F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
"Perhaps they could be gifted to the Baltic states?"
and push the Tranche 1’s out of service as soon as possible if they are costing us a disproportionate amount of money to maintain.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$400,000 a bone dome 
Yes but it's a special bone dome. Cost is now irreverent to this program because they've got them by the short and curlys...
Yes but it's a special bone dome. Cost is now irreverent to this program because they've got them by the short and curlys...
Rubbish, KenV.
The JSF needs that absurdly expensive pilot helmet because without it, view from the cockpit behind the 3-9 line would be very, very limited.
The JSF needs that absurdly expensive pilot helmet because without it, view from the cockpit behind the 3-9 line would be very, very limited.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Keep in mind that the bone dome replaces a color holographic HUD in the F-35. I don't know what the price of the HUD and fancy helmet are in a Typhoon, F-16, F-18, etc, but I would not be surprised if together they come close to or are maybe even more expensive than the F-35 bone dome.
Numbers wise I'd estimate a threefold increasing in numbers, and a major calibration problem on an ongoing basis.
Actually, the HMDS would have been easier and cheaper if it hadn't replaced the HUD.
If you have both, you don't have to make the HMDS tracking system gunsight-accurate, and you can easily put a high-rez image on the HUD for tasks such as landing, where you want lots of clear texture cues. So you don't need a special new-tech camera in the HMDS, or at least not as badly.
And - well, you have both, in case one breaks.
The reason that there's no HUD (as I understand it) is that they really wanted the big wide-screen display. In 1995-2000 this was not compatible with a HUD because the optical chain got in the way. With new waveguide combiners, this is no longer a problem.
If you have both, you don't have to make the HMDS tracking system gunsight-accurate, and you can easily put a high-rez image on the HUD for tasks such as landing, where you want lots of clear texture cues. So you don't need a special new-tech camera in the HMDS, or at least not as badly.
And - well, you have both, in case one breaks.
The reason that there's no HUD (as I understand it) is that they really wanted the big wide-screen display. In 1995-2000 this was not compatible with a HUD because the optical chain got in the way. With new waveguide combiners, this is no longer a problem.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV, I think there comes a time that regardless, there is just a knee-jerk criticism to every announcement for the F-35. It tastes of sour grapes by most.
LO, the pilot has a full HUD in the HMD, why would he need a HUD as well?
LO, the pilot has a full HUD in the HMD, why would he need a HUD as well?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many HMDS sets per unit?
What sort of support infrastructure needs to be in place to ensure that all the required helmets are available? Having a broken HMDS takes that pilot out of the game and hence their F35?
Will it be the case that each FJ pilot will have their own helmet at $250,000 each or will the helmets be pooled?
Just seems an incrementally expensive way of organising life.
Will it be the case that each FJ pilot will have their own helmet at $250,000 each or will the helmets be pooled?
Just seems an incrementally expensive way of organising life.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thought of a fire sprinkler system going off by mistake in the crew changing room on a carrier, in the Gulf say, and all the helmets on board getting soaked and thus in need of a lot of TLC at a base facility, would create a few red faces, as a swift withdrawal was undertaken with no air cover, unless of course every pilot had two expensive helmets, that should never be stored in the same space.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
If I might gently offer an alternative narrative for the HMDS/HUD issue.
You're quite right that the original large display system technology (projector tubes) was changed, but as far as I remember the replacement was a flat panel display system. This was enabled by rapid advances in the technology of the panels. Good job too, because the original projector system was, in the view of many on the programme, a 'dog'.
As an aside, the changes to the cockpit were also part of an effort to fix some serious issues with the original display generation architecture - the very rapid effort to solve these was led by a simply excellent Brit at Fort Worth.
The original adoption of the HMDS was not, as far as I remember, driven by the size of the large cockpit displays. It was a combination of explicit requirements within the JORD, plus a desire to take advantage of a series of technology demonstration programmes that had been run by the USAF and the USN. One of the main aims was to allow the pilot to be 'heads out' as far as possible.
