F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[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

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!

[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

[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

Skyhawk Damaged | A-4 Skyhawk Association

http://a4skyhawk.org/files/gallery/C...alty%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! Royal Australian Navy Skyhawk BuNo 154906, #885, makes it "feet dry", but crumpled. #885, 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]

posts 6937/9

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?