Thank you Spaz.
I am sure that experience of the sim is fantastic, like going to a theme park etc. My point was I suppose concurrent development, we know that it has not been proven that an F35C can land on a carrier however it can in the sim, also when in C mode does the sim have the transonic issues that have been highlighted recently.
If the sim was set up to enable training for pilots in an as previously advertised F35, it would seem to me to rather dangerous to use the sim for actual training when the actual performance may not be as advertised.
I suppose I am saying that in a sim you may well be able to do a certain manoeuvre whilst in real life this may not be possible and indeed could result in a catastrophic failure. An after accident interview when the pilot says well I have done that 100 times in the sim but the first time I tried it in a real F35 s**t happened and we have now written off one of our fleet of 48 at a cost of £XXXXX.
I would have thought that tactics and combat training in a sim cannot really be relied upon until the performance envelope of the actual F35 has been established and replicated in the sim software.

Link ZA
 

Just a question - but hasn't the SAAF already used virtual "enemies" with their Hawk 120s? I think it's called Link ZA.

Again, a very good point, Philip. And do remember that its performance (and systems) have already been modelled for the earlier evaluations. And most of that was before the changes you so rightly point out. From a training sim perspective, the fidelity will obviously be at its best when the full, actual flight envelope is completely understood. It may well be that the acuracy is already very tight, but we'll only really know when the whole programme is fully mature.

Air Transportable Simulation
 

Not significantly exposed to Mil simulation so no claim to any high ground.

However, given the current push towards component miniaturisation and associated hardware cost reduction, and the requirement to keep current while away from base, could taking a Sim on the road as an air transportable package be realistic in todays cost limited environment. Networking multiple elements is not a significant problem, with packages being rotated in or out for upgrade/maintenance, etc.

There are other significant advantages which might apply with a little thought.

Imagegear

Indeed. As I was saying, virtual and man-in-the-loop synthetic adersaries are nothing new.

'Courtney Mil' if old simulators were good then the F-35s by all accounts are better. No? Anyway here are some details about the FMS that escaped me earlier. Apologies if ye all are bored.... The bolded text answers the question (again) about transportable sims (which will be on USN flat deck ships - perhaps on CVFs? Dunno).

Military Flight Simulators Today 10 Aug 2010

Military Flight Simulators Today | Halldale

“...F-35 JSF Simulators... ...The prime contractor for the F-35 training system is Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support (LM-STS). The Lockheed Martin plant at Akron is inte-grating the pilot trainers. Training system programme manager JoAnne Puglisi says that the first hardware is already arriving. Lockheed Martin Akron has previously made some fighter simulators including for the F‑15 and F‑16. The F-35 system will include Full Mission Simulators (FMS), Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers (DMRT) and Computer Based Training (CBT), backed by courseware and a training management system (TMS). An Integrated Training Centre (ITC) will be established at Eglin Air Force Base in NW Florida for all three F-35 variants. Other ITCs will be in Australia, Turkey and the UK, and maybe in other countries. Training at Eglin is scheduled to start in February 2010 for the F‑35A and October 2010 for the F‑35B STOVL variant. About 80 percent of the training syllabus will be common to all variants. At Eglin, there will be 10 Full Mission Simulators and 6 maintenance training devices, plus classrooms and a training system support centre. The FMS will have a SEOS 360 degree 2-metre diameter dome display with 25 liquid‑crystal‑on‑silicon (LCoS) projectors. Image generation will be from 23 Rockwell Collins EPX channels. Simulator-to-aircraft sortie ratio is planned to be 1:1 with longer sorties on the simulators, so simulator time will be more than aircraft time (after all, it's a lot cheaper!). The less-complex DMRT design has two cockpits with smaller visual displays and is mounted in a container that can be easily transported from site to site. Maintenance trainers are an integral part of the overall training system and the UK company EDM is building the first ejection seat and weapons loading trainers. Turning to the F‑35 aircraft itself, it is to have embedded simulation and will have the US military P5 range-less GPS-based combat training system....”

For some CHEAP THRILLS....

Case Study: A.C.E.S. Flight Simulation & Lockheed Martin’s Prepar3D®

http://www.prepar3d.com/2011/06/14/a...tins-prepar3d/

“If you ask Mike Pohl at A.C.E.S. Flight Simulation if he thought it would be possible "to deliver a con-vincing flight simulation using one projector and computer 20 years ago, he would have said, “no way”....”

A.C.E.S. SURROUND VIEW FLIGHT SIMULATOR


Get your sim carrier landing kicks here:

A.C.E.S. Prepar3D sim Carrier Land

PhilipG AFAIK the test pilots test and note any querks for the pilots flight manual and the sim would be based on that..wouldn't it CM?

