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

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

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.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 19th Jun 2012, 18:17
  #1161 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
I shall inform CAS that you have assessed that it's OK to stand down QRA. You may need to explain why you din't tell us 60 years ago.

Anti-air, AD, DCA, etc doesn't just happen at home, by the way. In fact, let's take all the air-to-air kit out of F-35B and make back into a new GR9.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:20.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2012, 18:28
  #1162 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
"Anti-air, AD, DCA, etc doesn't just happen at home, by the way."

Yes, the Royal Navy is well aware of that,though I would go as far as to say it happens just about everywhere but.

That's why we need carriers to take it with us.
Tourist is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2012, 18:31
  #1163 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Lockheed Martin Offers Bolt-on Multi-Mission Sensor System | Aviation International News

I thought this was the only game in town, and if it shares the same radar as the F35 surely that will allow simpler fusion and networking?
It will use stock HM2s including their current workstations apparently.

Last edited by hulahoop7; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:32.
hulahoop7 is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2012, 18:37
  #1164 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Yes, the plan put forward is to use our other Merlins and possibly dual qualify our other observers, and use it as a mission fit rather than dedicated AEW asset.

Flexibility, apparently it is the key to something or other

Last edited by Tourist; 19th Jun 2012 at 18:39.
Tourist is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2012, 18:46
  #1165 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Now, that is a smart piece of kit.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2012, 22:28
  #1166 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 57
Posts: 551
the problem is Orca that we only have TWO aircraft carriers and they coats a bloody fortune - we actually have quite a few airbases still - and can build them quite cheaply if need be
Since we have a STOVL A/C we can also use STUFT and convert them fairly easily as well.
althenick is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 00:27
  #1167 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
However, I am in complete agreement with A.Y who obviously knows his proverbial ****; the F-35 sensor suite in many, many ways is significantly upgraded from F-22, is better than Growler and the potential of its DL for data-passing air picture AND 'surpic' amongst not just other F-35 but also the surface fleet and CAOC is a step beyond.
All that is true , and apart from any other aspect, the sensorsuite and sensorfusion is the single most important aspect about the F35, even more so than its (limited) stealth abilities.

Which brings me to the next question, will it all work as promised ?
Looking at the state the software is in and the problems with the helmet, which is the central vital piece in this sensor package, there still are many legitimate worries about the endresult ,and even worse, the difficulties of upgrading it later on.
Hence the comparison with the earlier Vigilante, which always suffered from unreliable immature systems which where way too complex to maintain and upgrade.

More specifically talking about the helmet it remains to be seen how far the modifications will bring it to the necessary, workeable specs.
The jitters it suffers from are very likely the easiest to solve and the problems with its nighttime performance are also probably solvable in the near future but the latency issues are really more than just a simple engineering challenge.
This is not some slow speed or low resolution system like used before but a system that is supposed to give very high resolution @ realtime speed that uses these capabilities to support the pilots situational awareness without the extra aid of a HUD.

The time lagging is going to be a real nightmare to solve to make it useable in a high speed fighter which needs the high resolution sensorfused (seemsless) imaging to make full use of its weaponscapabilities.
Anything less or a system(helmet) that compromises too much to make it workeable will pretty much negate the benefits given from all these other fine sensors, the no-HUD desicion might have been a penywise but pound foolish one.
Also very interesting to notice is that, when they talk about the helmet issues and subsequent solutions they (think they)found for it, they only talk about the jitters-issue, for the 2 other problems there is no solution in the foreseeable future (glad to stand corrected on that one but I haven't seen it up until today).

All this leads to a fighter that is now soo late that some aftermarket of the shelf technology will be more or less as good, or even better than the F35 systems by the time it reaches IOC, pretty much negating its main selling point and advantage over other fighters.

and more news about why it is all so expensive acc to LM
Lockheed says more orders key to cutting F-35 cost - chicagotribune.com

Lockheed Chief Executive Bob Stevens said the company was "fully dedicated" to lowering the cost of the F-35, but told Reuters that it was not clear that Lockheed could meet the Pentagon's expectation of an 18 percent price cut from the fourth to fifth batches of production planes.