The HMDS is a key part of a determined and structured effort to get a very large amount of information effectively presented to the single pilot. That meant a fairly fundamental review of the balance of information presented between the HMDS and the main cockpit displays.
BAe people played a large part in that, with their recent experience on Typhoon proving very useful, once the US security 'goons' had been put back in their box. People with Sea Harrier experience also played a part, as they were used to using clever ways of getting lots of info to a busy pilot. Overall cockpit design also included a lot of very good Brit input, by the way, as did the 'Pilot Flight Equipment' (PFE) adopted for the jet.
I expect a chorus of 'but the Typhoon cockpit is rubbish' comments - I can only report what I saw happening.
Management of the HMDS will need to be different from that used for legacy helmets. They have been managed for many years as items of 'aircrew equipment', and maintained by personnel in Survival (or Safety) Equipment (SE) sections. A pool of items have been held by stations, and smaller pools by squadrons at sea. They have been set up for individual aircrew, but can easily be adjusted if required. They've also been relatively low tech affairs, and the skill sets of SE personnel haven't included maintenance of complex avionics.
The advent of NVGs placed a serious strain on that concept, and in my view (my view only) the HMDS will need to be handled by the main avionics support system, with the SE handling only fit and issue. The helmet and the display systems will probably be handled as sub assemblies, possibly with a need for harmonisation when assembled . Again my view, but I think a pool of items (helmets and display assemblies) will be used. Yes, they'd better not get soaked, but then that applies to just about every item of electronic equipment on a carrier, including the jets. The helmets are required to be able to resist being sprayed with water. You don't see many water sprinkler systems in an avionics shop, by the way.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those polishing the visors,
Engines
If I might gently offer an alternative narrative for the HMDS/HUD issue.
You're quite right that the original large display system technology (projector tubes) was changed, but as far as I remember the replacement was a flat panel display system. This was enabled by rapid advances in the technology of the panels. Good job too, because the original projector system was, in the view of many on the programme, a 'dog'.
As an aside, the changes to the cockpit were also part of an effort to fix some serious issues with the original display generation architecture - the very rapid effort to solve these was led by a simply excellent Brit at Fort Worth.
The original adoption of the HMDS was not, as far as I remember, driven by the size of the large cockpit displays. It was a combination of explicit requirements within the JORD, plus a desire to take advantage of a series of technology demonstration programmes that had been run by the USAF and the USN. One of the main aims was to allow the pilot to be 'heads out' as far as possible.
The HMDS is a key part of a determined and structured effort to get a very large amount of information effectively presented to the single pilot. That meant a fairly fundamental review of the balance of information presented between the HMDS and the main cockpit displays.
BAe people played a large part in that, with their recent experience on Typhoon proving very useful, once the US security 'goons' had been put back in their box. People with Sea Harrier experience also played a part, as they were used to using clever ways of getting lots of info to a busy pilot. Overall cockpit design also included a lot of very good Brit input, by the way, as did the 'Pilot Flight Equipment' (PFE) adopted for the jet.
I expect a chorus of 'but the Typhoon cockpit is rubbish' comments - I can only report what I saw happening.
Management of the HMDS will need to be different from that used for legacy helmets. They have been managed for many years as items of 'aircrew equipment', and maintained by personnel in Survival (or Safety) Equipment (SE) sections. A pool of items have been held by stations, and smaller pools by squadrons at sea. They have been set up for individual aircrew, but can easily be adjusted if required. They've also been relatively low tech affairs, and the skill sets of SE personnel haven't included maintenance of complex avionics.
The advent of NVGs placed a serious strain on that concept, and in my view (my view only) the HMDS will need to be handled by the main avionics support system, with the SE handling only fit and issue. The helmet and the display systems will probably be handled as sub assemblies, possibly with a need for harmonisation when assembled . Again my view, but I think a pool of items (helmets and display assemblies) will be used. Yes, they'd better not get soaked, but then that applies to just about every item of electronic equipment on a carrier, including the jets. The helmets are required to be able to resist being sprayed with water. You don't see many water sprinkler systems in an avionics shop, by the way.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to those polishing the visors,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 18th Aug 2015 at 09:49. Reason: Additional text
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Washington political opposition continues to grow.......