Isn't that great, Spaz? I remember doing some work on an earlier version of that with Silicon Graphics. Big toys! Of course, it needed a lot more than a PC to do it then.

JSFfan,

Ideally, yes, they'd be constantly refining it as they go along. However, version control and associated issues means that there will be some lag in the simulator software load as they won't be doing rewrites too often - rather they'll save up a load of changes and have controlled periodic re-issues. The updates will also include changes to the aircraft code and new integration clearances.

The JSF crowd here make it sound as if this Virtual training module which is used in the F35 is a groundbreaking new technology unique to the F35.
Maybe they should first figure out why it was exactly the Dutch (Fokker/NLR) who got the contract to implement this feature.

It is a very useful thing to have, something most airforces using HMDS-type systems will be able to use in the next decade.
One of the first is going to be the new NG Gripen and Rafale (and any other EADS related product BTW).

A lot of good points... One aspect that needs to be underscored is that the JSF program is highly insular, having been underway under tight security (at least as regards things like stealth/EMCON and sensor fusion) for 16+ years and operating under the conviction that US technology in general and the F-35 in particular far outclasses the rest of the world.

There was a presenter a couple of years ago at an international conference from the F-35 datalink world. I asked him a couple of questions about how their approach differed from Sweden's and he looked at me as if I was talking about Tibet's Mach 4 bomber program.

What they don't get (a lot of the time) is that just because some JSF widget is new to the US, it's not necessarily unique.

Meanwhile, Gen Bogdan needs a new spokesman. From the story cited by KBrockman...

"The F-35 is no more or less vulnerable to known cyber threats than legacy aircraft were during their initial development and early production," spokesman Joe DellaVedova said when asked about a comment by Christopher Bodgan, the F-35 program manager, to lawmakers on Wednesday.

Pentagon downplays comment on F-35 fighter jet cyber threat | Reuters

As the kiddies say these days, LOL WUT?

Cyber threats to the F-16 and F-15? Who knew?

Some more points about what drives the FMS, fidelity of same for training (when linked), some carrier landing future possiblities and whatnots.

IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training Dave Majumdar 26 Nov 2012

IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training

"...Later simulators are much better, and provide some excellent capabilities not just for procedural training but also for weapons employment. The latest US military simulators for the F-35 use the same software as the actual jet, Tomassetti says. That means that, theoretically, everything in the simulator should match what the real aircraft does.

Discussing the graphics offered by the F-35 simulator, Tomassetti notes that a student will be able to pick out the difference between different classes of armoured vehicles visually in the simulator. Visual representations have traditionally been a major limitation for flight simulators, particularly at close ranges and for terrain.

But even the state-of-the art F-35 simulator does not move, and certain factors such as flight-control response times cannot necessarily be modelled with 100% fidelity. “How the airplane flies in the sim is the best we can do without having a real airplane attached,” Tomassetti says. “But even that level of effort that went into making that level of fidelity, is much more than we’ve had in other airplane programmes.”..."
_____________

The Weaponization of the F-35

The Weaponization of the F-35 | SLDInfo

"...The simulator is so easy to fly in STOVL mode that we can teach non-pilots in about 5 minutes to do this safely. The test pilots have told me the simulator is too hard compared to the real airplane!” says Mike Skaff, principal engineer for the F-35’s pilot vehicle interface....”
_____________

F-35 Lightning II Dec 2010

Joint Combat Aircraft

"...Interestingly the JCA Force is planned to achieve a 50:50 live fly / simulator balance, meaning half a pilot’s training will be in simulators. This is a major advance from the training provided on older aircraft, so a large part of the team’s work goes into ensuring the UK is equipped to achieve this. Not only will Full Mission Simulators be situated at the MOB but Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers will allow simulator work to be continued wherever the JCA Force is deployed."
_________________

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5469848

“...[USAF Secretary Michael Donley] also said the service would buy 16 F-35 simulators, which, among other things, will save fuel. "In the Joint Strike Fighter program, it is forecast that up to 50 percent of pilot training will be accomplished through simulators," he said.”
__________________

Future and current developments in 'cats n'flaps carrier landing land'....

Tailored to Trap Frank Colucci 01 Dec 2012

Avionics Magazine :: Tailored to Trap

"F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, & they open the door for future landing aids...."
______________

Oh No! Not another video? At least it is a BRitOne...

