're framing them ("May I respectfully point out...").

There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.
This would come across as less of a cheap shot if you got on glad rag about that septics nonsense he threw at a new arrival.

We were doing so well for a while, just going after the topic and not each other. I'd like to see us return to that.
(I'd also like to see the F-35 be less expensive, so maybe this is a vain hope).
As to ORI: Been on a few ships at sea doing ORI: a wringer.

[glad rag]

got on glad rag about that septics nonsense

It's not nonsense if it's a [however unpalatable] FACT!


http://lessonpix.com/drawings/161/100x100/Orange+Rectangle.png

[Lonewolf_50]

It's not nonsense if it's a [however unpalatable] FACT!


http://lessonpix.com/drawings/161/100x100/Orange+Rectangle.png

User of a perjorative term is not necessary, and the 20+ year ago Airbus shoot down by a guided missile cruiser (that did not have visual) has about BFA to do with the F-35.

There are enough axes to grind about the F-35 without brining in Off Topic issues. Please stick with the topic of the thread.

[glad rag]

Absolutely :)




http://lessonpix.com/drawings/161/100x100/Orange+Rectangle.png

[KenV]

I think everyone here understands the difference between weapons carriage that is stealthy until the WVR fight starts, and external carriage. In WVR, RCS by definition no longer matters. So your point is entirely invalid. Again.I don't know how to state this in a "professional" and non "personal" manner as requested, but here goes: hilariously false. Again. A radar guided missile is NOT only used in the long range BVR environment. Many AMRAAMS for example have been shot in a WVR environment. Not even Sparrows were used BVR only and indeed most (the vast majority of?) Sparrows were shot WVR. So RCS is most certainly applicable in a WVR environment, especially in a head-on shot and in many (most?) shots taken from other than the target's six. And yes, I know that many modern IR guided missiles have a head-on capability and don't necessarily need a tail shot. That's why the F-35 is IR stealthy in every aspect but the rear. It takes away the opponent's chance for a shot anywhere but from the six. And certainly one knows that even in such very close quarters where a gun can be used, a gun engagement requires radar to determine range for the computer to compute the gun firing solution. Take away your opponent's ability to determine range, and you've effectively taken away your opponent's gun.

[KenV]

I'm not totally convinced that this is a helpful capability..............In many (most?) scenarios it's not. That's why very few air arms even have jammer aircraft. But if you need it and don't have it, you're screwed. Kinda like a parachute or ejection seat. Most of the time you don't need it at all. But when you need it, you usually really really really need it.

[NITRO104]

Lonewolf_50,
it's Summer, it's hot and ppl payed tickets to see tigers, lions, elephants, acrobats on the trapeze, bearded lady, strongest man, at al.
So, when the manager starts to excuse about beasts having diarrhea, acrobats running away with the circus money, bearded lady got accidentally shaved and strongest man lost weight when his fiancee left him, those same ppl became cranky.
Just sayin'...

[LowObservable]

Partly correct but not relevant or responsive.

I might have been more careful and made the point that in an engagement where I need HOBS, I am more than likely in mutual detection range (particularly as nose-on RCS is not the issue). Hence the transient RCS increase caused by missile rail extension is acceptable, and not equivalent to the throughout-the-mission RCS increase caused by external weapons.

As for guns: I'd like to see what target RCS, at relevant aspects, is required to disappear from a fighter-type radar at <2000 meters. I would suggest that it's a whole :mad:load of - dbsm.

[Courtney Mil]

May I respectfully point out that the AIM-120 from day one way back in the '80s had a datalink that enabled the launch aircraft to guide the missile's flight and tell it when to turn on its internal sensor for terminal homing? In other words, if there was uncertainly about where the missile had gone and what it was going to see when it got there, the missile's internal sensor would simply not get turned on. The missile has improved mightily since.

Absolutely correct about command guidance for AMRAAM, Ken, but I was talking about IR mx and I did also say that you COULD use command datalink, but then the mx needs to be supported in flight until it goes active and acquires - hence my reference to the uncertainty box.

AIM120 is a command link medium range mx with an active RADAR seeker. It does not have a thermal seeker and there is no feedback to indicate whether it can see its target (until AIM-120D P3I Phase 4 with bi-directional DL). That is why it has an uncertainty box. There is always uncertainty about the mx and the intended target.

There is a world of difference between supporting a medium or long range mx to a target at long-range and supporting a short range mx against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre- especially if your sensor was the MkII eyeball which doesn't feed range information to the datalink.

In case I wasn't clear at post #6784 I was talking specifically about a generic, advanced IR mx launched from the internal weapons bay of a stealth bomber of a similar design to F-35. I seem to have confused people by not making that clear. Sorry. :)

[ORAC]

In many (most?) scenarios it's not. Ken, I believe it was intended as an ironic comment joke in reference to your statement that the F-35 had an "excellent self-jamming capability".

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Royal Aeronautical Society: Insight Blog: Does the f-35 really suck in air combat? (http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blog/3272/Does-the-F35-really-suck-in-air-combat)

[Courtney Mil]

CMANO is an 80€ Desk top simulation. It is unclassified and available to buy in the public domain. Whilst it looks like lovely fun and is not without its great points, it is not a valid evaluation tool for a new bomber.

[O-P]

WEBF,


Interesting report, thanks. It appears that the scenario was flown in a clean RF arena, giving the F35s passive sensors just one thing to concentrate on...the SUs.


I just wonder, 'cos I don't know, how the typically cluttered RF picture found in Northern Europe would affect the F35s ability to classify, and target, at extended range?

[Just This Once...]

USN does NOT accept that the F-35 is "not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defenses." That is a false characterization. All versions of the F-35 are sufficiently stealthy in all aspects without an EW escort. In addition, the F-35 has an excellent self-jamming capability. USN has Growlers because the majority of its fighters for the foreseeable future will NOT be all aspect stealthy and will require an escort jammer.


Ken, the F-35 RCS reduction is optimised for one band only and the aircraft does not have a credible jamming capability either.

Quite simply no jamming system is installed, so the only jamming effect it can deliver is via the radar (within the limited frequencies it can cover).

If you don't want the bad guys to use their long-range search radars to pinpoint your F-35 package an off-board jamming capability, such as that provided by the Growlers, is rather handy.

[KenV]

AIM120 is a command link medium range mx with an active RADAR seeker. It does not have a thermal seeker and there is no feedback to indicate whether it can see its target (until AIM-120D P3I Phase 4 with bi-directional DL). That is why it has an uncertainty box. There is always uncertainty about the mx and the intended target.Agreed. However, although the missile does not link back its location, the launch platform can track it along with the intended target. F-35s are especially adept at tracking their own missile(s) and can even do so passively. If the missile strays and/or the target maneuvers to avoid the missile the missile can be redirected and/or never have its terminal homing guidance switched on. And I agree that even in this situation, plenty of uncertainty remains. However, the F-35s combination of sensors and sensor fusion means the probabilities go up significantly in favor of a successful shot and successful kill.

There is a world of difference between supporting a medium or long range mx to a target at long-range and supporting a short range mx against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre- especially if your sensor was the MkII eyeball which doesn't feed range information to the datalink. Agreed. And there-in lies the power of the F-35's sensor suite and (alleged "contradictory") helmet display system. The helmet, and thus the sensors and weapons, know where the "MkII eyeball" is looking and the fused and linked DAS and radar pictures (the DAS and radar pictures of ALL the F-35s in the fight) compute the range automatically. And if I may direct your memory to Vietnam, Sparrow missiles were used at "short range against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre" on many an occasion. The same thing happened later over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the skies over and adjacent to Israel using AMRAAMs. So "close in high maneuvering" fights have not restricted the pilots to using IR missiles and using radar guided missiles is most assuredly appropriate and effective in those situations. Thus lack of an IR missile is not a deal breaker in such a fight. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

[KenV]

Partly correct but not relevant or responsive.

I might have been more careful and made the point that in an engagement where I need HOBS, I am more than likely in mutual detection range (particularly as nose-on RCS is not the issue). Hence the transient RCS increase caused by missile rail extension is acceptable, and not equivalent to the throughout-the-mission RCS increase caused by external weapons.

I clearly did not make myself clear. So I will try again. The lack of an internal IR missile does not prevent the F-35 from engaging in a close-in, visual fight. Radar guided missiles (including Sparrow and AMRAAM) have been used for nearly half a century in close-in, visual fights. And AMRAAM can be carried internally by the F-35. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

[KenV]

Ken, the F-35 RCS reduction is optimised for one band only and the aircraft does not have a credible jamming capability either.

Tell that to USAF. They insist they do not want nor need EF-18 Growlers because of the F-35s internal jamming capability. I too have my doubts but USAF has a LOT more data than I do. And I personally think the Navy is wise in having a dedicated escort jammer, which the F-35 is not.

If you don't want the bad guys to use their long-range search radars to pinpoint your F-35 package an off-board jamming capability, such as that provided by the Growlers, is rather handy. Probably true. Yet how many dedicated escort jammers are there in the various air arms on this planet? With the EA-6 retired, the EF-18 seems to be the only Western one. So it would seem that although "handy," such a jammer aircraft is a low priority by every Western air arm except USN. The Russians have old Su-24 Fencer jammer aircraft, but I don't know how well the Russians have been able to update them to keep up with the evolving threats.

[LowObservable]

The ability to fuse DAS and radar tracks and construct a common 3D picture of the air battle, with integrity and reliability sufficient to launch missiles, would be truly impressive but has not been demonstrated. Given that DAS alone is inherently 2D, it would be quite challenging.

Yes, one can launch AMRAAM within visual range. If you were strong enough you could pick it up and hit your adversary over the head with it, for that matter. What it won't do very well is high-off-boresight at close range because it can't pull the g off the rail.

As for jamming: The limits are as JTO describes, as far as I am aware, although there is a towed or expendable system (BAE ALE-70) for use when the aircraft is carrying external stores.

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed. However, although the missile does not link back its location, the launch platform can track it along with the intended target. F-35s are especially adept at tracking their own missile(s) and can even do so passively. If the missile strays and/or the target maneuvers to avoid the missile the missile can be redirected and/or never have its terminal homing guidance switched on. And I agree that even in this situation, plenty of uncertainty remains. However, the F-35s combination of sensors and sensor fusion means the probabilities go up significantly in favor of a successful shot and successful kill.


I'm sorry, that is absolutely not true. There has never been any functionality such as that. Any more than AIM120 has a thermal seeker. Your posts are not making sense to me. There is no reason whatsoever why the F-35 should be any better at supporting AIM120 than, for example F-15. The command guidance is what it is, and it doesn't matter what platform that guidance comes from. The missile doesn't "stray" unless it has malfunctioned or lost guidance - in either case nothing is going to correct that; the missile is effectively defeated.

My use of the term "uncertainty" has nothing to do with what the guy in the cockpit thinks, it's to do with the mx search parameters when it decides to go active. Uncertainty is a technical term, not an expression of not being certain about what is going on.

Two of your comments there interest me. First, why is the F-35 especially adept at tracking its own missiles and, second, how does it do that passively?

You haven't yet explained your post about the AIM-120 thermal seeker. I am curious.

[Courtney Mil]

@Courtney, I'm sure someone would know. I would have thought the wingman would have the encoding to mid-course update the missile if needed or even launch and target a missile from the leading platform ?

Third party targeting is way beyond this domain, I'm afraid.

[Courtney Mil]

The helmet, and thus the sensors and weapons, know where the "MkII eyeball" is looking and the fused and linked DAS and radar pictures (the DAS and radar pictures of ALL the F-35s in the fight) compute the range automatically. And if I may direct your memory to Vietnam, Sparrow missiles were used at "short range against a close target with a high sightline rate and manoeuvre" on many an occasion. The same thing happened later over Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the skies over and adjacent to Israel using AMRAAMs. So "close in high maneuvering" fights have not restricted the pilots to using IR missiles and using radar guided missiles is most assuredly appropriate and effective in those situations. Thus lack of an IR missile is not a deal breaker in such a fight. In short, the F-35 is most assuredly capable of fighting within visual range and is most assuredly not crippled by its lack of an internal IR missile. And in such a fight its stealth remains an asset. And in such a fight its fused and linked DAS and radar (along with its "contradictory" helmet system) also remain assets.

I know I encouraged you and a couple of others to be more respectful in posting replies, but I have to say that this is utter rubbish. With all due respect, this and your previous few posts make me doubt your grasp of air-to-air weaponry.

Your post here appears to be based upon the premise that all, or at least some, of the sensors are tracking all the targets. I'm sure your experience will have proved that is seldom the case, especially when the air situation is highly dynamic. The whole point of being able to cue weapons from the helmet is that the pilot can point at a target very much more quickly with his head than he can with any other sensor and that he can launch a relatively high success mx very quickly - essential in a close-in, highly dynamic situation.

Head tracking is very different to eyeball tracking, although that's really not relevant here because the sensor is the same either way.

Your quote about AIM 7 at close range presumably refers to dog fight mode? If your measure of ensuring acurate targeting is based on that, then I would not want You to be my wingman in an F-35 on operations.

As for "most assuredly", assured by whom?

Sorry to be a bit blunt, but your statements do not accord with weaponology.

[LowObservable]

There is no reason at all why the F-35 should be "especially adept" at tracking AIM-120Ds or other AAMs. The D model has GPS and a two-way datalink that can presumably "report back" its position, but that will work with any platform.

The idea mooted by KenV that the missile "may never have its terminal guidance switched on" is not supported by any known facts. This would require the fighter's radar to track every movement of the target, compute its location at intercept and transmit steering commands to the missile, which would then accurately navigate itself in 4D to arrive within lethal range of the target. I don't think AMRAAM has a CLOS mode.

[Mach Two]

KenV,

I believe you claim time in the F/A18C. During your time there you clearly missed out how the AIM 120 works. I am a happy AMRAAM customer and user and I can categorically state that virtually nothing you have stated here about it has the faintest echo of truth about it.

You even appear to be unclear about the difference between AIM 132 and AIM 120. I believe you would be well advised to stick to your engineering job and stay clear of a fast jet cockpit that involves modern weapons systems. Maybe you've forgotten a lot or maybe you are talking about weapons you don't understand. Either way, nearly all your statements are completelty wrong.

[O-P]

AIM 120s WVR (the old boresight) mode was called "Mad dog in a meat shop" for a very good reason! Once you let it off the leash, anything could happen and you could do nothing to stop it. Needless to say that it wasn't considered the first choice in weapon employment!

[Courtney Mil]

...hence my earlier comments about LOAL for IR mx. The principles and risks are pretty much the same. Well said, O-P. :ok:

I suspect this line of discussion is getting beyond the thread and frequently diverging into the realms of FlightSim land.

[glad rag]

, although there is a towed or expendable system (BAE ALE-70) for use when the aircraft is carrying external stores.