Last edited by kbrockman; 20th Jun 2012 at 00:52.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 03:16
  #1168 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
How HMDS II Issues to be resolved

More explanation about the 'three' issues of the HMDS at this website.
F-35 helmet’s jitter problem should be fixed by this summer 30 May 2012

[text from InsideDefence: Login ]

F-35 helmet’s jitter problem should be fixed by this summer by Barry Graff 30 May 2012

[Have no idea why the 'blog spot [all one word]' is replaced by the string of asterisks - but whatever. BTW www.a4ghistory.com is back up]


"...The third and final issue with the helmet – image latency:
The third challenge to the HMDS' functionality, image latency, demands a more collaborative approach because it requires improvements to a variety of systems on the F-35, not only the helmet. Whereas VSI is directly responsible for improving jitter and night vision acuity, it is only partially responsible for enhancing the rate at which the F-35's sensors transfer information to the HMDS, and King stressed that referring to latency as solely a helmet problem is inaccurate.

In the F-35, sensors -- some associated with Northrop Grumman's electro-optical distributed aperture system -- collect imagery and video, which is then transferred through multiple processors until it reaches the helmet. The millisecond-length delays incurred at each step of that chain add up to create an image delay problem, King explained. Through engineering test and evaluation that included some pilot involvement, Lockheed Martin determined that latency of up to 150 milliseconds is acceptable, and the portion of those 150 milliseconds directly attributable to the HMDS is about 40 milliseconds, or less than one third.

Lockheed has supplied VSI with a list of "10 or so" specifications related to different helmet operations for VSI to fulfill its portion of the latency fix process, and King said the company will be able to meet those requirements. He declined to discuss how long it might take for the JSF program to eliminate image latency, though, and deferred comment on that process to Lockheed...."

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 20th Jun 2012 at 03:28. Reason: URL blocked?
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 07:15
  #1169 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120

Old chap. I know we have quite a few airfields, in fact in these days of financial squeeze I find it quite hard to believe how many we (well...the RAF) have hung onto - different thread perchance.

I disagree with your point about being able to build them quickly. I don't think we can. There are aeroplanes that can operate off bare bases, I remember a very capable one - but we got rid of it. What's left requires well found bases.

Also. Let us be sensible. The UK FW [email protected] is now so low that we shall (a la ELLAMY) deploy to a single DOB. That makes GR4 and Typhoon at Goia as vulnerable as F-35 on QECV.

In short, our eggs will be in one basket in any case. Why not have a moving basket that the baddies struggle to pinpoint and no-one gives us permission to use?
orca is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 08:50
  #1170 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Since we have a STOVL A/C we can also use STUFT and convert them fairly easily as well.
I think words are cheap but are we seriously suggesting we can easily convert a merchant ship to operate one of the World's most complex fast jet!! I am not even going to bother to list the problems regarding that claim.

Cost of aircraft carriers.

How many military airbases are there in the UK? How many are Royal Navy, Army or RAF? In this modern age where we have so few aircraft... How do we justify all this wastage? Why so many operational fast jet squadrons based in the UK? Is our proud nation so vulnerable to attack?

Why not have one 'Air' service with a dedicated sea going specialisation along with any other dedicated departments, but for fast jets then they should be part and parcel of that sea going force. Close down all these wasted air fields and with that excess of funds lets buy another half dozen carriers (humour) but the funding should be available to have a decent power projecting maritime force that would be the envy of the civilised World.

Type 23's ASW, Type 45 Air Defence and Astute to compliment the ASW oh and the F35C along with suitable AEW I would even accept suitable F-18's strike, Growler and tanking capability. I do NOT however accept STUFT
glojo is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 09:34
  #1171 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506

Like I said before, image latency is not a problem in itself and can be corrected if need be but the problem will be the combination of both acceptable image latency (and 150ms is a too wide margin in a Mach1+ fighter which also has to be useable while performing high speed, high G turns btw) and image quality, ie resolution.
the F35 needs this high resolution to make optimal use of its weaponsystems, eg when it has to distinct between different possible grountargets, the HMD is so critical for those tasks that it is deemed to be a real showstopper if it doesn't work (or not good enough) as planned.

No up to spec HMD and the absence of the HUD will negate the sensor fusion philosophy completely and will put an enormous workload on the pilot.

