Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 13th Oct 2015, 21:43
  #7821 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
About as much credence as a LM press release or "aircrew" briefing...
glad rag is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 22:03
  #7822 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 246
First off how did this thread become a [email protected] thread? Second, since this is a DARPA program we are talking about it is “bleeding edge” technology that is a ways off from an operational system. And the testing is a “Ground-based test that was expected to begin in summer 2015 which AFAIK hasn’t started yet.

Finally, consider the many issues of installing a [email protected] capable of being used as a weapon on ANY fighter and you run into a lot of integration issues. On signature driven platform the issues increase. For example what type of aperture would be used to replace the rotating turret used to date on airborne platforms?

As has been suggested by several folks, let’s please get back to reality on this thread.
Bevo is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 22:05
  #7823 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Oh, a1bill, you do love to go on about it.

Just to keep you happy, here's the latest miniature Australian death-Ray [email protected] ready to slot into the F-35. Tiny, isn't it?

Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 22:50
  #7824 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
One hell of a Celestron SCT mount a1...
glad rag is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 07:25
  #7825 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Back in Blighty...
Posts: 51
eh?

Genuine question; is there a reason you're all using '[email protected]' instead of 'laser'??
emitex is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 08:11
  #7826 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 757
Genuine question; is there a reason you're all using '[email protected]' instead of 'laser'??
My thoughts too. Everyone knows it should be "#laser".
FODPlod is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 09:04
  #7827 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Same reason as you are, emitex.

The site changes it to avoid googles leading [email protected] enthusiasts finding there way here. Clearly didn't work, eh?
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 09:12
  #7828 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Back in Blighty...
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
Same reason as you are, emitex.

The site changes it to avoid googles leading [email protected] enthusiasts finding there way here. Clearly didn't work, eh?
Least not when it's in inverted commas..

Right, I'll be back in my box.

Last edited by emitex; 14th Oct 2015 at 09:27. Reason: confusion!
emitex is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 09:17
  #7829 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Which one is that CM?
This is the 10 year old ozdricm pod that was tested on a lear jet.




7 videos from the 2015 directed energy summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqAZ...QaB7dG5EioPObV

there is also a PDFs on it in this thread
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27171

Last edited by a1bill; 14th Oct 2015 at 09:34.
a1bill is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 10:20
  #7830 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
New thread title required. Death Ray Cancelled, then what?
Mach Two is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 12:21
  #7831 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Why is this thread still being cluttered by attempts to conflate HEL and DIRCM?

DIRCM [email protected] are about the size of a hardback book, because they have to fit along with a tracking camera into the small turrets you see attached to a C-17.



They have a power output at best in the low tens of watts.

HEL starts at 10 kW, which I think everyone understands is three orders of magnitude difference. Some claim that you can knock down a plastic mini-drone at a few kilometers with that much power. So far, airborne systems designed for counter-surface or counter-missile roles are considered generally viable at 100-150 kW and upward, or 10000 TIMES the output of a DIRCM.

Babbling about demonstrator DIRCMs is pure timewasting.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 15:51
  #7832 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,334
LO,

But surely this entire thread, all 7,800 odd comments, could be considered "pure timewasting".
Biggus is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 16:02
  #7833 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,477
Originally Posted by a1bill View Post
Lonewolf_50, They recently made public that they are using the C130 and B1 as platform test beds. They are due to be now testings at White sands, a mid power 150kw [email protected]

High Energy Liquid [email protected] Area Defense System (HELLADS)
I'll believe Boost Phase Intercept is real when they can actually make it work. A few more breakthroughs needed, and no, not quite small enough to fit onto an F-35 Lightning II. I concur with Mach Two and suggest that you move this discussion into a new thread called "Death Ray Cancelled, then what" so that our usual bun fight over the F-35 returns to its correct envelope of combined piss taking and program review.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 21:04
  #7834 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Wolf,
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 07:17
  #7835 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 62
Posts: 6,996
Don't worry Chaps ... By the time the F-35 becomes fully operational Photon-Torpedoes will be de rigueur

I'll get my coat ...
CoffmanStarter is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 07:39
  #7836 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Lonewolf_50, They are saying that some of the missile defense will be on a UAV and they have a gen 3 [email protected] that will be a UAV. (2015 summit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqAZ...QaB7dG5EioPObV )
General Atomics: Third-Gen Electric [email protected] Weapon Now Ready | Technology content from Aviation Week




http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf...ers-ready-2020
USAF: Tactical [email protected] Ready By 2020



LO:Why is this thread still being cluttered by attempts to conflate HEL and DIRCM.

although they are saying that the 2 will be combined and only have one system, It's just the tech used in both HEL and OZDIRCM are next gen optical fiber that I was initially answering to glad rag. They are far different to the "book' sized mirror DRICM you seem to be referring to.

Last edited by a1bill; 15th Oct 2015 at 14:16.
a1bill is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 18:06
  #7837 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,477
Originally Posted by a1bill View Post
Lonewolf_50, They are saying that some of the missile defense will be on a UAV and they have a gen 3 [email protected] that will be a UAV.
a1bill, the article cites a test on the Paul F Foster to be done in 2018: I once landed my helicopter on the Paul F Foster. It once fired Tomahawks into Iraq, during Desert Storm, but I wasn't on it then. The system for that test is a shipboard system. The UAV based system is still proposed, which doesn't address the non-trivial systems integration problem for F-35: can they make the bugger small enough to fit it into the correct niche of the Lightning II?

F-35 has plenty of other weapons systems, and associated software, to properly integrate and get working before Buck Fing Rogers puts on that lovely helmet and flies about with a [email protected] weapon.

Once the test on the Paul F Foster, in three years, is completed we can revisit this topic in this thread. Until then, can we please get back to the Phunky Phiphth Gen Phighter we've been talking about in this thread?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 19:40
  #7838 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 69
Posts: 519
And besides the apparent integration issues of the death ray system, the F-35 will be focused on maintaining air superiority.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2015, 01:34
  #7839 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 8
And besides the apparent integration issues of the death ray system, the F-35 will be focused on maintaining air superiority.
Not in the US at least. In USAF, USN, and USMC the F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft and not an air superiority aircraft.
FlyPony is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2015, 01:38
  #7840 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 8
Maybe it's not the fault of the ejection seat after all

F-35's Heavier Helmet Complicates Ejection Risks

WASHINGTON — In the latest hurdle for the Pentagon's F-35 joint strike fighter, testers this summer discovered an increased risk of neck damage when a lightweight pilot is ejecting from the plane. The Joint Program Office blamed the phenomenon on the jet's ejection seat, Martin-Baker's US16E. But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between.

F-35's Heavier Helmet Complicates Ejection Risks
FlyPony is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.