I'm pretty sure there's a one liner in there, but as I've promised to behave.....



https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnhJ8kx3s0OjOIVZkPQmNF7cXJSPYGMByuZKu9zcU YB9UQCWvHqs7ifw

[MSOCS]

I link this article, not only because it quite accurately (in my opinion) contexts the issues we've all been recently debating; but also to place some element of doubt in peoples' minds. Please continue to doubt the capabilities of the F-35; it actually proves that the real capability is still unknown and underestimated.

Is the F-35 the worst fighter ever? | Fighter Sweep (http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/)

[LowObservable]

MSOCS -

I disagree. The condescending tone should tip you off that the author's current knowledge of fighter/sensor/weapon technology is weak to non-existent. Some of the points he makes are strawman arguments (in the real sense, not the way he uses the term) - that is, he's arguing against points that almost nobody makes. (For instance, far from everyone compares the F-35 to the F-105.)

He also seems to be equating BFM with guns and assuming that HOBS weapons mean that BFM is obsolete in a missile engagement. I don't think that view gets much support here.

His arrogant, unqualified "You don't have a right or a need to know" (which is where he hangs his hat, because he otherwise makes no case for the F-35's value) is a disgrace. You swore to defend the Constitution, sunshine, not subvert it by asserting that if the Government wants to keep anything secret for any reason, STFU and sit down, Citizen!

Of course there is intelligent discussion on military technology and operations at the unclass level. It happens here. I am continuously involved in it, and it is taken seriously (in my personal experience) by people who do have clearances. (The author should get out more and attend a few shows and conferences.)

[Note - as you can tell, I find his attitude offensive. The best I can say for him is that it may be driven by complete lack of knowledge of how the world of open-source works. But in that case he should give his keyboard a rest.]

And if I had $5 for every time someone said "Ah, but if you had the real Secret Squirrel brief you would understand why this widget is worth every $100 billion you paid for it" I would be richer by many $5s, at least. Aside from Soviet or really black programs, I can't recall any cases where such secret and decisive capabilities have been revealed by history; I alluded earlier to such claims made for the F-22, which are largely belied by the AF's currently lackadaisical approach to upgrading the jet.

Overall, I'd say that the author is letting his worldview be defined by animosity towards the sources of criticism.

[KenV]

I'm sorry, that is absolutely not true. There has never been any functionality such as that. Any more than AIM120 has a thermal seeker......You haven't yet explained your post about the AIM-120 thermal seeker.I never stated nor remotely suggested AIM-120 has a thermal seeker. Midcourse it can be command guided or it can fly to a waypoint using internal inertial guidance. Terminal guidance is purely active homing RF.

I am curious.Your posts are not making sense to me. There is no reason whatsoever why the F-35 should be any better at supporting AIM120 than, for example F-15. The command guidance is what it is, and it doesn't matter what platform that guidance comes from.....why is the F-35 especially adept at tracking its own missiles and, second, how does it do that passively?I'm NOT talking about the command guidance, which is currently only one-way anyway. F-35 has the ability to track the missile(s) it shoots both via its own radar and via its passive IR system. No other aircraft can do that. And both the RF and IR pictures are linked to other F-35s in the fight to maintain a more complete and more accurate air picture that is updated at a much higher rate than any other aircraft.

My use of the term "uncertainty" has nothing to do with what the guy in the cockpit thinks, it's to do with the mx search parameters when it decides to go active. Uncertainty is a technical term, not an expression of not being certain about what is going on. My use is similar to yours. Specifically, once one has built up an air picture, as time passes that air picture becomes increasingly stale and uncertainty about what the situation is now vs what it was increases. Uncertainty can be removed/mitigated by updating the air picture with fresh AND accurate data. In short, the pilot loses situational awareness without constant updates of the air picture, which he/she must build up manually. The F-35's sensor suite and datalinks provide more data at higher rates than any other aircraft, including the F-22. In addition, the system's ability to fuse the raw data from multiple sensors makes the data more accurate and the F-35's ability to display this data to the pilot in a meaningful and intuitive manner is unmatched, even by F-22. In short, the F-35 pilot remains more situationally aware of the entire air picture and uncertainty of the air picture is mitigated if not eliminated entirely.

And finally, current US (USAF, USN and USMC) air doctrine is to fire weapons at 3 to 30 miles and avoid the furball. I can't speak for other nations. A big part of that engagement envelope is within visual range and the AIM-120 is most certainly a capable weapon anywhere in that envelope. So the characterization that when fighting visually stealth is no asset because only IR missiles will be used is just plain false for two reasons:

1. Radar guided missiles are most certainly used in visual air engagements
2. F-35 stealth is about a LOT more than just RF. F-35 has a lower IR signature than F-22 in nearly every aspect other than tail on. So yes, stealth most certainly matters even in a visual engagement.

[KenV]

Oh my.

One guy makes a (false) assumption about me stating that AMRAAM has IR terminal homing and the fan boys jump on board and make a sh*tload of personal attacks. Very "professional" indeed.

[KenV]

Your post here appears to be based upon the premise that all, or at least some, of the sensors are tracking all the targets. I'm sure your experience will have proved that is seldom the case, especially when the air situation is highly dynamic. Oh my. So many false assumptions/assertions in two sentences. Where do I begin?

1. My experience is in a cockpit (F/A-18C) that was pretty advanced in the early part of this century and remains largely so today. The air picture in that cockpit was generated by the pilot's eyeballs which was fed data from two sources: looking outside and looking at an active RF (radar) display. That radar picture was updated manually by the pilot and fuzed with eyeball data in the pilot's head. That remains true of essentially every cockpit flying today.

2. F-35 has multiple onboard sensors beyond the pilot's eyeballs. It has passive RF, passive IR, and active RF. That sensor data is fuzed by the system and updated continuously and the updates displayed continuously to the pilot in a very intuitive format. In addition, the air picture generated by the airplane's onboard sensors are fuzed with offboard data (like other F-35s, other fighters, AWACS, AEGIS, ground radar, etc.)

3. No(!!), not all the sensors are tracking all the targets all the time. Each sensor has its strengths and attributes and each provides a PIECE of the air picture. The strength of the F-35 is that the airplane itself takes all the separate bits and pieces and fuzes them together to form a single air picture. The airplane as a system possesses a far more complete air picture than any single sensor and thru the (allegedly contradictory) helmet system, the airplane can communicate that air picture to the pilot very quickly and in a manner that the pilot can quickly and intuitively understand. So effectively the F-35 system forms a complete air picture (no other system does that, not even AWACS or AEGIS) and pipes that picture almost directly into the pilot's head.

[LowObservable]

The F-35's sensor suite and datalinks provide more data at higher rates than any other aircraft, including the F-22. In addition, the system's ability to fuse the raw data from multiple sensors makes the data more accurate and the F-35's ability to display this data to the pilot in a meaningful and intuitive manner is unmatched, even by F-22.

You know this how? From your detailed briefings on (for example) Rafale F3R? (I don't know whether your claim is accurate or not - but then, neither do you.)

My experience is in a cockpit (F/A-18C) that was pretty advanced in the early part of this century and remains largely so today. The air picture in that cockpit was generated by the pilot's eyeballs which was fed data from two sources: looking outside and looking at an active RF (radar) display. That radar picture was updated manually by the pilot and fuzed with eyeball data in the pilot's head. That remains true of essentially every cockpit flying today.

The final sentence is false. (That's a statement of fact, not a personal attack.) Are you genuinely unaware of what has been done outside of Lockheed Martin, are are you actively trying to inject misinformation into the discussion?

[KenV]

AIM 120s WVR (the old boresight) mode was called "Mad dog in a meat shop" for a very good reason!

Oh my! The characterization that AIM-120 can only shoot guided beyond visual range and must use "boresight mode" to shoot within visual range is not only utterly false, but downright absurd. Looks like the (clueless) fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

[KenV]

You know this how? From your detailed briefings on (for example) Rafale F3R?

From Wiki: In January 2014, Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that €1 billion is allocated towards the development of the F3R standard. The standard will see the integration of the Meteor BVR missile, among other weapons and software updates. The standard is to be validated by 2018.

So the F3R standard won't even be "validated" until 2018. Fully developing, testing, and producing the product built to the F3R standard and then installing it in the aircraft take place when? And that standard while providing a new weapon does not provide any new sensors. So your Rafale F3R example is actually a form of what you call "misinformation". May I ask if this is hypocrisy or just unprofessional inconsistency?

The final sentence is false. (That's a statement of fact, not a personal attack.) Are you genuinely unaware of what has been done outside of Lockheed Martin, are are you actively trying to inject misinformation into the discussion?

Hmmm.

1. I work for a COMPETITOR to Lockheed Martin. So your implication that I'm somehow biased is false.

2. Rafale (and indeed any other existing aircraft) does not and cannot have the passive sensor suite of the F-35 and F-22 simply because they need to be integrated into the structure and loft lines of the aircraft. Unlike most other systems, such a sensor suite cannot be (cost effectively) scabbed onto an existing airframe. Is the deletion of that fact "misinformation" or an example of the very ignorance (falsely) attributed to me?

[Hempy]

Ken, methinks you complain too much to be genuine (either that or you are simply 'angry').

Have a stiff scotch and a lie down..

[LowObservable]

F3R will not be in service until 2018. Neither will the Block 3F version of the F-35, and 2B/3I, as has been publicly confirmed, includes patches for sensor fusion and other limitations. It's a fair comparison with the capability that was ordered in 2001.

Despite your bluster, the sentence with which I took issue is still false, in that several other fighters have more than radar data (including optronics and passive EW) and have fused tactical situation displays.

[glad rag]

:hmm: I thought Rafale was no longer allowed to play in red/green games, in part due to it's passive sensor capability, by the home team:hmm:

:}

[LowObservable]

The phrase used was "sucking up all the trons", IIRC.

It's a Dyson when it comes to trons, by all accounts.

[glad rag]

Ah right so obviously a "useless" sensor platform then!!


shouldhaveboughthesetforqe2then...

:}

[O-P]

Ken,


Where exactly did I say that the AIM 120 could ONLY be used WVR in a boresight mode? It is a reversionary mode at best. I referenced "the OLD boresight mode" so those that had only employed the AIM 7, or SkyFlash, would have an idea which function we were talking about.


Have you ever flown with an AIM 120 equipped aircraft? I have.

[KenV]

Ken, methinks you complain too much to be genuine (either that or you are simply 'angry').So among the many other ad hominem (unprofessional, out of touch, obsolete knowledge, no real knowledge, no real air-to-air experience, obsolete air-to-air experience, not really a pilot, not really an engineer, passive aggressive, etc etc) now I'm not "genuine" (whatever that means.)

[KenV]

Head tracking is very different to eyeball tracking..... Indeed. And the F-35s helmet system does both.

....although that's really not relevant here because the sensor is the same either way. Even assuming the sensor system "is the same" for either, the system that processes the sensor data most decidedly is NOT. For that, the difference between head and eyeball tracking is very important.

[KenV]

F3R will not be in service until 2018. Really? Then why does it say the F3R standard will be "validated" in 2018. There is a huge difference between validating a standard versus building that standard, testing it, placing that standard into production, and installing it in the fleet.

[Hempy]

sort of like F-35 IOC in 2014??

[LowObservable]

"Eyeball tracking... The F-35 helmet does both."

PIFFLE! And I have had the thing on my head. Mods, how long do we have to correct the myriad falsehoods propagated by this person?

[Hempy]

I said 3 pages back that he's either a Walt or under the employ of LM.

Since he denies the latter...

[KenV]

Where exactly did I say that the AIM 120 could ONLY be used WVR in a boresight mode?

You stated: AIM 120s WVR (the old boresight) mode was called "Mad dog in a meat shop" for a very good reason!

The implication to me is that the AIM-120's WVR mode is the old boresight mode. An implication agreed with by CM in the very next post. My apologies if I misunderstood both of you.

But if I misunderstood, what was the point of the statement? Was it a non sequitur unrelated to the discussion at hand?

[KenV]

sort of like F-35 IOC in 2014?? Yes indeed!

[a1bill]

" PIFFLE! And I have had the thing on my head. Mods, how long do we have to correct the myriad falsehoods propagated by this person? "
LowObservable, I wouldn't worry too much, I saw you say that LOAL need to acquire their target within the 9 to 3 o'clock, when it can be a rear hemisphere acquisition

[O-P]

Ken,


We were discussing LOAL modes. So, totally related to the discussion at hand.


Have you flown an AiM120 equipped aircraft?

[KenV]

"Eyeball tracking... The F-35 helmet does both."

PIFFLE! And I have had the thing on my head. Mods, how long do we have to correct the myriad falsehoods propagated by this person?

I've had Gen III and Gen IV of the HMDS on my head. Gen IV had eye tracking using a non contact optical tracking system. Prior to Gen III it looked like HMDS would not make it into the F-35 at all and Lockheed/DoD contracted with BAE to use a modified version of the Typhoon's HEA system in the F-35. But Rockwell/Elbit solved the latency and other problems with Gen III and Gen III is now in production and the current standard issue helmet system for the F-35. Gen IV should be in production in time for block 3F. Personally, I have my doubts, but we'll have to wait and see.


Link below for Gen III history/specifics:
?Magic Helmet? for F-35 ready for delivery | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery/)

[KenV]

Have you flown an AiM120 equipped aircraft? Already answered. Multiple times. F/A-18C. But all experience was ashore, I never went to sea with AIM-120. My last at sea deployment was before Raytheon/Hughes had gotten enough TIVS (Thermally Initiated Venting Systems) available for the whole fleet. USN only allows AIM-120 aboard its carriers when equipped with TIVS and the boat I was on got none.

[KenV]

We were discussing LOAL modes. So, totally related to the discussion at hand.Well, that explains it. I was discussing WVR air combat and rebutting/debunking the contention that radar guided missiles are useless in WVR combat. Your phraseology (including using the term WVR) made it appear that WVR was the topic you were discussing, and not LOAL modes, a term you did not include in your post. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[KenV]

Mods, how long do we have to correct the myriad falsehoods propagated by this person? Good question!! The fanboys have posted all sorts of nonsense in this thread. How long must we endure that?

[LowObservable]

The HMDS has a head tracker. I am quite unaware of any use of eye tracking in this or any other fighter HMD. It is not mentioned in the ArsTechnica story you cite.

[KenV]

The HMDS has a head tracker. I am quite unaware of any use of eye tracking in this or any other fighter HMD. It is not mentioned in the ArsTechnica story you cite. Try to read what I actually wrote.

I wrote:
1. HMDS Gen III has a head tracker.
2. HMDS Gen IV includes an eye tracker.
3. Gen IV is in development and is not yet in production.
4. Gen III is the current production version, which barely got approved for F-35 and for production.
5. BAE's system in the Typhoon almost got used in the F-35.
6. The article I cited is for the history of the Gen III HMDS.

But otherwise, the above quote got it completely right.

[LowObservable]

Gosh, now I see the problem. I did not realize there was an eye tracker on the Gen IV HMDS.

You know, that Gen IV HMDS. The one that is mentioned nowhere in the 2014 DOT&E report, which talks about ongoing tests of the Gen III. The one that can't be found on a targeted Google search. The one that has never been mentioned in any testimony.