Report: F-35 Inferior to Older US, Foreign Fighters
WASHINGTON -- The F-35 Lightning II passed a major milestone last month when the Marine Corps declared it operational, but the accomplishment has not silenced critics.
A Washington think tank released a report Tuesday that found the 5th-generation jet – billed as the world's most advanced fighter – will be outmaneuvered in dogfights with current Russian and Chinese jets as well as the U.S. aircraft it is slated to replace. The report comes after details were leaked last month on a test flight where the F-35 was bested in most aerial maneuvering by an F-16.
"The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors," according to Bill French, a policy analyst with the National Security Network, a progressive think tank that claims to challenge overly militarized conservative defense policies. "Staying the present course [on the aircraft program] may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives."
The think tank has an advisory board that includes Sandy Berger, the national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, and Richard Clarke, a senior White House advisor to several administrations. A call and email request for comment were not immediately answered...........
Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35
Report: F-35 Inferior to Older US, Foreign Fighters
WASHINGTON -- The F-35 Lightning II passed a major milestone last month when the Marine Corps declared it operational, but the accomplishment has not silenced critics.
A Washington think tank released a report Tuesday that found the 5th-generation jet – billed as the world's most advanced fighter – will be outmaneuvered in dogfights with current Russian and Chinese jets as well as the U.S. aircraft it is slated to replace. The report comes after details were leaked last month on a test flight where the F-35 was bested in most aerial maneuvering by an F-16.
"The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors," according to Bill French, a policy analyst with the National Security Network, a progressive think tank that claims to challenge overly militarized conservative defense policies. "Staying the present course [on the aircraft program] may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives."
The think tank has an advisory board that includes Sandy Berger, the national security advisor to President Bill Clinton, and Richard Clarke, a senior White House advisor to several administrations. A call and email request for comment were not immediately answered...........
Thunder without Lightning: The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
No, but I think its in a price "death spiral" as with the B-2 and F-22.
The Pentagon said a couple of years ago there will be no more money than originally budgeted, so as slippages and prices go up, then numbers go down, which means unit price goes up.... The reports on USN review of purchase numbers are the leading edge of the spiral, as are the reports of reducing numbers of USAF FJ wings.
Not sure how many will end up be purchased, but I'd guess at about a third to a half the original requirement.
The Pentagon said a couple of years ago there will be no more money than originally budgeted, so as slippages and prices go up, then numbers go down, which means unit price goes up.... The reports on USN review of purchase numbers are the leading edge of the spiral, as are the reports of reducing numbers of USAF FJ wings.
Not sure how many will end up be purchased, but I'd guess at about a third to a half the original requirement.
To be fair, these new articles seem to be spouting forth the same stuff all over again without offering anything particularly new or surprising. The "leaked document" has been wrung through pretty thoroughly and, again, the WVR manoeuvre shouldn't have come as much of a surprise - we even had our very own rehearsal of it here a couple of years ago. None of these "kill the programme" articles seem able to suggest an alternative, so how helpful are they, especially if you look more than a few years ahead?
I still wonder - for reasons I've stated here many times - if this was the right basket for all our eggs, but it's here now and there is little in the way of another way forward for now.
I still wonder - for reasons I've stated here many times - if this was the right basket for all our eggs, but it's here now and there is little in the way of another way forward for now.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac, They have cut a lot of the original LRIP numbers and the sequester has cut a lot from programs. What about the initial 3 year multi buy later this decade. The about 450-500 units, just may be the start of a hole in your guess.
CM, The eggs for the carriers are in the basket. There is no Euro apatite for a gen 5 joint development. I don't see other options, other than the F-35A or a F-35 V2.1
CM, The eggs for the carriers are in the basket. There is no Euro apatite for a gen 5 joint development. I don't see other options, other than the F-35A or a F-35 V2.1
Last edited by a1bill; 18th Aug 2015 at 12:16.