F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
The DAS needs to be good to work out where the Q is.
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.
Last edited by kbrockman; 18th Jul 2015 at 00:19. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'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. :-)
And yes did I not get a twofer - reintroducing myself with my bona fides? I guess not - I'm still not welcome. :-)
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.
Nobody challenges you or Engines in the same way, for example, because you make logical arguments most of the time.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..."
"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..."
Last edited by LowObservable; 18th Jul 2015 at 18:29.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone got any F-35 stuff?
Here's some F-35 stuff. A long time coming. Fingers crossed it works.
U.S. Marines nearing F-35B combat readiness declaration
Ce sera un homme courageux qui dit, "non!"
U.S. Marines nearing F-35B combat readiness declaration
Ce sera un homme courageux qui dit, "non!"
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Midwest
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
"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
Last edited by Maus92; 20th Jul 2015 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they aren't reading some the forums and blogs
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=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)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=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)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting indeed.
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=opportun...=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?
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=opportun...=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?