[a1bill]

KenV, if you have clearance to f-35 data. It is easy to misspeak, it would be best to google that any data has been publicly released.

[Courtney Mil]

I've had Gen III and Gen IV of the HMDS on my head.

No you haven't, it doesn't exist. You may have had a go with an early development prototype, but at this stage it is little more than a technology demonstrator belonging to Visual Systems International. If it wasn't theirs then you were playing with a research model, not necessarily representative of any future DASH HMDS Gen IV.

Phishing?

[O-P]

CM,


I believe that part of the AIM132s, MLU will give it a highly enhanced mode that would allow you to just chuck it into the fight and let it sort it out. For obvious reasons, the details are not for discussion on an open forum, but I'm sure you saw the details before you left.


For those that consider the 132 as a purely WVR weapon, it's not! It is best thought as as a BWR weapon that is outstanding WVR. I once asked if I would swop a 132 for a 9x... "not a chance" (OK, it was actually F#*k Off), was my reply

[kbrockman]

Some seem to think that good manoeuvrability is still something to strive for in a fighter.
Eurofighter: Typhoon To Be More Agile, Deadly (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/07/15/typhoon-eurofighter-aerodynamic-modifications-agility/30181011/)
LONDON — Flight tests of a Eurofighter Typhoon fighter sporting several aerodynamic modifications have greatly improved the aircraft's agility and weapons-carrying capabilities, Airbus Defence and Space said Wednesday.

The addition of fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions and other more minor changes to an Airbus test aircraft resulted in improved lift, angle of attack and roll rate capabilities compared with the standard aircraft, the Eurofighter consortium member said in a statement.
...
the modifications increased the maximum lift created by the wing by 25 percent, resulting in an increased turn rate, tighter turning radius and improved nose-pointing ability at low speed.

Test pilot Raffaele Beltrame said the program had exceeded expectations in some areas.

"We saw angle of attack values around 45 percent greater than on the standard aircraft, and roll rates up to 100 percent higher, all leading to increased agility. The handling qualities appeared to be markedly improved, providing more maneuverability, agility and precision," he said.

The test pilot said the modification work also offered potential benefits in the air-to-surface configuration, "thanks to the increased variety and flexibility of stores that can be carried."

...

The aerodynamics improvements are the latest of several capability upgrades announced in the last 18 months or so, including development of an e-scan radar, the integration of several news weapons and the development of a new multiweapon launcher.

[Courtney Mil]

O-P, I see where you're going. It was part of the concept right from the start. However, I think the people that write the RoE and CONOPS will take a lot of persuading, no matter how good the technology is. I'll see if I can dig out the slides I made for an unclassified presentation very many years ago.

[O-P]

CM,


I believe that the early problem wasn't with the capability of the seeker, but the processor needed to be twice the size of the said firework. What used to take three London buses now goes into a watch. Hence the MLU.


Which brings up the F35s (or any aircraft for that matter) IR stealth claim again, sometimes it's not what you can see that counts, it's what's not there.

[O-P]

CM,


The "new" mode for the 132 is surely better than the "Mad Dog", F4 with a 9L, Hawk with anything, or even a targeted IR rocket that has been decoyed.


I'm not saying that it should be the primary employment mode, just an option if your buddy is going to die unless you do something. I can't see RoE being a problem as long as it's not used as the primary option. ie "Get to RNE and chuck 'em all off and run".


I remember the QF4 piccy! Yikkes.

[Turbine D]

F-35, Air to Ground Attack or Air to Air Dog Fighter… Lets ask the USAF General in charge:

In the aftermath of the F-22's cancellation, the Air Force was forced to alter its plans and press-gang the F-35—originally meant as a ground-attack aircraft—into service as an air-to-air fighter. It was the only way for the flying branch to keep enough dogfighters in the air.

“Operationally, we have to have it,” says Air Force chief of staff Gen. Mark Welsh. “The decision to truncate the F-22 buy has left us in a position where even to provide air superiority [we need the F-35], which was not the original intent of the F-35 development.”

To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country’s fighters in the air.

But now the Air Force has no choice but to put the F-35 on the aerial front lines. “You have to have the F-35 to augment the F-22 to do the air superiority fight at the beginning of a high-end conflict to survive against the fifth-generation threats we believe will be in the world at that point in time,” Welsh says.

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison. The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.

So, the little skirmish between the F-35 and the F-16 was an early examination to see what might be necessary for the F-35 to fulfill the role the F-16 was capable of doing.

IMHO, it revealed that F-35 pilots need much training and time in the air to determine what the F-35 is capable of in terms of air to air tactics to defeat the enemy. But more importantly, the time to accomplish this training may be crimped by less available aircraft (limits on bankrolling procurements), flight cost per hour (most expensive of any recent aircraft) and cost of maintenance plus continued upgrades to equipment and software that requires retraining. It is what General Bogdan has hinted out as one of his top worries.

[glad rag]

It was part of the concept right from the start. Bang on the money.

The really important bit is not getting into the situation where you need to use LOAL defensively in the first place and that requires an airframe of outstanding kinematic performance that gets you into and out of Dodge, scot free.



Gratuitous asraam/132/9x seeker image...Is it a J??

http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/AIM-9X-FPA-seeker-300.png



IRST? Hmm, this is from 1969, methinks things will have moved on a LONG way since...



http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/B-2-no-IRST-do-Eurofighter.jpg.gif

http://www.pprune.org/ HBQUITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMsNygtLisBCgoKDAwMDgwMDjcZHxkrKysrKyss NywrKywrKysrKysrKzcrNys3KyssKysrKysrKysrKysrKysrKysrKyssLP/AABEIALQBFwMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAACAwEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAACAwABBQYEB//EAEIQAAIBAgIIBAQEAwMNAQAAAAABAgMRITEEBRJBYXGR8AZRgaETscHRIjJ C4VJz8SRTkxQWNFRiY4OSs8PS0+MV/8QAFQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH/xAAUEQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwB6W4uIpO7CVrFF7XEqUlh+wGBckgHU5L6DO8xMbe4xY oC4MahcOQyJBGiOOCCkgbAUXK5LFuIAqWQSYt+oe1wAPaxKmymVJ5gRMNsBM ubAkpfMkmC2FJ2Ail3Yj7wBROQDEyrlbJL8ALbF3xDfIVvAOQCC9LAooqLx9 PqRPmQgEqSwBui5MFAFfu42ApIdB4ge7RngQmiehCDAU7hrIG4aKAlK6xJd4 EavmXJbgGU8h9OF8EmxMJW8jb8PUbzv5AeGGjS3xa6hui1uO6pRGOknuXQg4 GSKccju56HB5wi/QTU1RSf6EBw+ySZ1Wl6moxTdmsP4jmdKppPADzBg2xG7IAJO4MkO2SmuIClL Iu7uEo8yNAKxuHK/mU0RookWXH5lJ44FkBJEbYLJbu4BXYp3uNS7+guwFu4DbLImUAi2DEieIFyI rkmgYsA4jIC0wovEDR0YhNEXEogw7cwlliC0GolAYh4srmEAULnTeGKWbOcg jsPDtO1NMg2qUG8lkG4vh1QdH8svT5k0jZTa2V7/AHCAs+HVFpAqa/hXv9wkwPFrm3w3hc4yusf6HU+IKq2VH1OXqrEKTbIOxFAO24AJEa+Q7Z5gyg ugCo4vHLqRoZGJdS2IHnax/YLp0LeZJABiToEkXsgBfeXG18bpLySv039QkiJ2d1g07pp2d/MBz+DulU/5If8AsAcaXnUeP8MP/MfLWVf+9q/4kvue7UOnVZ1ZKdSbXwqjs5yay5gZusNEUI05RbtOLlaSV1jwbPA3wNjXGFL RlZW+E35LNmM4pgVEtMteQW8oGaBGPIW2gL3h0wUxkAPfohReiLkUQYK5hxB Ci+7lFqQT5gqfEK+QDqMb258DvNW01GCXA4vVlPanFcUd3QyIPXo/5ZehNM/MxFOo1dbn9Bkql8WAtLLAdFFWCQGRrPVs6krq3BXMmtqeqs4X5M7CITA4Kei yTxi11KceZ3rQmroUJZxT9AOK2V5AS3nX1dSUnkmuTPHW8OLdNrg0BlVaMf8 AJqcrLadSSb34GdNK+46fTNS1PgUoRabjOTfrla5i6TqyrF4xfokwM5rErZH VYOLyfQXZ/sAKjy7RVreQST7ZGgAaJILZt/UFwwy3+YFSNDw67VKv8mr8kZ7h3cU88gNTXr/Do/8AIWNjHi3xGW7+hVgBjmFGXT0KiuJFvAuWXmBCXEJ8wUiglJjY3FpBwIPdoy ZCaMQDBv0CiAkw1zKIm93oMUn0FwXEZ0A2fD1K87+R19NYHNeGadk5cbHRqR AaYUWKQyKANSGXF2DUOIQSCBshgVEFcBhBBXI3xIkVYKdtfhXqJkxsZKyXkD JgYmvotpWXnu+pzFSk96R9CVRia1GEr7UIu/mlfrmB89VPHcRwzOvqagovzXJnll4YhunJdAOalAF5XN+fhqSWE16mNpehum 2nZ+oHnk/YS3iMv3cU13cC9oG+IVu7gWx/cCr92JfmRRvv92SKKKmyk+pJkQBJ8xkHiKDg+AGhozwIVo/JbiEGJbuwaj3YG4SKJZBpC7h7WQHY6kpbNNdTRTOf0TXsEknFq3k0amj6xhP 8r9HmQe2I+J5YyY+LAeGmJ2gwhqQxWFKry6L7B/E5dF9gotrgXcCNR9pFqo+0AW0W3wK2mygCTLYBHIC5ciwPjvc2T4kvNgWuRL Py9iouX8T6jVN+fuADg7PD2OP1nRldtwtjfFfc7N1QZVbrHHmB86qw4ewiSx/Y73S9WUqmcEn5x/C/Yy6vhynulJeqYHLC235GtrXVSpWtK9+FjJu+nMCL1ICEr9sCpZZsBXwzGNYf uAsyi4q2QyLfeYobCJB7tFIXo3zIBhOXyLiyW5hdSgI7y0UEpX8wCgNhUaxT s+AqPMJMDW0XXc44PFe5pUvEMXnF+xy8HiORB1cNd0nva5o9MNa03+tHFuVy bYHdU9Og/wBUeqPQtJTtZpnz+MhnxHubA7+M+AW2zg4aZUWUn1PTDXNVb+oHaKTI5vicn DX9Rbov0f3H/wCcb3x6AdTs4XBbRlf/ALiWjwqOL/FKSsrbjyPxFB7pdEBv3C2zBjrym/1W5o9VPWUHlJAabmVtHkhpKe8YqyAc5lOYLlcjQQxsU0FYCSTwA5TXdfbm15 XRkqJ2lbU9KWal6M8k/DtN5Oa9bhXKfDxwf1CUe7HRT8NeU+q+x55eHZrKSfq0BiyWAOydFT1Bh+JtP higJeH/ACn7AYSiFD1NipqCaya6v7C3qWpuS6gL0VIh6qOrqiX5GQDldnmXFBv1IpIo BILYLTI3gBEgiRYSACKGns0LRFKlVm73g4Wyt+JtP5Ba50dUa04RxjHZtfPF XxIPG9xVinMtO/kBcUHa+7mAlw9w2wIohpARQxoAWXItIkkBp1V/Y6V/72RkydjWqv8AsdP+bNexlSuADeeIafEHEO+AFwqtPBvqOhrCov1d8TzJsiA0 4a7qrevVD4+IJrOMXyujHSLbA3o+IvOHuHDXsN6aOfbNDw8rzqXy+DUfLIDZ hrin529GMhrOD/UrmJrr8tC2F6Kv9zGi3cDuYaWnk11GRrHCReO8ZGq1k31YHcfE4AKqjjv8om v1PqXHTqi/WwOzUluGI46Gtai33PRT11U4e4HXwIc/o+upb0urLA42Uvl5lxQTTLj3kUBfvEluHsHYgFRXAjXl8g4IjQGjq7/RtJ/4W7/aYXimlfSqjv8Aw8vypZBanpuVCvGLW0/h2V0spSb/ADO2R79K+JOTlOhQu826udlhlVXkQcy13YYl3Y3JaPL+40b/ABf/ALGHWh+J7sco/lXBPG69WBLchj3Caafm+/QfZgC0FssjQVgKtxLlFlwzLks9/qAGPHveRpkt32gqjAW0y5Ik33ZhX4gCkS5cXxBtiATivTmXFYfuVfN/Q9Gjy2ZJ7Tjb9SWK5YoBbSwXlvuaHh2Npzf+5qfJDXrF/wCsVulv+4Iq6ZnevXaytu/6gBa5itjR/wCSjH2VwPfrKup/DUFaNOkqf4sHhvsr2WB44w7XqAKWITLsWocGBUoARiMlDDeBYC1EKnHH9iJB QQHroLj7ECoogGNsIJQQbjwIqYC3BYlyph7PeBJRABLAtxSCUefsX1AUoh2R FcZYAHEtINlIAYoZKKKjmOtwQCsAn3l9i7csO8Bi5ADAuRcVusiTyyABPP7l y9S1ZotxATJq+TCbVsvcK2PeYVufQBKaLtdjbZ/Ypq39AKjFEtnZDVHuxcV3YBbit4qSR6ZRFSi8fYAWvK31KXIbsvDy9ClTfD2 AUlju73Fxisb2GKDCs+2AtxXACKH7DBs+2AtLH6DIoKwUYsB1AgyjAgGRYuK GbPUig3mAqxLDpXCkgPPYKpFhuLYxQe/6AeWwy3IZGDuMUWAhx9Qknw9x8k/MlmB54odYLZyGKICU8MhlsMi8v6hLvEAUiSiMS7uU0AlLgy9l+TCgE1cBNT1 CtzDlHHeE4rj0ASovdcqUOY7ZXHoUo92AG2eJbhxDUQ9hdoBbg8xLg77j1Om LcAAUOXUBQfDqejYKcO/qAjYLURkYIK3qArZKhA9DjwBXqAtwCjEtrHINIBlNLiQZSXD3LAyZIkHchAB zbxeCGbPFkIBIrDMu5ZABTLhO6XEsgBNk9EQgFbx6iQgEUVfviXspNehZADU FjyJKHPIhALVFccgJ00QgFypKyLVFWIQCowSLdPEhAC2F8gvhohAAqRxL2F5 EIBeyvIXBEIBEl5bwoxVyEAkvkSKyIQCSii9khAH0lgQhAP/Z

[kbrockman]

IMHO, it revealed that F-35 pilots need much training and time in the air to determine what the F-35 is capable of in terms of air to air tactics to defeat the enemy.