As for the final solution, I remain sceptical mainly because I've not seen or heard of anything concrete as a solution.
Like some said before , might not be a bad idea to get some help from the public sector (Samsung, Toshiba, Apple ,etc...) where videotechnology is at least , if not more, advanced as in the military sector.

edit; PS if annyone believes that LM has this issue tackled they might wonder why for the last 3 months LM has been very actively trying to recrute specialists to solve just this one task.

F35 Helmet Mounted Display IPT Systems Engineer Senior Staff

Lockheed Martin - Fort Worth, Texas
Typical Minimums
Bachelors degree from an accredited college in a related discipline, or equivalent experience/combined education, with 14 years or more of professional experience; or 12 years of professional experience with a related Masters degree. Considered an expert, authority in discipline.
Required skills
Knowledge of change process, root cause and corrective action, able to work with suppliers to resolve problems in support of subsystem qualification. Background in system design, Root Cause Corrective Action (RCCA) process, and system integration.
Desired skills
Experience in display systems on airborne platforms, requirements, design, or verification, and solving realtime production issues. Knowledgeable in or the ability to learn the F-35 processing architecture.

Last edited by kbrockman; 20th Jun 2012 at 09:42.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:41
  #1172 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,230
Come on Tourist you should know that QRA and Air Policing is a NATO commitment. Surely you are not suggesting that a Hawk could fulfil the UK QRA requirement? QRA and having the aircraft to effectively prosecute that mission are still required.

Air Policing

We remember the last time that you rambled on about AD and how you know best

TEEEJ is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 16:06
  #1173 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399

You take nice pictures.

Now run along.
Tourist is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 21:17
  #1174 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,981

You continue to spout bolleaux on Air Defence.

Jog on...

Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 22:27
  #1175 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 841
All, sorry about the picture size but I wanted to make sure Tourist got the message (and "no" Tourist, that's not a B-1B!)....

The B Word is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 22:36
  #1176 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 506
IIRC that thing went all the way to Venezuela unrefueled , stayed for a while as some kind of Russian ambassador ,and while stationed there, also did some patrols over the Caribbean.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2012, 00:55
  #1177 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
...edit; PS if annyone believes that LM has this issue tackled they might wonder why for the last 3 months LM has been very actively trying to recrute specialists to solve just this one task.
LM would be recruiting people to assist with the integration of the HMS with the rest of the sensor suite, but not for its "development" nor to sort out any of its latency issues.

The HMS is an Israeli system with some UK (BAE?) input, and as such is being "developed" outside of Fort Worth.

Anyway, the latency issues are all but resolved, and the helmet just needs a solid real-world workout in low light STOVL ops to validate the fixes.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2012, 08:36
  #1178 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399

Just confirm.
It's ok for the light blue to talk about aspects of naval warfare about which they have no knowledge whatsoever, ie vulnerabilities of Carriers etc, but not ok for a Naval pilot to talk about air defence?

Ok, thanks, glad we cleared that up.

B Word

I'm am well aware of that aircraft and it's recent missions, in fact I have seen the tracks which make clear that the Venezuela trips are the least of its impressive capabilities.

However, that is a capability, not a threat to UK air defence.
The US, Dutch, Germans and French also have the capability to bomb us but ate not a threat either.

Why would the Russians use an aircraft to bomb the UK?
What is the minuscule tonnage of bombs they could carry do?
If they want to nuke us then they have ICBMs that we cannot stop.
Let it go.
The cold war is over.
We won.

Yes we may need AD of the UK in the future at some point, and yes that is not something you can build overnight.

Exactly the same arguments, in fact, for having a carrier or two.
When you need them, you really need them.
Tourist is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2012, 09:05
  #1179 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
I forget what it was that started your rabid ranting, Tourist, and frankly can't be bothered to look back and find out. It seems to me that you're trying to defend the need for a carrier at the expense of UKAD. But I didn't think anyone here ever questioned the attractiveness of a carrier AND ALL the supporting assets that go with it.

Perhaps it's just that time of year again when you feel the need to have a bash at a type you've never flown and clearly know very little about.

Anyway, you cheered up an otherwise quiet week with your humorous quips an novel ideas about air defence. Or were you being serious?

Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2012, 11:50
  #1180 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
All Australian sub captains are Perisher trained and a Collins sub (when working properly) are far superior to cheap Russian and Chinese knock off subs
Is Australia looking toward the Netherlands regarding submarines and training? Perisher is certainly a qualification to aspire to and agree with your points.
glojo 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.