How to land on an aircraft carrier without jump jets 19 Jun 2011


&
Some BritTEXT at ‘desider’ Vol.44 Jan 2012

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...44_Jan2012.pdf

"All Hands On Deck!" Kinda irrelevant now the UK reverts to F-35Bs
__________________

Simulator Brings New Level Of Realism to F-35 Training By DAVE MAJUMDAR 28 Nov 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...36&c=FEA&s=SPE

"Moreover, the simulation is highly realistic because not only does the F-35 FMS use the real aircraft’s Operational Flight Program (OFP), but it also uses all the actual computer models from the aircraft’s sensor manufacturers and integrates that data.

“We are using their simulation models in the simulator,” Puglisi said. “A lot of trainers just used the OFPs.”

From the pilot’s perspective, the FMS flies just like a real F-35, Smith said. “The airplane runs an ownship kinematic model while it’s flying; that’s how it knows where in space it is,” he said. “The sim uses that exact aero-model.”

The result is that “it flies identical” to the real jet, Smith said. Additionally, it has the same engine model as the real plane.

“To the max extent possible, they put the real software that’s in the jet in the sim,” he said....

...But the realism extends beyond the aircraft and its subsystems. The F-35 FMS can replicate the tactical environment that a pilot and his wingmen would face in combat. The sims also can be linked, and pilots can experience flying in a multiship environment against a vast array of air and surface threats, Smith said.

The only situations that operational pilots might be afforded similar tactical training in real life is at large-force exercises like the Red Flag war games in Nevada.

“You’ll be able to run that environment in the simulator,” Smith said. “Having the FMS here at Eglin, you’ll be able to link them and go out and fly a two-ship, four-ship, eight-ship [mission], whatever the mission calls for, to me is one of the key cornerstones of efficiency when it comes to flying training.”..."

Flying High Humour
 

The only way to 'fly high all the way, coming down at the ramp.... for a rampstrike'.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...2.jpg:original

what a load of tripe, the f-35 is the most uninsular plane on the planet with 9 nations embedded in the programme adding their tech

Spaz - Note that one of the pieces you cite begins with:

By the end of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, the F-35 will be capable of carrying almost every legacy weapon that is carried by an F-16.

Which I think is on the verge of being badly out of date, since it looks as if all that the SDD will have time and money to do (cf the new boss mantra, "no more time and no more money") will be Block 3I with JDAM, LGB and AIM-120.

Otherwise, I don't see anything that is qualitatively different from the evolution of simulation and live virtual constructive training elsewhere. The case that it will reduce hours is unproven.

The alternative is that better simulation enables more effective training in the same number of hours flown today, which may be necessary (1) because of the sensor/processing/network attributes of modern fighters, not just the JSF, and (2) because generally smaller force numbers demand more multi-role pilots, not just multi-role aircraft.

That is, you replace SEAD F-16CJs, deep-strike F-15Es, air-superiority F-15C/Ds and CAS A-10s with F-35s. Will those aircraft will be in dedicated deep strike, SEAD, CAS or AS units? To do this would be to squander multi-role potential, but to do otherwise will be a formidable training task.

it's being proven as we speak, the 50% sim and 50% flight training is happening now

50/50 is relatively easy to acheive now, with low student loading and a fast sim build-up at Eglin (their plan for 10 FMSs! :eek:). It will be much more difficult to achieve that ratio at, for example, squadron level. Augmentation with DMRTs will help, but the training value obviously decreases with the sophistication of the training device.

The model for demand for simulators in F-35 has already been laid out for the US by F-22. Of course, the lack of two seat trainers for both types will front-load OCU courses where the FMS will need to provide all the pre-solo stuff as well as all the academics phase systems, procedures and emergency training. So it's important to remember that the 50% is not an even spread across the course, nor between OCU and front-line flying.

It's important to understand the requirements there, I think.

Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that only the sim has the block 3F software, most of the mission and the full flight envelope can only be flown in the sim because of the limits that exist up until now for the active fleet.

Your 50/50 quote is not an indication of succes ,it's rather a sign of necessity coming from immaturity level of the whole program (even today after so many years).

As a comparison with another stealth program, the F22 (like explained by CM) only flew 160hrs/perplane in 2012, a considerable amount of the training is done on F16's.

Also interesting to compare flighcost (yr2012)
F15 vs F16 = 42,000$ vs 22,500$ two-engined vs 1 engined (same type F100) MTOW about 80% more for f15

F15 vs F22 = 42,000$ vs 68,000$ = +60%(F22 also promised to be cheaper BTW)

So where do you think the F35 will come given the fact that it is in the same weightcategory than the F15, has the F22 engine type with a lot of upgrades and also at least the same level of complexity increase than the F22 was over the F15.

I would suggest a number close to 35,000 is very conservative, 40,000+ might well be closer to the trueth.