What's also worrying is that it used to be so, certainly up until well into the 90's, that our Air forces had far better training tools and methodology than its most likely adversaries enabling them to practise and develop alternative tactics to defend and keep the upper-hand against foes with better equipped and/or more manoeuvrable fighters.

Most of our possible opponents methods where the result of old style Soviet tactics which where rigid and severely limited the pilots abilities and possibilities of conducting good and effective air dominance strategies.
A good read;
How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379)
....the Soviet model of tactical aviation. That means the pilot was an extension of the ground controller. As many have read, innovative tactics and autonomous operations were not approved solutions in the Warsaw Pact countries. The cockpit switchology is not up to western standards and the sensors are not tools used to enhance pilot situation awareness, rather they are only used as tools to aid in the launch of weapons....

This advantage we had is quickly disappearing, nowadays you cannot just devise a simple tactic to hide and compensate for serious flaws in your fighter jets.
Most of the most capable opponents will most likely do just the same and also constantly re-evaluate their own tactics and methodologies.
Russia is not the Soviet Union anymore, neither is the PLAAF or maybe not even the Iranians, the only ones are most likely the likes of North Korea.

In the end, with similar tactical prowess and availability to advanced tech (we still have an edge but it is shrinking year after year) it will once again come down to the man/woman in the cockpit, meaning enough training time both flying , in the sim and on the ground is necessary , a real problem with massively expensive fighters both to use, maintain, upgrade and acquire like the F35, F22 and Typhoon.
And secondly it will also come down to having a platform that gives you as many options as possible both on the technical and performance sides and this is where the F35 might run into some serious problems, you just cannot keep your fingers crossed and hope that alternative tactics will be the answer, it might do the trick for a little while but the enemy is now more flexible too and has access to the latest tech too.

Don't get me wrong we need the F22 and Typhoon and even the F35 (as and A and not an F) in sufficient numbers to gain Air supremacy and have a big enough stick to attack but more than that we need a bigger group of new , much more affordable true Light weight Fighters, single engine sub 40,000 Lbs MTOW with existing and available high-tech.
In 2010 Northrop made its DAS available for other platforms, a good AESA is readily available on the market and there are more than enough weapons that can be integrated to make it a formidable LWF.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm not saying that it should be the primary employment mode, just an option if your buddy is going to die unless you do something. I can't see RoE being a problem as long as it's not used as the primary option. ie "Get to RNE and chuck 'em all off and run".


I remember the QF4 piccy! Yikkes.

You're right, of course. I was about to find the picky, but glad rag kindly did it for me. Thank you :ok:


Kbrock and Turbine, Welsh said there exactly what I've been saying all along. It lacks the speed, climb and manoeuvre to optimise BVR shots and doesn't have the sustained rate/g/radius close in. HOBS and HMDS will help it there, but it won't be the only bomber in town with those. Having to field it as an air superiority fighter will become a real challenge against the big boys.

By contrast, there are troubling questions as to how well the F-35 would fare against the new foreign fighters. While the F-35 has air-to-air sensors and can carry air-to-air missiles, it does not have the kinematic performance of the F-22. It’s simply sluggish in comparison. The F-35 does have integrated avionics—in some ways more advanced than even the Raptor’s—and it has stealth. But the F-35 lacks aerodynamic performance. U.S. military test pilots say the JSF is similar to the Boeing F/A-18C in speed and maneuverability.

The last comparison may be a bit subjective at this stage, but the rest is as expected.

[KenV]

No you haven't, it doesn't exist. You may have had a go with an early development prototype, but at this stage it is little more than a technology demonstrator belonging to Visual Systems International. If it wasn't theirs then you were playing with a research model, not necessarily representative of any future DASH HMDS Gen IV.

Hmmmm. Lets just say that Drew Brugal is a classmate of mine. We were plebes in the same company at USNA and we both served on the same carriers. At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International, the joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit and the developer/producer of the F-35's HMDS. At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV that would be included as part of the F-35's block 3F package.

I acknowledge that in my earlier post I got ahead of myself (and the F-35 program) by characterizing Gen IV as what's in the airplane today. It is not. My apologies.

[KenV]

...we need a bigger group of new , much more affordable true Light weight Fighters, single engine sub 40,000 Lbs MTOW with existing and available high-tech.
In 2010 Northrop made its DAS available for other platforms, a good AESA is readily available on the market and there are more than enough weapons that can be integrated to make it a formidable LWF.

I generally agree. And the answer may lie in the T-X competition. That airframe should be smallish, light, affordable, and have exceptional kinematic performance. And if USAF's requirements for an aggressor aircraft are rolled into the T-X requirements mix, the result may be pretty much what is described above.

[LowObservable]

When you are citing info that's at least three and a half years old (before Brugal left VSI), concerning what was never more than a tech demo (VSI was deep in the weeds on Gen III at the time and would have been nuts to talk Gen IV for 3F), and you haven't bothered to recheck it... You might hold that know-it-all tone in check and resist the urge to tell everyone else they are wrong.

[LowObservable]

Affordable lightweight fighters? A good idea, KB. But why do I now have "Waterloo" and "Fernando" running through my head?

[KenV]

To be clear, the F-35 has always had some air-to-air capability. But that latent dogfighting ability was mostly meant for self-defense—not for aggressively challenging another country’s fighters in the air.

Hmmmm. Why does that sound familiar with regards to this thread?

[Snafu351]

Question for KenV.
If as you state the F-35 should really be the A-35 where does that leave those nations which are not the USA who are purchasing the aircraft as their primary fighter?

[glad rag]

You're right, of course. I was about to find the picky, but glad rag kindly did it for me. Thank you :ok:


Kbrock and Turbine, Welsh said there exactly what I've been saying all along. It lacks the speed, climb and manoeuvre to optimise BVR shots and doesn't have the sustained rate/g/radius close in. HOBS and HMDS will help it there, but it won't be the only bomber in town with those. Having to field it as an air superiority fighter will become a real challenge against the big boys.



The last comparison may be a bit subjective at this stage, but the rest is as expected.

If, due to the lack of software/ordinance they get used as "scouts" for a main force there now is the picky problem of comms and maintaining a LO ......:ouch:

[KenV]

If as you state the F-35 should really be the A-35 where does that leave those nations which are not the USA who are purchasing the aircraft as their primary fighter?

Hmmmm.

1. "IF"? "As I state"? Ummm, that quote was from General Mark Welsh. Not me. But yeah, it's what I said from the very beginning of this latest F-35 "controversy" and which the fanboys declared "false."

2. What's it mean to those who are buying F-35 as their primary fighter? I don't know because it depends on many factors. Who is buying only F-35 and who do they expect to go up against with no allied support? And as Gen Welsh stated, even USAF is expecting in some scenarios to press the F-35 into the air superiority role for which it was not originally intended. And USAF is doing that despite the fact that the design parameters of the F-35 airframe and its kinematic performance have been known for literally well over a decade.

3. The same statement says the F-35 kinematic performance is similar to the F/A-18. I suppose USN's carriers, like HMS Queen Elizabeth, are all defenseless sitting ducks because of that.

[Courtney Mil]

When you are citing info that's at least three and a half years old (before Brugal left VSI), concerning what was never more than a tech demo (VSI was deep in the weeds on Gen III at the time and would have been nuts to talk Gen IV for 3F)

Brugal left VSI just three months after BAES had been brought on board to produce a helmet to replace the Gen II HMDS, roughly the point when VSI switched to developing GenIII as their replacement. It was only late the following year that the JPO had enough confidence to cancel the BAES development contract. As you say, VSI were full-on with Gen III at that stage.

KenV,

Given that they were still a long way away from sorting Gen III when Brugal left the company (and I don't know how long before that he shared his toys with you) and that they were still struggling with Gen II untill not long before then, it's hard to imagine how anyone could provide anything that could have been "represented" as Gen IV, no matter who's mate he is.

Sorry about this:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8178/8028826303_f589067557.jpg

[Mach Two]

Courtney Mil, haven't seen the flag raised here for a long time. He is posting similar rubbish all over the forum on all sorts of topics. A good call!

EDIT: in fact, let me back you up

https://ashwinsharma.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/sorry.jpg?w=400

[Courtney Mil]

Gratefully noted, MT. Check your PMs.

[KenV]

Aaah yes. The fanboys making (false) assumptions and leaping to conclusions based on those assumptions continues apace.

I was first introduced to VSI by my old classmate and shipmate. When he left VSI my contacts within and my involvement with VSI did not suddenly disappear. It was not a one-man operation!! As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the Gen IV helmet, Gen III had been accepted by Lockheed and DoD (meaning it had completed all its tests and the production process had been approved.) but had not yet gone into full production. That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.

It is clear that the apology I offered has been soundly rejected and has even been used by the fanboys as an excuse to "pile on" with further personal attacks, attacks based once again on leaping to conclusions based on false assumptions. The same fanboys that demanded "professional" behavior in this thread. Sigh.

[ORAC]

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/qXJuDoUeQNm6S1buZBnnqw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTE4NztweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt150716.gif

[Courtney Mil]

Really, KenV? Looks like you're changing your story a bit. Please compare the phrases I have made BOLD for you in your two posts:

Hmmmm. Lets just say that Drew Brugal is a classmate of mine. We were plebes in the same company at USNA and we both served on the same carriers. At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International, the joint venture between Rockwell Collins and Elbit and the developer/producer of the F-35's HMDS. At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV that would be included as part of the F-35's block 3F package.

And

I was first introduced to VSI by my old classmate and shipmate. When he left VSI my contacts within and my involvement with VSI did not suddenly disappear. It was not a one-man operation!! As I stated in my earlier post, when I saw the Gen IV helmet, Gen III had been accepted by Lockheed and DoD (meaning it had completed all its tests and the production process had been approved.) but had not yet gone into full production. That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.

[KenV]

At the time he was the CEO of Vision Systems International.

At the time Gen III had been accepted for F-35 but was not yet approved for production, and what I was provided was represented as Gen IV

That happened....wait for it....in late 2014, less than a year ago.
Oh my.

At the time I met my former classmate and shipmate (outside the USN environment) he was the CEO of VSI. I stated that because he is not now the CEO of VSI.

At the time I tried on the Gen IV helmet, it had been accepted for the F-35 but was not yet approved for full production. The very first Gen III HMDS was delivered in late July 2014. ( ref ?Magic Helmet? for F-35 ready for delivery | Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/magic-helmet-for-f-35-ready-for-delivery)) Like almost all first production articles, this first helmet was produced using production materials and processes, but not on the actual final production line. In other words this was a pre-LRIP/LRIP article (I don't know the details of the production contract.) Later that same year I got to see and try on the Gen IV helmet. I don't know if the Gen III helmet has since received full rate production approval. Certainly the airplane its used on has not, so it would seem likely the helmet has not.

[APG63]

I dont post here much, but I have to say this is getting major stupid. KenV, your changing your story by the hour. This story looks like cxxp, what else about other claims are cxxp too?

[Turbine D]

Discussing the $400,000 "Magic" helmet, here is what one F-35 pilot has to say about it, interesting…

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f-35-pilot-about-flight-helmet/

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, I read that one too, Turbine. I can see his points. The 3D Mk II eyeball does give a better appreciation and quicker interpretation than any current HMDS/HMS/etc will do. And I can see how the restrictions on head movement would be frustrating, even looking up to the lift vector or plane of motion, let alone behind you. Remember, to see the imagery in those obscured zones, the pilot still has to get is head pointed round there before he can see through the seat.

As you say, it is an interesting take on it.

[LowObservable]

And remember this started with an entirely unqualified statement that the F-35 helmet had eyeball tracking in addition to head tracking. The whole story about the "Gen IV" (the existence of which cannot be confirmed) started when I called KenV on that first claim.

[NITRO104]

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13...flight-helmet/ (http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f-35-pilot-about-flight-helmet/)

2:55 onwards.
Am I missing something or DAS doesn't have resolution to target ground vehicle sized objects?
I was under the impression that DAS will allow for spherical targeting of all sorts of combat vehicles at ranges up to 20 or so miles out.
Some reports even mentioned tracking of personnel on the ground...and now the DAS is used to 'see mountains'?

[LowObservable]

Consider that the DAS has six sensors, each with a 90x90 deg FOV. That's bigger than the FOV of the camera on your cellphone (50-60 depending on model).

The IR sensor has been described as a 1 megapixel device (1024x1024). (Some say this has been raised to 4MP.)

In either case the resolution is not as good as an iPhone. That's why a separate night-vision sensor (not IR) is used to feed the central field of view for pilotage tasks.

[Courtney Mil]

Would you buy a DSLR camera today with fewer than 12 or 18 megapixels? And that's an open market consumer product.

Six x 1MP to give full spherical coverage ain't going to give you that "X-Ray vision" through your own aircraft is it? No wonder the man says he'd rather see things with his own eyes.

[a1bill]

Turbine, thanks for putting that video up. I hadn't seen it before and it was worth watching. I also saw a second video from Krigeren. https://vimeo.com/krigeren/videos
The same pilot talking about the F-35 and other planes.
https://vimeo.com/124520672














although over an hour long, I thought he Boeing video was worth watching too
https://vimeo.com/129458153

[KenV]

The IR sensor has been described as a 1 megapixel device (1024x1024). (Some say this has been raised to 4MP.)

My understanding is that its a 4MP array. And to put this in perspective a 12MP color sensor in a consumer camera also has 4MP resolution. And the IR sensor in the AIM-9X and ASRAAM have 128 x 128 (16K) resolution.

[KenV]

Discussing the $400,000 "Magic" helmet, here is what one F-35 pilot has to say about it, interesting…

http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13...flight-helmet/ (http://theaviationist.com/2015/07/13/f-35-pilot-about-flight-helmet/)

An interesting quote from the link:

“If you are flying correctly and the jet is doing what it is supposed to do, [enemy] guys should die well before they get behind you” Wilson comments, suggesting, once again, that the JSF’s survivability in air-to-air combat (even against some of the aircraft it is supposed to replace) is based on its BVR (Beyond Visual Range), stealth and SA (Situational Awareness) capabilities, rather than in its agility."

[KenV]

KenV, your changing your story by the hour.

What part of my VSI story has changed?

[kbrockman]

They used 1MP sensors, now planned to upgraded to 4MP sensors (from the same supplier) but I don't know they already did.
http://www.cinele.com/images/Documents/Datasheets/ir2013/2k_x_2k.pdf
BTW 12MP sensors in a colour set-up are probably 4MP per colour (,not sure about that though)


Edit; still seems to be 1MP to date as far as I can tell (4MP need considerable change in software and is physically a little bigger)

[kbrockman]

As a point of comparison, in the planned upgrades with block4-5 the advanced EOTS will bring the F35 to the same level as the new pods like THALES' TALIOS which will come on line for buyers in 2018 (QATAR first), while the advanced EOTS is planned for 2027 if all goes to plan.

[Darren_P]

My understanding is that its a 4MP array. And to put this in perspective a 12MP color sensor in a consumer camera also has 4MP resolution.

Only those with a Foveon sensor which are a tiny percentage of consumer cameras. The common Bayer sensor would be a true 12MP.

