Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 8 of 24 FirstFirst ... 45678910111218 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 713

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #211
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    It would, but the weapon used has to already be part of the Block3F package.
    So what is the list of candidates?

    Nic

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    Well the report doesn't say that:
    Sorry that I was not clear enough and was referencing old info. While the laser does some leading, the weapon has to be able to constantly change it's angle of attack to keep up with the new point of impact. The spec calls for a 70mph (112kph & constant velocity) target. The spec also refers to Block3F in which the EOTS laser will meet the full spec. I'm not even sure if Block3i requires moving target designation but I'd have to look that up.



    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    So what is the list of candidates?

    Nic
    Basically since it needs to be laser guided then it will have to be a derivative of the PavewayII or PavewayIV LGB since they both will be part of (and are the only LGBs in) the Block3F package.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Sorry that I was not clear enough and was referencing old info. While the laser does some leading, the weapon has to be able to constantly change it's angle of attack to keep up with the new point of impact. The spec calls for a 70mph (112kph & constant velocity) target. The spec also refers to Block3F in which the EOTS laser will meet the full spec. I'm not even sure if Block3i requires moving target designation but I'd have to look that up.
    Not sure what you mean by that, the report says that block 3F won't have lead laser guidance:
    Lead-laser guidance is currently not planned for Block 3F.
    The pilots will have to resort to doing it manually, and apparently even at that it won't be that easy due to the was the interface is designed:
    Instead, F35 pilots can only use basic rules-of-thumb when attempting to engage moving targets with the GBU-12, resulting in very limited effectiveness. Also, limitations with cockpit controls and displays have caused the pilots to primarily use two-ship “buddy lasing” for GBU-12 employment, which isn’t always possible during extended CAS engagements when one of the aircraft has to leave to refuel on a tanker.
    The GBU-12 can probably hit slow moving targets, and its relatively large warhead will help. Hard to say what would be the speed at which it becomes a problem.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,185
    The leading contenders would be Raytheon with a modified Paveway IV using a SDB II seeker and Lockheed Martin using a modified DMLGB using a JAGM seeker. I don't think Boeing can get sufficient terminal maneuverability with a straked JDAM and they do not have an in-production IR imaging seeker.

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    The GBU-12 can probably hit slow moving targets,
    Correct which is why they need a weapon with more control authority to engage a 70mph target (even with the gimped manual lead).

    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    The leading contenders would be Raytheon with a modified Paveway IV using a SDB II seeker and Lockheed Martin using a modified DMLGB using a JAGM seeker. I don't think Boeing can get sufficient terminal maneuverability with a straked JDAM and they do not have an in-production IR imaging seeker.
    The weapon has to be in production already, and must not include any new development.

    A `sources sought' notice posted on the Federal Business Opportunities website on 10 February calls for information from the US industry only on a non-developmental precision-guided munition (PGM) capable of being integrated onto the F-35A, ahead of an expected request for proposals (RFP).

    As noted by the Air Combat Command's request for information (RFI), an initial 400 weapons are being sought of a total inventory of 1,200. The first contract is expected to be awarded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, with deliveries of the initial order to begin no later than six months after the contract date {ie Q1 FY2018}.
    My money is on DMLGB (why would you put a JAGM seeker on a Paveway?).
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,028
    Yes its most likely the DMLGB/DMpLGB. We should get more clarification on it by next week.

    The new linear optics will improve the bomb's accuracy and precision, Serra noted.

    "You need a way to differentiate the [laser] spot, to better refine where the laser energy is on the detector in order to improve overall accuracy of the system; in particular, for moving and manoeuvring targets," he said.

    A baseline LGB can be used for moving targets, but the whole point of Lockheed Martin's efforts is to expand that capability, Serra said.

    The control actuation system is an upgrade of what is in the basic LGB to more smoothly control the intercept flight when guiding to the target, he added.

    A standard LGB receives laser energy and depending on where the spot is it will make a hard command (known as 'bang bang' guidance).

    "The control actuation system will make a hard command to counter where the [bomb's] position is on the spot and move towards line of sight centre," Serra said. "With dual mode plus we can refine that control authority so instead of doing a complete 'bang bang' [we can do] what we call semi-proportional control."

    http://www.janes.com/article/62858/l...racy-precision
    The USAF were looking to evaluate the upgraded munition late last year using an F-16 out of Eglin. Lockheed expects to begin production of the new variant by Q3 of FY17, the same time the USAF is expected to announce a contract.

    Lockheed Martin is financing the LGB modifications through internal research and development (IRAD) funding. Although the company is not under contract for the improved bomb, Serra said he believes Lockheed Martin will be ready to enter into production in mid-2017.

    "There is a lot of testing to do between now and then, but that is our target," he added.

    Besides the modifications to the guidance and control system, Lockheed Martin is also looking at warhead options for LGB. The flight test that was conducted in May was performed with a 500 lb Mk 82-type warhead. In addition to 1,000 lb- and 2,000 lb-class warheads, Lockheed Martin is also looking at a 250 lb warhead.

    "Those items are part of the development programme as we move forward," Serra said.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 14th February 2017 at 17:21.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Here's a question.... If there is no connection, then how are GPS coordinates passed to P2E/DMLGB?

