Lockheed Martin Offers Bolt-on Multi-Mission Sensor System | Aviation International News
http://www.ainonline.com/sites/ainon...tvigilance.jpg
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.

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:)

Now, that is a smart piece of kit.

Since we have a STOVL A/C we can also use STUFT and convert them fairly easily as well.

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

example

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] :bored:

http://whythef35.********.com.au/201...should-be.html

"...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...."

Heathrow,

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 FE@R 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?

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 :O:ugh:

@Spazsinbad,

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.

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 :ugh:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...r-defence.html

TEEEJ

You take nice pictures.

Now run along.

Tourist

You continue to spout bolleaux on Air Defence.

Jog on...;)

LJ

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!)....

http://www.airn.nato.int/focus_areas...af_mod_uk1.jpg

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.

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.

Leon

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.

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?

:rolleyes:

Is Australia looking toward the Netherlands regarding submarines and training? Perisher is certainly a qualification to aspire to and agree with your points.

Some of the corse is still done in the UK but after the RN went to an all nuke force I think that's when the RAN went to the Dutch for the non glow in the dark bit (don't quote me on it!) They are no less qualified for that.

Thread drift off!

Courtney

Not ranting, (assuming you are talking about the thread TEEEJ linked to?)just laughing at the spectacularly over ebulliant gushing about the F3 which for some reason got taken as a personal affront to the dignity of the pilots.

Never really understood why. The fact that the aircrew made such a dog as effective as it was is a compliment rather than an insult, but there you go...

For some reason, the moderators have seen fit to leave all the personal insults towards me strewn throughout that thread in place despite the rules which they apply to others such as myself
Are they perhaps all light blue?

"It seems to me that you're trying to defend the need for a carrier at the expense of UKAD"

Not at all, just making the point that if you are looking for a niche capability to chop in the interests of saving money, there are many more niche and underused capabilities than the carriers.

"But I didn't think anyone here ever questioned the attractiveness of a carrier AND ALL the supporting assets that go with it."

Then I strongly suggest you re-read just about every thread on Pprune that ever mentions a carrier.:confused:
The general light blue "Carriers are far too expensive for their benefits and we could use the money far more effectively" is a core argument that pervades Pprune and in fact the higher echelons of the RAF.

Again, I do love the abuse I get as a pilot for having the temerity to have an opinion on AD from a bunch of people who have no compunction aspousing authoritative views on Naval warfare despite never having got closer than Yachting.