[a1bill]

At this stage, does it really matter if it's 1mp or 10mp? I would think that it's more important what the software does with the image date. To process it into something that is useable.

[Courtney Mil]

KenV,

As you should understand, there is a big difference between getting a higher resolution out of a 4MP sensor for a stills camera and a real-time video camera. Time. It takes time to do that trickery and time in the case of DAS and HMDS means latency, which was your buddy's big problem with Gen II/III.

BTW, check out the actual resolutions of modern DSLRs. Once again your information is out of date. If you left active service in 1985, I suspect some of your military knowledge is similarly dated.

[Mach Two]

Ken, why not stick to joining in with the discussion? You know, express opinions, offer views on others' posts, ask questions. Continually posting things that are so clearly untrue does nothing for your credibility and just pisses people off.

Maybe that's what you're trying to achieve. If so, crack on.

[glad rag]

My understanding is that its a 4MP array. And to put this in perspective a 12MP color sensor in a consumer camera also has 4MP resolution. And the IR sensor in the AIM-9X and ASRAAM have 128 x 128 (16K) resolution.

FOV anyone?

[Maus92]

A 4MP image sensor is actually very good resolution as far as motion imaging goes - better theoretical resolution than HD. The issue is the throughput and network bandwidth. A super simplified calculation means that the image processor is pushing well in excess of 200MBps of raw data onto the network, excluding a sizable amount of transport protocol overhead. Multiply that by 6 DAS cameras, and its easy to see how latency creeps into the system, particularly when considering the number of aircraft systems that are competing for bandwidth and ICP time.

[Radix]

.............

[peter we]

Would you buy a DSLR camera today with fewer than 12 or 18 megapixels? And that's an open market consumer product.

12meg is the resolution of 35mm film and its about the maximum the eye can resolve, anything more may help with the colour spectrum.
However a 4meg IR sensor is going to exceed what a human eye can see, because we can't see IR.

Isn't the purpose to avoid losing stealth by manovering ?

[PhilipG]

As I see it the recent sensor discussion highlights two elephants in the room.

The software that is it would seem the key to the situational awareness, one of the unique selling points of the F35 is not ready yet as far as I am aware
The sensor specification was set a number of years ago and at that time 1MP cameras may well have been the best that money could buy, things as we know have moved on.

So we have, on the face of it, an aircraft with out of date optical technology, that is however as was specified, that the software integration of has yet to be proven.

The processors in the systems may well have been top of the range one day but are far from it now, so to keep everyone happy it could be argued that a change in specifications of the sensors, processors and thus software is required, trouble is this would add a number of years and yet more risk to the development program.

Or has this all been covered by concurrent development, I think not.

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting post, PhilipG.

Resolution is my main concern (maybe interest is a better word) for these sensors. 1 MP is roughly 1.2 million useable pixels. Assuming the sensor is square to cover its 90 x 90 degree field of view that's a resolution of roughly 1,100 x 1,100 pixels or just 12 pixels per degree. Certainly not enough to judge accurately the aspect, or much detail in a target at much more than 3,000 metres (where one pixel covers around 4m x4m). Maybe that's too far, come to think of it. As glad rag said, "FOV anyone?" I can see why the pilot quoted earlier said he needs to eyeball the target to be able to fight it - especially being a 2D image from a single sensor.

As Maus92 has said, increasing that resolution significantly will certainly challenge processing and network speed. I think it was JSFFan that I was trying to discuss this with a couple of years ago having mentioned that the pilot can't see out the back.

I look forward to the unclassified reports on the acuity and usability of the system in due course - there may be some stuff out there, but I'm not sure the system, including the software is mature enough to be meaningful yet.

[NITRO104]

12meg is the resolution of 35mm film

Isn't the size of the silver crystal the resolution of a 35mm film?
The contrast (or lack of) in picture is mainly a property of the lens, making ancient Hasselblad/Zeiss models still ones of the most expensive and sought after, even today.

A super simplified calculation means that the image processor is pushing well in excess of 200MBps of raw data onto the network
I'd imagine some sort of real-time encoding is available.
Receiving and decoding on the other hand, may not be so real-time.

http://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU
From this video, it looks the DAS works vs firing elements only.
Again, I was under the impression, it'll work vs any vehicle with its engine on.

I guess, LM/NG did a pretty good job 'impressing', at least me. :}

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, I didn't need to worry. Here's how "stellar" is it...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ

[KenV]

My understanding is that its a 4MP array. And to put this in perspective a 12MP color sensor in a consumer camera also has 4MP resolution.

Only those with a Foveon sensor which are a tiny percentage of consumer cameras. The common Bayer sensor would be a true 12MP. Ummm, you got that backwards. A 12MP Bayer array requires three sensor pixels for each image pixel, one pixel for red, one pixel for green, and one pixel for blue. A Foveon sensor requires one sensor pixel for each image pixel, because a Foveon sensor can detect all three colors at each pixel. So a camera with a Bayer 12M pixel sensor generates a 4MP image resolution.

And DAS is monochrome, so a 4MP sensor provides 4MP of resolution. But unlike a consumer camera, it sees way down into the infrared.

[kbrockman]

And DAS is monochrome, so a 4MP sensor provides 4MP of resolution. But unlike a consumer camera, it sees way down into the infrared.


I don't know where the 4MP number comes from, as far as I know it's still a 1MP sensor per position up until today (1.3 to be exact).
There is a reason that some extra support is needed like the initially unforeseen addition of a separate NVG set.

The DAS upgrade cannot be an easy one, an increase of 1->4 (or to be exact 1.3 to 4.2) will mean adding considerable processing-speed/bandwith increase to keep latecy and jitters under acceptable levels, even 150ms in a fast jet is barely acceptable.

Like i previously said, the EOTS part of the EODAS package is even more complicated and even today, before IOC, already obsolete compared with the latest LITENING series pods and THALES pod that will come on line within just a few years.
The integrated EOTS is even more complicated to upgrade than the DAS.

What I personally also wonder about is what this whole flying through a virtualized image will do for eye fatigue during prolonged use and then there is off course the issue with depth perception.

[Courtney Mil]

Wrong again, KenV.

Regarding the Foveon X3 Sensor:

It uses an array of photosites, each of which consists of three vertically stacked photodiodes, organized in a two-dimensional grid. Each of the three stacked photodiodes responds to different wavelengths of light; that is, each has a different spectral sensitivity curve. This difference is due to the fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths. The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed, resulting in data that provides the amounts of three additive primary colors, red, green, and blue.

The photodiodes are stacked, not three individual "sensor pixels". Sigma refer to them as "x3" because the 15MP sensor uses 4600x3200x3 photodiodes, but only 15ish million photosites.

[KenV]

KenV,

As you should understand, there is a big difference between getting a higher resolution out of a 4MP sensor for a stills camera and a real-time video camera.
Indeed. Network bandwidth is the driving issue here, not sensor resolution. Others brought up the sensor resolution and in my reply I just put sensor resolution into perspective.

BTW, check out the actual resolutions of modern DSLRs. Once again your information is out of date.Oh my. I never remotely suggested anything about the "actual resolutions of modern DSLRs". Once again you made a (false) assumption and jumped to a hilarious conclusion. What I said was that a 4MP DAS sensor (IR sensors are by definition monochrome. There's no "color" in the infrared.) is equal in resolution to a 12MP consumer camera, which require 3 sensor pixels to generate each image pixel. 12MP is by no means "leading edge" in consumer cameras, but the resulting 4MP images are certainly not "bad."

And BTW, here's a few other chip resolution factoids for comparison (just a reminder: a comparison is a relative term, NOT absolute as you implied in your post):
1. Each of the Hubble Space Telescope's two main cameras have 4 CCDs of .64MP. That's 2.56MP total resolution.
2. The Mars Rovers have 2MP sensors.
3. The LORRI camera on the New Horizons space probe imaging Pluto has a 1024 x 1024 sensor, or just over 1MP resolution.

"Abysmal", huh?

If you left active service in 1985, I suspect some of your military knowledge is similarly dated. IF that that were true, your conclusion would be valid. But once again you made a false assumption which resulted in a hilariously invalid conclusion. I left ACTIVE DUTY (not "active service") in 1985. I don't know how the UK systems works, but here's how it works in USN.

I was a USNA graduate. Which meant that I received an active commission in the unrestricted line. Active commission meant I served in the active forces rather than the reserve forces, and unrestricted line meant I was eligible for command at sea. In 1985 I resigned from active duty and entered the reserves, still unrestricted line. So my active commission became a reserve commission and I served in the Naval Reserve. But being a USNA grad I serve "at the pleasure of the President" for life, meaning he could re-activate me at any time. I was flying F-18s in the reserves out of NAS Lemoore when I got activated for Gulf War 1, otherwise known as Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Afterwards I continued to fly in theater flying Operation Southern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq, and then at NAS Lemoore in Central California. And if you'd given this just a bit of thought rather than jumping to a conclusion, you would have remembered that there was no such thing as an F/A-18C in 1985.

[O-P]

Strange, on the KC-46A thread you claimed you were a P-3 driver for many years....


"One more BTW. I also operated the P-3C for several years. When I was on a 12 hour or longer mission over blue water and was loitering one or more engines during the mission and operating at both high and very low altitudes and operating at max range cruise AND max undurance cruise during different parts of the same mission, and expending stores during the mission, I made damned sure I was certain about my fuel computations. So your assumption about my awareness of fuel density on aircraft performance is a fail."


Or did you forget that part?

[Turbine D]

Original quote by CM: The photodiodes are stacked, not three individual "sensor pixels". Sigma refer to them as "x3" because the 15MP sensor uses 4600x3200x3 photodiodes, but only 15ish million photosites.

I think this is what CM is trying to explain to KenV:


http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/quattro_solution_image_zpsndk4gfop.png (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/quattro_solution_image_zpsndk4gfop.png.html)

[Courtney Mil]

None of the space imagers you list are trying to grab 90 x 90 degrees FOV in a single frame, it takes hours to complete a high red image with them. But then no one's trying to use the image in real time to operate an aircraft. So I don't see your comparison as relevant.

You call it "Active Duty", fine by me.

[Courtney Mil]

Well illustrated, Turbine.

[kbrockman]

Some seem to doubt Ken's validity when it comes to his claims about his service state here.
I have no reason to doubt his claims , as far as I know and looking at his CV it all seems to be genuine.

Happy to debate him about his perceptions and ideas on modern day fighters like the F35, not going to agree with everything he has to say but I don't think he's just sucking it out of his thumb.

Ken,
Maybe you should go upstairs to your chef and ask him to make the thing we really want and need; a real NG LWF.

[PhilipG]

Our dear Friend KenV has fallen down the same old trap. A few years ago when the Hubble Space Telescope was new, the resolution of the cameras mounted in it was cutting-edge, things move on, as has consumer and professional photography, to say nothing of computing power. The F35 was specified, on the cutting-edge of technology some years ago, things have moved forward, most of the processing devices on board are probably obsolete. I seem to recall that the USAF bought up the last batch of processors that could be fitted to the F22 some years ago. Even with two year phone contracts, it is amazing the increase in power, resolution, capacity etc that your smart phone has. Thinking of the phone you had when LM won the JSF competition and the one you have today, then recall that the F35 specs have not changed much since then and the system has yet to be shown to work as advertised.
As I posted before if the sensor suite is to be brought up to the standard of other under development or now available sensors, I would imagine that the cost would be astronomic and the delay at least two years.

[KenV]

Oh my. Consider for a millisecond why I used the terms "sensor pixel" and "image pixel" in my post. The difference is important and clearly the difference escaped you, leading you to make yet another false assumption and yet another hilarious conclusion.

I said: "A Foveon sensor requires one sensor pixel for each image pixel, because a Foveon sensor can detect all three colors at each pixel." Your assumption that a sensor pixel equates to a photodiode is utterly false. In this useage, a sensor pixel equates to a photosite. Each sensor pixel/photosite in a Foveon sensor is a stack of three photodiodes, with each photodiode responding to a different photo wavelength. Thus each pixel/photosite in a Foveon sensor responds to all three photo wavelengths. Or put another way, a Foveon sensor requires one sensor pixel to generate one image pixel (color).

In a Bayer sensor, each sensor pixel/photosite only responds to one of three photo wavelengths. Thus a Bayer sensor requires three sensor pixels to generate one image pixel (color).

In a monochrome system each sensor pixel/photosite results in an image pixel. Thus a monochrome sensor requires one sensor pixel to generate one image pixel.

[ORAC]

If you were at the Academy at the same time as Brugel, presumably you got your wings at the same time as him. Pretty short active career then, 1981-1985.

And if you served on the same carriers as he did, presumably you must also have flown F4s, and then later F-14s? after all, the JFK didn't carry F-18s, just F14s, A-7s, S-3s etc. Pretty fast conversion, huh?

Just a few holes mystifying discrepancies, which I am sure you can explain........

KenV (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-344.html#post9048434): Lets just say that Drew Brugal is a classmate of mine. We were plebes in the same company at USNA and we both served on the same carriers.

Drew Brugal (https://www.traderscoach.com/fighter_pilot.php): Andrés A. (Drew) Brugal......is a member of the 1979 graduating class of the United States Naval Academy and earned his Naval Aviator Wings in August 1981.

His first operational assignment was Fighter Squadron ONE-FIVE-FOUR (VF- 154), stationed at NAS Miramar, California flying the F-4 "Phantom" off USS CORAL SEA (CV-43). While in VF-154, he transitioned to the F-14 "Tomcat" flying off USS CONSTELLATION (CV-64).

In 1984, Captain Brugal received orders to Training Squadron TWENTY-TWO (VT-22) NAS Kingsville, Texas as a flight instructor and Wing Landing Signal Officer, flying the A-4 "Skyhawk". While in VT-22, he was recognized as the 1988 Training Wing TWO Instructor of the Year and the Kingsville Chamber of Commerce Junior Officer of the Year. Returning to the "Tomcat" in October 1989, Captain Brugal reported to Fighter Squadron Three-Two (VF-32) at NAS Oceana, Virginia. While with VF-32, he deployed aboard USS JOHN F. KENNEDY for Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM......

KenV: (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-346.html#post9049597) I left ACTIVE DUTY (not "active service") in 1985. I don't know how the UK systems works, but here's how it works in USN.

I was a USNA graduate. Which meant that I received an active commission in the unrestricted line. Active commission meant I served in the active forces rather than the reserve forces, and unrestricted line meant I was eligible for command at sea. In 1985 I resigned from active duty and entered the reserves, still unrestricted line..... I was flying F-18s in the reserves out of NAS Lemoore when I got activated for Gulf War 1, otherwise known as Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

JFK (CV-67) Cruise Book 1990-1991 (http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv67-91/index.html):

http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv67-91/024.jpg

http://navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv67-91/025_t.jpg

[Mach Two]

Resolution is my main concern (maybe interest is a better word) for these sensors. 1 MP is roughly 1.2 million useable pixels. Assuming the sensor is square to cover its 90 x 90 degree field of view that's a resolution of roughly 1,100 x 1,100 pixels or just 12 pixels per degree. Certainly not enough to judge accurately the aspect, or much detail in a target at much more than 3,000 metres (where one pixel covers around 4m x4m). Maybe that's too far, come to think of it.

Still that would make a lowres picture without zoom. You cannot ever spot detail if you use 4MP to cover a large FOV over a distance of several nm. Assuming DAS has zero zoom capability, thus it gets really difficult to track multiple targets a few nm away, because they will only be a few pixels large and particularly since the jet will be moving all the time as well leading to motion blur. This aligns with the statement of the pilot in the interview.

I would think these points hit the nail on the head, which in my view has to be, is the sensor resolution good enough to identify a target (airborne or on the ground) and to build a mental picture of what it's doing. I didn't quite follow Courtney Mil's maths, but the answer seems about right according to small angle approximation, maybe a bit generous in terms of range, and Radix is still talking 4 megapixels, not one.

It does not look like the sensor resolution is anywhere near high enough.

I recently saw the Gen III helmet and it is a bit of a monster. It's light for its bulk and the position tracking demo we saw looked pretty solid, although it was in a lab, not a moving aircraft. None of us got to try it, but the guy doing the demo did say that it's a bit slow if you you snap your head from looking out one side of the canopy to the other. It's takes only milliseconds to catch up, but is noticeable. I don't have much technical detail to share and the display was not fed from the real DAS, so it doesn't help much with the resolution question.

If they were to start the architecture from scratch today (knowing what they already do), I expect they could come up with something useful. As it is, I sadly expect that this part of the programme is going to be playing catch up for a while yet.

[Darren_P]

Ummm, you got that backwards. A 12MP Bayer array requires three sensor pixels for each image pixel, one pixel for red, one pixel for green, and one pixel for blue. A Foveon sensor requires one sensor pixel for each image pixel, because a Foveon sensor can detect all three colors at each pixel. So a camera with a Bayer 12M pixel sensor generates a 4MP image resolution.

I have a Nikon D7000 16M pixel camera which outputs images at 4928 x 3263 pixels. Multiply that and as expected you get 16 million.
I also have a Sigma DP1 14M pixel Foveon sensor camera which outputs images at 2640 x 1760 pixels which gets you 4.69 million. (14 divided by three).
Looks right to me.

[KenV]

Strange, on the KC-46A thread you claimed you were a P-3 driver for many years....
"One more BTW. I also operated the P-3C for several years. When I was on a 12 hour or longer mission over blue water and was loitering one or more engines during the mission and operating at both high and very low altitudes and operating at max range cruise AND max undurance cruise during different parts of the same mission, and expending stores during the mission, I made damned sure I was certain about my fuel computations. So your assumption about my awareness of fuel density on aircraft performance is a fail."
Or did you forget that part?

Oh my. Now you fanboys are demanding details of my flying history? I don't see the significance, but OK, here's goes.

After graduating from USNA I receive my commission and entered flight school in Florida and Texas. Upon graduation from flight school and completing RAG training I flew A-4 Skyhawks out of NAS Lemoore. While thus serving my jet experienced a catastrophic turbine failure at high speed (just under 400 KIAS) at low altitude (about 100 ft AGL) and I ejected. I was on the ragged edge (which side of the edge is still under debate) of the ESCAPAC ejection seat's envelop and while I survived, things did not go entirely well.

USN allowed me to stay in and keep flying, but I was required to transition to anything not ejection seat equipped, which in USN essentially meant a helo or a P-3. Flying a helo in USN meant operating off the back of frigates, not my idea of fun, so selected P-3. I went to Corpus Christi where I received multi-engine training and then completed RAG training (excuse me, by then called FRS training.)

I flew one active duty deployment in P-3s. Then I transitioned to the reserves, continuing to fly P-3s. But when the Soviet Navy went away in the 80s, the P-3 mission went away with it. I was RIFed and joined the civilian line. But with the airlines hiring like crazy (plus an out of control RIF process), USN was losing Tacair pilots by the boatload and after a year or so they offered to hire me back based on my previous Tacair experience. I reminded them of their "no ejection seats" restriction, and BUPERS and NAMI said NAVAIR had this cool new airplane called the Hornet that had a new high tech Martin Baker ejection seat and I would be OK to fly that. I agreed.

I completed FRS training and then completed all my day/night carrier quals, day/night refueling quals, weapons quals, etc, etc as a reservist just in time to get activated for Desert Shield/Desert Storm. I continued to fly Hornets (mostly as a reservist) till I departed USN for good after Gulf War 2. Although technically, since I serve "at the pleasure of the President" for life, I could still get called up, but I doubt Obama will have me. And since my earlier ejection adventure is now catching up with me (flailing injuries have loonnggg term effects, many delayed) I'm sure NAMI will no longer allow me in a cockpit, certainly not as command pilot.

[O-P]

Earlier you stated that you left the USNR in June '99. GW2 didn't start until March '03.

[KenV]

None of the space imagers you list are trying to grab 90 x 90 degrees FOV in a single frame,.....But then no one's trying to use the image in real time to operate an aircraft. Indeed, and I never claimed they did.

So I don't see your comparison as relevant.You said "Resolution is my main concern (maybe interest is a better word) for these sensors." I'm attempting (and failing) to show that sensor resolution is a lousy criterion when making such a conclusion. There is LOTS more to consider in ANY imaging system than sensor resolution. This is akin to your "mediocre agility makes a bad fighter" argument. There is LOTS more to consider than agility when making such a conclusion.

You call it "Active Duty", fine by me. That's nice, because that's what we call it in USN. And which incidentally has an entirely different meaning than the assumption you made. And it was your (false) assumption that is of significance here.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken, I'm going to rush through your points because I think discussions with you tend to get slightly bogged down. The DSLR analogy, which now seems to have derailed the thread, was purely intended to illustrate that a 1MP sensor is way behind currently, commercially available technology.

If you weren't claiming a comparison between the space imagers and those in the DAS then there was no reason to mention them as comparisons. Hence my remark.

Yes, there are plenty more factors to gaining a high quality image, but each one of them can be the weak point in the chain. If you have a low resolution imaging sensor, you CAN improve on that if you have time (back to space imagers). Trying to create an image with very low latency does not afford the luxury of time. That was, after all, one of the biggest problems with your mate's early HMDS.

You clearly understood my meaning regarding leaving full time service or you wouldn't have explained what the correct term was.

To be clear, once and for all, my concern is with the resolution of the image that the pilot sees. Assuming there aren't more issues hidden in the rest of the system, the big limitation on that image in this discussion (as it stands now) is a 1MP sensor trying to image 90 degrees FOV in a single, fast frame.

That is all.

[Mach Two]

Very succinct, Courtney Mil. You should post like that more often :E

I agree, enough of DSLRs. I did learn a lot though. As I said before, I also agree that the resolution is a big player for this system in the F-35 (see what I did there? Back on thread).

I'll correct your last statement.

That, hopefully, is all.

Oh, and the Bayer colour filter array does not work in a three to one ratio. It produces twice as many green pixels as it does blue or red. You guys made me look that up. Damnation! It wasn't all! :eek:

[KenV]

To be clear, once and for all, my concern is with the resolution of the image that the pilot sees. Assuming there aren't more issues hidden in the rest of the system, the big limitation on that image in this discussion (as it stands now) is a 1MP sensor trying to image 90 degrees FOV in a single, fast frame.Generally agree. Assuming a 1MP sensor, that would seem to be the limiting driver. However, assuming the sensor is upgraded to 4 MP the limiting driver may end up lying elsewhere. We'll have to wait and see what the operators think about the system as it is fielded.

On the other hand with all the F-35 program schedule slippages, a DAS/display upgrade may end up getting completed before the aircraft gets fully operational. As several others pointed out, that sort of tech usually moves very quickly. On the other other hand if the display stuff is tied into the OFP in any way, it will take a long long time to upgrade. My understanding is the F-35 architecture is not very open. If true, then upgrades will be slow in coming. And lucrative for Lockheed.

[KenV]

Earlier you stated that you left the USNR in June '99. GW2 didn't start until March '03. Indeed. I continued to work at NAS Lemoore as a civilian government employee and then as a civilian contract employee for another five years. Don't get me started on that. I was promised certain retirement benefits if I continued as a government employee and they screwed me on that. Royally. I left for well and good once GW2 was over. I could and lots of folks said I should have left earlier. Over developed sense of duty or something? I don't know. There was resentment, but no bitterness.

[O-P]

And I thought the MB Mk10 that I flew in/on was pretty violent! at least we had arm and leg restrains to help with the flailing injuries.


Did you go in overland or sea?

[ORAC]

So where, exactly, in this P-3 career and then F-18s did you do your two carrier tours with Drew Brugel?

[KenV]

Did you go in overland or sea? Land. The old Sheephole Valley in the California Desert. It led into the old Cubic instrumented range set up for NFWS (aka Topgun). The Scooter was a tiny target for the E-2s and F-14s to find much less track in the desert canyons and the Sheephole Valley was full of them. The whole area is now a "Designated Wilderness" so you can't even access it by burro anymore.

[KenV]

Drew was a Tomcat driver, I was a Hornet driver. We were never in the same squadron but on the same carriers at times. If memory serves he was XO of the Nimitz when they did that PBS TV show on carriers. He was selected for command of a carrier but got out of the Navy before taking command. Apparently the private sector made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

[O-P]

You might, or might not, want to have the details of your mishap added to the list below. The site is badly laid out, but I couldn't see your crash.




Complete Casualty Records | A-4 Skyhawk Association (http://a4skyhawk.org/files/gallery/Complete%20Casualty%20Records)

[KenV]

For whatever reason that list is certainly not "complete." My roomate, Dwayne Cousins, died in an A-4 accident off of San Clement Island in late 1979 and it's not on that list. Our CO, Cdr Parrot, also died in an A-4 accident off the Channel Islands around that time and its not on the list.

Second, if by "casualty" they mean the pilot died, I survived.

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' lotsa errors online about the past - for anyone. Great to see you on this forum. I'll ask about the F-35 HMDS III vHUD - looking backwards - on another question/post with a graphic. Meanwhile this is what the A-4 Assoc thinks of my 'incident' on one page (I think they have correct info on other pages - have not checked). Mostly these sites are manned by volunteers working off old conflicting information and probably whatever else.

"Royal Australian Navy Skyhawk BuNo 154906, #887, makes it "feet dry", but crumpled. #887, landing gear crunched. RAN":

154906 VF-805 RAN official 4645 | A-4 Skyhawk Association (http://a4skyhawk.org/content/154906-vf-805-ran-official-4645)

Skyhawk Damaged | A-4 Skyhawk Association (http://a4skyhawk.org/content/skyhawk-damaged)

http://a4skyhawk.org/files/gallery/Complete%20Casualty%20Records

Is it not obvious which aircraft was involved? And the 'casualty' refers to the loss of the A-4 airframe I reckon. "Project Get Out and Walk" has a long list of ejections categorised but it all is in a state of flux - being changed - it seems.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/

[Mach Two]

Spazsinbad,

Ooh. Look at you. Look at all the websites you're on. Look how you screwed up. If you felt the need to post all your links on the forum, you clearly didn't just want to share them with KenV.

What's the point? Stir up yet more arguments?

[SpazSinbad]

Aaahhh 'MachTwo' 'what is the point'? Yes someone is wrong on the internet - again. And it is tiresome to correct the record. Whilst the illustration of being 'incorrect on the internet' SHIRLEY is clear? [A4G is 885 not 887] AND I have been here before - mostly to chat about the incorrect information about NavAv and the F-35C testing - before and after the CVN test and V-22s on CVNs/CVFs as aerial refuellers (on another thread entirely). Also included would be the X-47B tests and JPALS info - and yet crabs were not so interested in the good information provided. However I stopped because of many reasons - one of which you know from your very brief post history on F-16.net, where your assumptions were hilarious.

And I will wager that your brief posting history on F-16.net was to SHIRLEY stir up something or other. I guess only you know. And just to be annoying, here is the correct info on another page on the A-4 Association Website (and yes long ago attempts to correct many other mistakes about the RAN FAA and A4Gs have not been acted upon there).

01 SEP 1971:
RAMP STRIKE! (http://a4skyhawk.org/sites/a4skyhawk.org/files/images/154906melbourne-rampstrike-verver.jpg) Royal Australian Navy Skyhawk BuNo 154906, #885, (http://a4skyhawk.org/content/154906-vf-805-ran-official-4645) makes it "feet dry", but crumpled. #885, (http://a4skyhawk.org/content/154906-vf-805-ran-official-4646) landing gear crunched. RAN

[Mach Two]

Nope. Didn't understand most of that. No idea what relevance A-4 885 or 887 has. Haven't ever posted on F16.net - not really interested in discussing an aircraft I've never flown unless I might do so in the future and doubt F-16 will ever feature. And not terribly interested in RAN A-4s.

Unintelligible as ever, but as long as you're happy. Keep taking the meds old fella.

[glad rag]

WTF has dredging all that up got to do with F35? [unless it's some kind of pissing contest]

[MSOCS]

This thread has become a disgrace. Auditing peoples' history; name calling? Wow. Just wow.

[Radix]

............

[Courtney Mil]

Well, I just thought it was an amusing cartoon, Radix. I don't think there's much to be taken seriously. But I do agree about this ridiculous over the shoulder stuff. Maybe dynamically less feasible (in the way depicted there especially) with AMRAAM, but probably safer with command datalink guiding it to its Q. The DAS needs to be good to work out where the Q is.

[O-P]

Spaz,


Are you drunk?

[kbrockman]

The DAS needs to be good to work out where the Q is.

Funny you say this, the DAS has the nasty tendency to be unable to differ between a flare and an actual incoming missile.
So it goes a bit like this,
1-Enemy shoots heat-seeking missile at F35,
2-DAS sees missile,
3-automatically F-35 dispenses flares,
4-DAS 'sees' flares but computer thinks, some more missiles,
5-F-35 dispenses some more flares,
6-go to 1 and repeat till deplete.

Not an easy thing to fix if you want to stay fully automated with your defense measures in combination with a continuous and system dependant 360° visual (+IR) cover.

[SpazSinbad]

'O-P' asked: "Spaz, Are you drunk?" Probably - low blood sugar from laughing so much at 'old fella' - someone is correct on pPrune. Usually I'm some kind of 'kiddie'. However it was good to illustrate to 'KenV' - even if it was not needed by him or anyone else for that matter - the reception that awaits a NavAver on crabby pPrune. I will get around to asking about the F-35 HMDS III vHUD rear view concept as soon as the hubbub eases.


And yes did I not get a twofer - reintroducing myself with my bona fides? I guess not - I'm still not welcome. :-)

[LowObservable]

Poor Spaz. You might be more welcome if you weren't popping back to talk to your adoring young fans on the other board about "whingeing crabs".

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - to be fair, when a forum member is tossing around words like "hilarious" and "juvenile", while laying down the law on AAM technology and tactics, HMDS design and everything else, and using claimed personal experience and connections to defend his dubious statements, he's inviting skepticism.

Nobody challenges you or Engines in the same way, for example, because you make logical arguments most of the time.

[glad rag]

Nobody challenges you or Engines in the same way, for example, because you make logical arguments most of the time.

<devils advocate mode on>

how can you have a logical argument about such an illogical series of procurements?

<devils advocate mode off>

[LowObservable]

A thought experiment: a look at the F-35B Block 2B from the JFACC's viewpoint.

"Welcome to Al-Bungabunga AB, old boy. Nice new crates! Mind if I assign you to some DCA? We've got a bit of a Sukhoi threat and the odd civilian Johnny blundering through, so we need to get out there and check 'em out with the Mark One Eyeball before we let fly."

"Sir, yes Sir! We're super hot on DCA - just that if it's either Sheik Yabooti in his G650 or a Su, and they're above FL400, we can't get up there. But give us some notice and we'll be blasting out there at our full Mach 1.2."

"Pity. We do need some CAS up north..."

"Sir, yes Sir! We are Marines and unlike those milquetoast Chair Force ladies, we live to support the tip of the spear, within our operational and weapons limits. Our EO-DAS and EOTS can detect a mover, whether it's an armed Hi-Lux or the market bus, and if it's not moving too fast we can obliterate it with a 500-lb LGB, Sir! We carry two of those, but until we get drop tanks we can give you 10 minutes over target at 350 miles, but we'll make those count, Sir, and we have a cool workaround that's 10 per cent as effective as Rover when it comes to avoiding blue-on-blue."

"Keen as mustard, eh! Unfortunately the local chaps take a dim view of us blowing up their wives and goats, and the last time we put up a CAS sortie with Rover INOP, things got a bit pear-shaped and the next we knew we had this frightful bounder in the CAOC, wearing wings and a dagger and saying he would 'slot the ****ing lot of us' if we did it again. We'd better leave CAS to the A-10s and the Tornado mates with HDTV and Brimstone. How about some NTISR?"

"Absolutely, Sir. We'd be glad to go out and acquire medium-rez MWIR imagery! And we'll deliver it as soon as we land and the data has been sanitized in our SCIF. No more than eight hours throughput time, we guarantee, Sir!"

"Hate to say this, but I'm not sure that the intel shop will be too happy with that. Now, about the Emir's birthday fly-by..."

[Courtney Mil]

Beautifully written, LO. Made me giggle. Not sure it's not a BIT harsh. Maybe harsh but fair.

[Turbine D]

LO,
:D:D:D

[Mach Two]

Mr Spaz Sinbad,

Spurred on by LowObervable's post and your reference to the website, I went and had a look. What a nasty, self-opinionated, self-perpetuating bunch of JSF fans you are. To be totally honest, I did read most of the stream of links you posted here and then took them at their apparent worth. But now I've seen the stuff you morons over on the F16 thing express about some of the contributors here, I'm surprised you would ever come back.

I am not a regular poster here for reasons of geography and access, but even I can see how offensive you and your little band of witches have been to some of the group here over on F16.thing.

I wonder why on earth you would come here expecting a welcome and I wonder why you would come here to ask a question about vHUD of the people you clearly hold in ridicule if it isn't just to cause more trouble.

No apologies for being direct. I do apologise if I have overstepped the rules of the forum.

[APG63]

Anyone got any F-35 stuff?

Seen the libel on F-16, not impressed and, Spaz, you should be ashamed of yourself. But that is not why we're here. Don't treat members here like idiots and don't make fun of us with your big buddies. If you want to, don't come here expecting a warm welcome.

So, anyone got any F-35 stuff?

[Turbine D]

Anyone got any F-35 stuff?

Looking at the F16 site with the F-35 subsection, my impression is: When everyone is in agreement with everyone else, there isn't much thinking going on... That's why the F-35 program is where it is at and probably will be verses what it could have been and should have been. OTOH, here on PPRuNe, we have some really good thinkers.:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Here's some F-35 stuff. A long time coming. Fingers crossed it works.

U.S. Marines nearing F-35B combat readiness declaration (http://news.yahoo.com/u-marines-nearing-f-35b-combat-readiness-declaration-011936429--finance.html)

Ce sera un homme courageux qui dit, "non!"

[PhilipG]

Courtney see post 6951, fingers crossed but....

Philip

[LowObservable]

I predict that Gen. Dunford will declare IOC as scheduled.

[Courtney Mil]

I would imagine the political pressure will be immense, LO. Having seen these types of things before, first hand, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone has already had a word in his shell-like about the correct answer.

[LowObservable]

I hope that the Pentagon makes the best of this situation and uses the Marine IOC as a realistic service test, letting the (inevitable and not unique) warts and tics appear and feeding that experience back into IOT&E for Block 3F. Otherwise the risk is that it becomes a marketing exercise, operated with a failure-averse mindset.

That's important, because the Block 2B IOC is not an enduring capability - there are only enough aircraft with the Tech Refresh 1 processor to support one squadron and they will eventually be modernized to 3F standard - and it has certainly had an impact on the 3F schedule as well as costing a lot of money. The program needs to get value out of it.

[Glaaar]

I don't question the ability of the DAS to function vs. live plume threats as a MAWS and I supposed that would extend to close-in aircraft in the SAIRST mode. Which is all it should be asked to do to avoid quiet-ambush as it's stealth nominally protects it from long range launch.


I am less sanguine about the use of the system as a close in targeting or recce aid, simply because the helmet is a lousy way to rapidly sort and assign targets, even disregarding confined canopy and RQ look angle limits.


I would suggest that the SAD on the F-22 is a better example of how to PPI display a large number of contacts without putting G on the get to point the pilot at them within helmet limits.


If the YT video is correct, DAS auto-sorts the sheep from the goats so it's not a matter (for instance) of choosing a target by looking at it, caging the EOTS to the blip and having a human eyeball recognition of the enhanced magnification image. I assume this happens via multisensor (divided photoarray) stare angles to get pixel to pixel fractal geometries but it could also be a function of looking at plume chemistry or a couple other methods.


If DAS can do the sort, then the azimuth plus range condition will dictate the WEZ and whether you shoot, turn in or turn away.


In this, it must be remembered that _if_ you let the threat get within 20-25nm FQ and anything up to 50nm RQ, it's dedicated IRST may well pick up the F135s exceptionally hot plume, regardless and if you aren't giving them an RF return, that's free IFF, even if EOID is not possible due to range.


It is also likely true that the aircraft has aspects where it's nominal -40/-50dbsm frontal RCS is more like -25dbsm which will limit turn away from unwanted fights with limited missile loads.


Hence, given the F-35 appears to be a bit of a slug buggy (more F-117 than F-16, especially given it's present laydown delivery of hammer class weapons) the notion that it's going to be accepting fights at all must be highly questioned rather than presumed survivable based on RFLO 'to the anchor in' commit.


It will instead be the fat ninja looking to avoid all possible fights and potentially unable to do so once other platforms or begin to field DAS like capability sets (the big MAWS boxes on the F/A-18 ASH spine and undernose areas and the similar pattern windows on the second J-20 prototype both suggest this while a UCAV would automatically have to have such a capability).


IMO, the aircraft will be useful in an FNOW mission set as a DEAD and OCA(AB) bomber, especially once GBU-53 and/or SPEAR-3 come online to allow for standoff. The EOTS sensor resolution doesn't bother me. Sniper-XR shows imagery from 20nm (lase) and even 40nm (area) which is compatible with cueing an imaging sensor on the munition to a target centroid via datalink. More than this is not the issue.'


What IS important is cost as a 2,400 airframe program economic factor hides what is the traditional black hole of a stealth aircraft R&D by pretending it's 'not a big number spread over a small fleet' but a 'huuuuge number, spread over a massive fleet'.


This is wrong because, after Day-3, everyone in a Gen-4.5 with AARGM and SDB of their own will be able to survive, just fine, once the 1-2 batteries of Hyper-SAM that non Peer State powers can afford, are hunted down and killed.


If you choose to fight China in her own backyard, you first have to resolve the base-in issues as Carrier survivability vs. BASM and airbase attack by tactical ballistic and sublaunch cruise weapons (Andersen is within 2nd Chain reach). The F-35 is an utter failure here due to lack of SSC for fast transit and thus extreme pilot fatigue issues such as plagued OEF despite a pumped manning ratio.


The obvious alternative is fast missiles with drones to hold the target picture while HSSW (M8 to 800nm) or Hoplite (M3 to 200nm) play fast ambulance on both static and TCT targets, faster than a stealth asset can respond at the long end of a 700-1,000nm radius.


Here, a 200 million dollar realistic F-35 price for <500 jets must be counted against the fast restock of missile rounds using automan assembly lines so that even a series of wars expending 1-4 million dollar rounds like water could completely restock for the price of a squadron of F-35s.


It is never technology by itself. It is always technology driving doctrine and economics that determines how useful a weapons system is.


Now for my own question: Folks here have used a DSLR/Foveon example of multi-diode stacking of detector arrays on a SFPA while others have stated IR is 'all monochrome'. If midwave (3-5u vs. .4-.76u for visible) IR is a longer wavelength does this not impose a fixed detector array size limit? And is everyone -sure- that DAS isn't doped with multicolor pixels to pull out decoys and plumes of various sorts as opposed to say post burnout bow shocks off a radome? I would think cross doped detector arrays were pretty much derigeur since I first heard of them on the Stinger POST back in the 80s.

[Maus92]

To clarify an issue about eye tracking being included in some sort of notional Gen IV HMDS, there was a paper published in 2013 that studied how aircrew in simulators used the F-35 HMD to interact with and assimilate various data in a training environment. The researchers apparently used eye tracking sensors and EEGs to determine where the subjects were looking in the cockpit. The eye tracking was not being developed to integrate into a future HMDS for F-35.

"Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology"

By Meredith Carroll, Glenn Surpris, Shayna Strally, Matthew Archer, Frank Hannigan, Kelly Hale, and Wink Bennett

[a1bill]

I guess they aren't reading some the forums and blogs


https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1167062f82b72cc7cef50ff189cd1e6d&tab=core&_cview=1


Lot 11: 108 F-35A, 17 F-35B, 4 F-35C (previous US: 48 A, 14 B, 6 C) = 129 (previous 121)
Lot 12: 138 F-35A, 26 F-35B, 8 F-35C (previous US: 60 A, 18 B, 10 C) = 172 (previous 170)
Lot 13: 140 F-35A, 26 F-35B, 10 F-35C (previous US: 60 A, 20 B, 10 C) = 176 (previous 170)

[glad rag]

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office (JPO) intends to solicit and negotiate multiple contract actions with Lockheed Martin Corporation,

Contract actions will provide for long lead time materials, parts, components, and effort; Ancillary Mission Equipment (AME); Production Non-Recurring (PNR) activities to support the F-35 production ramp rate including tooling, test equipment, production aids, production equipment, and support labor; technical, financial and administrative data; and proposal preparation.

Contract actions will also provide for associated sustainment support including spares, support equipment, non-recurring autonomic logistics sustainment activities, training, Autonomic Logistics Information Systems (ALIS) hardware, depot activation,

Performance Based Logistics (PBL) operations, and maintenance for all F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C aircraft; and all efforts associated with the procurement of hardware for and sustainment of Joint Reprogramming Enterprise (JRE).

In addition, there will be ordering line items to allow for additional supplies and services, including but not limited to Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS) procurements, retrofit efforts required to update accepted aircraft to newer configurations, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) maintenance.

Ref. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1167062f82b72cc7cef50ff189cd1e6d&tab=core&_cview=1

Nice for the shareholders [and indeed all stakeholder parties] they will be wading in greenbacks.

Can I ask confirmation of how long the gestation period has been now?

[Maus92]

Pre-solicitations are not orders. They are meant to notify potential vendors of an upcoming solicitation based on agency acquisition plans. Vendors - in this case a sole source - are required to respond within a month or so with their intention to bid. Lots of other steps have to occur before a contract is let.

[LowObservable]

Lots of other steps...

Including some rather large legal hurdles, in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antideficiency_Act

Note that this is not the familiar, legally codified Multi-Year Procurement because they are doing it long before the contractor has fulfilled EMD obligations (that is, successful IOT&E of a contract-compliant aircraft). There have been a few "block buys" that were not MYPs (the Virginia SSNs, for instance) but those were not joint-service, let alone multi-national, and they have been strictly case-by-case in Congress.

[KenV]

If LM is indeed signing up for Performance Based Logistics (PBL), I wish them luck. They're going to need it. Boeing signed up for PBL on the C-17 and the first several years lost a bundle, as they expected. It took years to develop the database necessary to know which parts to purchase and stock and in what numbers to guarantee a certain level of C-17 fleet availability and during that time they lost lotsa money. But once they finally did build that database and could start making some money, the gov't changed the contract, which significantly reduced their ability to recoup their previous losses. LM's lawyers and contracts people will need to be at the top of their game if they're going to make any money on a PBL contract.

[Rhino power]

LM's lawyers and contracts people will need to be at the top of their game...

Well, they've managed to foist the F-35A/B/C on the world so, I'm sure they're up to it! ;)

-RP

*Sorry, I couldn't resist...*

[LowObservable]

Really, Ken?

C-17 PBL was such a rotten deal for Boeing that they raised hell when the AF wanted to take it away from them...

Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house? - 5/18/2010 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-is-usaf-bringing-maintenance-in-house-341939/)

...had their consultants celebrate its reinstatement...

Air Force Deserves Praise For Its Decision To Renew C-17 PBL Sustainment Contract - Lexington Institute (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/air-force-deserves-praise-for-its-decision-to-renew-c-17-pbl-sustainment-contract/)

.. and not only signed up but extended the program to every C-17 in the world.

Boeing: Boeing Awarded Contract for PBL Sustainment of C-17 Globemaster III (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-10-07-Boeing-Awarded-Contract-for-PBL-Sustainment-of-C-17-Globemaster-III)

Really?

[KenV]

Really, Ken?.....followed by three linksYeah really.

1. You apparently don't understand what PBL is. It's not "maintenance of the aircraft." You also apparently don't understand the C-17's history, especially it's early history. "Forty and no more" was the government's mantra in those early years.

2. The first C-17 was delivered back in 1993. That's just over 22 years ago. Boeing (then MDC) signed the first sustainment contract not much later. Your links all date to within the past 6 years or so. It was the first several years of the program that cost Boeing plenty, not the last several years. Boeing had to write off those losses, just as it wrote of the losses for building the first two dozen (or more) C-17s. It was much later that Boeing began making money.

3. From your first cited article: Under a well-structured five-year agreement, the contractor makes a small profit or loses money in the first two years. The supply chain is still not mature and investments must be made. The payoff for the contractor occurs in the last two years, when profit can exceed 20% even as the overall cost per flight hour to sustain the aircraft declines. Such profit *margins for government work can appear *excessive. In the case of the C-17 it was not "well structured" because it was a brand new concept, and it took WAY more than "two years" to "mature the supply chain." So Boeing took lots of losses. Then, when Boeing was finally in a position to make some profits, the government declared the profit margins were "excessive" even though such margins were required to compensate for the past years of operating at a loss.

[Radix]

............

[Mach Two]

You apparently don't understand...

You also apparently don't understand

No, he may well "understand" and your view may differ from his. Please stop with the high-handed, I know better bollocks that you seem to need to do all the time to make your opinion appear more authoritative than anyone else's.

I would expect you have some really relevant and insightful points to make here. But they will not be heard until you wind your neck in a lot.

[KenV]

No, he may well "understand" and your view may differ from his.

Maybe. Maybe not. From what he wrote, the way he wrote (including the condescending tone) and the links he provided (which are non sequiturs relative to the early PBL program), I think he does not understand PBL. Do you?

[LowObservable]

I think we were at cross purposes. I'm seeing Boeing making a :mad:load of money from GISP today. I'm not sure at what point it became profitable.

[Mach Two]

I think he does not understand PBL. Do you?I have no interest in it, frankly, KenV. Not really my department. And, as you know, that wasn't my point. I was refering only to your perceived attitude here, which would explain why you spend more time defending your posts than debating the points made therein. If others are a bit blunt in their replies to you, there may be a reason. Consider.

'Nuff said.

[Courtney Mil]

I see your point, M2, and have to concur. Hopefully, "Nuff said".

And all this C17/Boeing/Airbus stuff is great and I see the comparisons being drawn the future of F-35 sustainment, but...

[KenV]

I think we were at cross purposes.If by "cross purposes" you mean we're talking past each other, I agree (is this a Brit vs American English problem?)

I'm seeing Boeing making a :mad:load of money from GISP today. I'm not sure at what point it became profitable. Indeed we are. I'm part of the C-17 GISP program right now, sitting in San Antonio with a whole bunch of USAF and FMS C-17s (including the UK's) undergoing maintenance/mod. But may I politely make a few points:

1. PBL is a component of GISP. It is not GISP.

2. It took a long time to make both PBL and GISP profitable.

My point is that the EARLY years of the PBL program were not profitable. It's very hard to build the database upon which PBL is based and while that database is being built, you have to guarantee performance of the aircraft. The result is that the vendor ends up paying lots of penalties for not meeting the logistics requirements. The PBL contract must be very carefully crafted if the vendor is not going to lose his shirt in those early years. LM's lawyers and contracts folks are going to have their hands full crafting such a contract for the F-35, which appears to be much more complex than the C-17. In addition, they must support three very different versions of the F-35 being operated by three very different services. And the F-35 is going to have a bunch of foreign sales/deliveries very early in the program. Boeing had nearly a decade to sort out PBL before they delivered their first FMS C-17.

[Willard Whyte]

This thread has moved from being interesting & entertaining to boring and personal.

[O-P]

If I may be allowed to the F-35?


How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions? If it can't, they may as well leave it off the Northern European models. I imagine that a few lightning storms would cause a few wobbles too?

[KenV]

I was refering only to your perceived attitude here, which would explain why you spend more time defending your posts than debating the points made therein. May I politely ask what my "perceived attitude" was in post #6967 when this topic began? And why that "perceived attitude" motivated a condescending reply replete with links that were non sequiturs?

I am asking this sincerely as there is obviously a problem with perception. Some of it may be due to the difference in Brit vs American English, but I perceive the problem is much broader and deeper than that.

[FODPlod]

KenV - I too am getting tired of the sneeringly condescending and abusively-worded posts directed towards you. I suspect I am not alone in remaining keen to hear your authoritative contributions despite the witch-hunting efforts of others who, seemingly lacking your background and currency, resentfully quibble everything you say and attempt to trip you up in petty fits of pique.

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level. You are as entitled to air your views as anyone else and I detest group bullying, even on the internet.

[KenV]

How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions?
I don't know, but I would venture a guess that IMC performance is similar to most other IRST since the physics are the same. That assumes NG has not come up with a clever way around the inherent limitations of the IR spectrum.

That being said the 900 to 1700 micron wavelength sees thru haze, mist and fog very well. I am not certain, but I understand that DAS's sensor spectrum includes this range.

[KenV]

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level. Thanks for that. I'll try to better control myself in the face of "stooping detractors." ;-)

Further, I abandoned my last attempt at civility when that approach was declared "passive aggressive". I will not abandon future attempts in the face of such baiting detractors.

[glad rag]

KenV - I too am getting tired of the sneeringly condescending and abusively-worded posts directed towards you. I suspect I am not alone in remaining keen to hear your authoritative contributions despite the witch-hunting efforts of others who, seemingly lacking your background and currency, resentfully quibble everything you say and attempt to trip you up in petty fits of pique.

If your detractors acted more civilly, i might give them more credence. However, please remember what I said about not stooping to their level. You are as entitled to air your views as anyone else and I detest group bullying, even on the internet.

You are of course quite entitled to your opinion and are right to air it.

However when a contributor continuously posts contentious and seemingly ridiculous opinions, who is called out on them and neither has the good grace [or sheer pigheadedness, take your pick] to realise the game is up and begin to partake in a more # reasonable # direction of discussion then expect to get some grief, you call it bullying, some might say enough of the BS !!

Now considering what has been said about contributors on this thread, on another internet forum, them you may wish to revisit your opinion on

" and I detest group bullying, even on the internet"

On reflection this discussion is really quite tame [and legal].

rgds

http://www.moneypit.com/sites/default/files/images/Tools_and_Materials/oily%20rags.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

PBL:
I've seen one instance where it seemed to work, 10-15 years ago, and am familiar with one that isn't working as well.

Not only is MTBF data counted (and if you don't have a five year average you can't even start, from what I have seen) but causation for removal/replacement of the more expensive bits needs to be understood to fold into the predictive models. That would give the logistician a fighting chance to estimate long lead time materials, to consider just one piece of the problem. There are others, to include suppliers suddenly becoming unqualified after an audit.

Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ... :confused:

[Courtney Mil]

First, what O-P said, How does the DAS cope with IMC conditions? If it can't, they may as well leave it off the Northern European models. I imagine that a few lightning storms would cause a few wobbles too?

Second,

This thread has moved from being interesting & entertaining to boring and personal.

Willard, agree.

[O-P]

Ken,


I didn't mean low vis, I was talking about seeing through 40 000' of North Sea smeg. (smeg, in Scotland, isn't a brand of domestic appliance)


CM,


I'd imagine, that on the two days a year that you get a clear night in Scotland, the N Sea rigs will make the thingy go nuts! There is a finite point where detection range and false target rejection cross over. I hope those boundaries are adjustable depending on the theatre of Ops.


I imagine the HMD in Central Europe, on WW3 day one, would look like an American house at x-mas!!

[Courtney Mil]

O-P, even NVGs end up looking a bit like that!

[O-P]

CM,


At least you could see the Northern lights on the goggs, and satelites, until the odd F3 got in the way that is!!!

[FODPlod]

...Not only is MTBF data counted (and if you don't have a five year average you can't even start, from what I have seen) but causation for removal/replacement of the more expensive bits needs to be understood to fold into the predictive models. That would give the logistician a fighting chance to estimate long lead time materials, to consider just one piece of the problem. There are others, to include suppliers suddenly becoming unqualified after an audit.

Is the F-35 mature enough for that kind of data driven logistics tail support? I can't see where the data would be coming from ... :confused:

The first two production F-35s (AF-1 and AF-2) arrived at Edwards AFB on 17 May 2010, i.e. over five years ago (link (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/485666/workhorse-becomes-first-f-35-to-achieve-1000-flight-hours.aspx)). F-35s had clocked up over 15,000 flying hours by April last year (link (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2014/april/140415ae_f-35-fleet-surpasses-15000-hours.html)) so the figure is liable to be significantly higher by now. There have been no incidences of in-air catastrophic failure as far as I can tell and the level of system instrumentation and monitoring has been unprecedented.

Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?

[Radix]

............

[LowObservable]

I have never heard anything about DAS other than that it works in the midwave IR band (not the near-IR). It will be heavily affected by IMC, as will other IR devices.

My opinion (and that's all it is) is that all-round IR imaging per se will decline in value as digital night-vision devices - such as the Intevac product used on the JSF HMDS - are integrated into helmets. It's a simpler and lower-latency solution to pilot night vision.

The fixed IR sensor approach does have some advantages - it works in zero light level and you can see through the floor - but I doubt that they are worth the disadvantages of lower resolution and latency issues. At that point, you can go to a simpler (possibly uncooled) IR sensor for warning and tracking.

[KenV]

The first two production F-35s (AF-1 and AF-2) arrived at Edwards AFB on 17 May 2010, i.e. over five years ago (link (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/485666/workhorse-becomes-first-f-35-to-achieve-1000-flight-hours.aspx)). F-35s had clocked up over 15,000 flying hours by April last year (link (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2014/april/140415ae_f-35-fleet-surpasses-15000-hours.html)) so the figure is liable to be significantly higher by now. There have been no incidences of in-air catastrophic failure as far as I can tell and the level of system instrumentation and monitoring has been unprecedented.

Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?

My I offer my insights?

1. AF-1 and AF-2 were test aircraft without all of the F-35s complex systems. Those systems are certain to drive the availability and logistics support tail of the aircraft.

2. Even if those two aircraft were equipped with all the F-35s systems, it takes much more than two aircraft to generate the kind of data required by a predictive PBL program. For starters, the test and evaluation environment is nothing like the operational environment. PBL must predict and control the entire supply chain, which involves much more than simply having reliable MTBF data.

3. Early MTBF data is notoriously unreliable. It takes years to mature a product and the processes that build and support that product. The C-17 struggled with that for years, and many of its systems were already mature (the engines, major electrical and hydraulic components, radios, comms, etc). I can't think of a single system/subsystem on the F-35 that is not brand new. And a lot use newly developed technology that has no past history.

4. A huge part of PBL is the diagnostic systems used to detect and isolate faults, the systems used to repair those faults, and the systems used to recertify the part to return it to service. These systems take years to develop and mature. Just "swapping boxes" when they fail will kill a PBL program dead.

5. PBL must also take into account the operational environment. The logistic system that enables the contractor to guarantee (for example) 80% availibility in the continental US is very different than the logistics system in continental Europe, which is different than the logistics system when deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, which is different than the logistics system on board a carrier at sea, which is different than....you get the idea.

6. Tthe operational environment drives failure rates of many systems and components. For example, the salt air environment on a carrier will cause failures and generate servicing requirements that do not exist when operating out of New Mexico. The heat and sand environment in the middle east will drive different failures than those at sea. The cold in northern environments (Alaska, Northern Europe, etc) will result in different failures and failure rates. The stresses of carrier takeoffs and landings will drive all sorts of failures in the landing gear not experienced by USAF aircraft. And so it goes. It takes years of real world experience to generate the database that makes PBL possible. And each time you get a new customer or new operational environment, the database must be adjusted to take that into account. The database and the logistics system must also accommodate different block builds of the aircraft over time. So nothing is static and requires constant review and updates.

I hope this clarified.

[KenV]

Ken, I didn't mean low vis, I was talking about seeing through 40 000' of North Sea smeg. (smeg, in Scotland, isn't a brand of domestic appliance)

Ok, so we're not talking about IMC in general, but "North Sea smeg." I have no idea what North Sea smeg is. Can you help me?

[KenV]

The fixed IR sensor approach does have some advantages - it works in zero light level and you can see through the floor - but I doubt that they are worth the disadvantages of lower resolution and latency issues. At that point, you can go to a simpler (possibly uncooled) IR sensor for warning and tracking.

We're still very early in the design life of this technology. Latency seems to have already been resolved (at least enough to satisfy the testers) and I would think will only improve with time, assuming all else remains the same. But nothing stays the same, so as the resolution improves, the required bandwidth goes up with it, so latency will again become an issue. It will be interesting to see where this goes over time.

[O-P]

Ken,


Sorry about being so shabby and not answering your question earlier.


"Smeg" or "Smeggy" weather, is that dirty horrible cloud that stretches from the deck to the angels. It usually had a few VMC layers embedded in it, but nothing you could hang your hat on. It wasn't active enough to hold CB's, so just sat there for days. Sanctuary levels were very, very important!


Ever wondered why the Scots are so dour?

[MSOCS]

North Sea "Smeg", which I've experienced nearly all of my flying career, is nothing more than a challenging weather phenomenon to visual and IR sensors. So, in the absence of a clear IR picture of what's out there you have EW and Radar to contribute (both off board and onboard).

The point is this - if something can target you in both the IR band and FOV of DAS you must assume it has LOS (pretty much), therefore the point (yet again) is moot - i.e. if it can't see you due to weather it can't target you so you win! EO-DAS is more than just a spectral contributor to SA, like all other sensors in the F-35. I can't say how good it is performing on a public forum but suffice it to say "it's impressive!" Please, shoot me down with your wise words of doubt if that's your deep-rooted agenda. Quote some public release saying EO-DAS is awful; I care not. Whatever folks. That sort of impression isn't representative of the truth; not by any stretch or clear margin of truth. Sorry but it isn't and i'm stating that for the record. No Kool-Aid, no BS.

Bottom line to the question presented - if you have a problem seeing something in the IR band through cloud then the enemy has the same (if not worse) issues seeing/targeting you. This assumes no radar, no cueing, no "other means."

[O-P]

MSOCS,


I thank you for your input, well made. I would also contest that heavy IMC conditions would also attenuate any RADAR contacts.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - To quote Bill S...

//not that one

..."the lady doth protest too much"

I have seen an EO-DAS derivative working in a set-piece display. I was not impressed.

[FODPlod]

MSOCS - Thank you for your useful clarification. The enemy always has a vote, of course, but he needs to find the ballot box to make it count.

[Courtney Mil]

Loving the mataphor, FOD!

[Lonewolf_50]

The first two production F-35s (AF-1 and AF-2) arrived at Edwards AFB on 17 May 2010, i.e. over five years ago (link (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/485666/workhorse-becomes-first-f-35-to-achieve-1000-flight-hours.aspx)). F-35s had clocked up over 15,000 flying hours by April last year (link (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2014/april/140415ae_f-35-fleet-surpasses-15000-hours.html)) so the figure is liable to be significantly higher by now. There have been no incidences of in-air catastrophic failure as far as I can tell and the level of system instrumentation and monitoring has been unprecedented.

Serious question: Wouldn't that provide sufficient data to start populating a MTBF database with some degree of confidence?
Maybe. Depends on how many configuration and design changes have occurred since their service lives began.

[Biggus]

I thought KenV had already answered that question, very comprehesively, in post 6994?

[Courtney Mil]

You're right, Biggus, but LoneWolf does have a point. Surely there must be some production standard parts that belong to "standard aircraft" that have required replacement during testing? Even if it's just brakes, tyres, fluids, magic boxes, actuators, etc. it may not build a fully representative picture of training missions (although there have been some of those) or ops, but the data could get it started?