    Are they only used or pre-planned targets?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,380
    F-35 Lightning II 2016 Year in Review




    Smugled from the SecretProjects forum

    @5:20 the C is playing again the hopping jet (on a runway)
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th February 2017 at 04:30.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,611
    US Air Force must retrofit 108 F-35As

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...f-35as-434241/
    Sum ergo cogito

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire9 View Post
    US Air Force must retrofit 108 F-35As

    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...f-35as-434241/
    That is what concurrency is all about, nothing new.

    Just to give some perspective, Block 3i jets will cost about $1000 to upgrade (software only) to Block 3F.

    Block 2B jets, since they need Tech Refresh 2, are about $4.5mil each to get to Block 3F.

    These costs are over and above the "Concurrency Costs" which covers things found & fixed in testing.

    Here is a graph showing what the estimated Concurrency Costs are per LRIP.

    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,380

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    MILITARY SERVICES 5TH GENERATION TACTICAL AIRCRAFT CHALLENGES AND F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM UPDATE



    For all PDFs of the depositions
    https://armedservices.house.gov/legi...and-f-35-joint
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,227
    F-35A's being deployed to the Pacific (on top of the European deployment) in 2017. With a "B" squadron being deployed to Japan, and two upcoming deployments for the F-35A, it would appear that the services are quite confident in the capabilities and stability 2b/3i. USAF confidence in deploying the F-35A with 3i overseas, seems to belie the negative perception associated with warfighting capability and stability of the current configuration being reported.

    http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/a...ic-not-europe/
    Last edited by FBW; 17th February 2017 at 12:27.

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    spudman: matrix was a good movie but the only one repeating YATO is You
    Since your memory seems to be waning in your old age, I'll provide sources for each of these.

    These are features of EODAS that MAWS does not do:
    1. Provide YATO (You Are The One) functionality which tells the F-35 if the threat is headed for him or not. Info in below video and the last "Features Video" at the end of the post



    2. Track all airborne objects (SAMs, AAM, planes, drones, AAA) within the WVR environment (lots of info in the "Featurs Video" at the end of the post)
    3. Allow for the guidance of HOBS missiles



    4. Act as a replacement for NVGs in order to see around the aircraft in low light conditions.

    Do I really need to explain this one?
    @3:50 in Features Video below (last video in the post)

    5. Organic BDA, regardless of the angle of the plane (@7:25 in the video)



    6. Visual queuing of detected objects from GMTI and SAR maps

    @4:37 in Features Video below (last video in the post)

    7. Fully fused into the battlespace



    ---EODAS gets with a software update (ie it's been demonstrated but not part of Block 3F)
    1. TBM tracking to include GeoLocation of the launcher ("Launch point detection" from EODAS Website). TBM detection also mentioned in "Features Video" at the end of this post.



    2. Detection of ground fires (with Geolocation) to include MGs, RPGs, Arty, MLRS, etc



    Here is a Features Video:

    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,050
    geolocation is done by space based IR, and unlike the F-35 short sighted bubble,
    it has a top-down view and can conclude which country said missile was launched from.
    go to the nearest trigonometry teacher, buy now, pay next year
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    geolocation is done by space based IR, and unlike the F-35 short sighted bubble,
    it has a top-down view and can conclude which country said missile was launched from.
    go to the nearest trigonometry teacher, buy now, pay next year
    1) Top down view or side way view is very irrelevance for triangulation. It only depending on the number of point you have and the distance between them
    2) Range of IR system depending a lot on how powerful the infrared radiation is. Ballistics missiles like Scud or long range SAM like 40N6E produce alot of heat and hence very significant amount of infrared radiation

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    If you are looking at a TBM/ICBM from miles away then that TBM/ICBM will be within detection range of several F-35s. Automatic triangulation thanks to MADL.

    I see your Trig and raise you Geometry
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,989
    Replying here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    MAWS = EODAS, in what universe? MASW is just a warning devise that at best tells you a general direction of in inbound missile.

    These are features of EODAS that MAWS does not do:
    1. Provide YATO (You Are The One) functionality which tells the F-35 if the threat is headed for him or not.
    2. Track all airborne objects (SAMs, AAM, planes, drones, AAA) within the WVR environment
    3. Allow for the guidance of HOBS missiles
    4. Act as a replacement for NVGs in order to see around the aircraft in low light conditions.
    5. Organic BDA, regardless of the angle of the plane
    6. Visual quing of detected objects from GMTI and SAR maps
    7. Fully fused into the battlespace

    ---EODAS gets with a software update (ie it's been demonstrated but not part of Block 3F)
    1. TBM tracking to include GeoLocation of the launcher
    2. Detection of ground fires (with Geolocation) to include MGs, RPGs, Arty, MLRS, etc
    Those features don't require additional sensors, they are software driven functions. Adding them doesn't require more space and hardware. Well mabye a little for increased processing power.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    "F-16E/F internal FLIR" = IRST yes, FLIR no

    In both cases (MAWS & FLIR) they are not completely fused.
    Even better if the F-16E/F sensor turret were actually an IRST. But I'm pretty sure it's a wide angle FLIR for navigational purposes. Basically, they repackaged the LANTIRN system: TFR to be handled by AESA radar or omitted, Nav FLIR above the nose, targeting laser and IR sensors into a new pod. A vain endeavour in hindsight, thanks to Sniper et al pods.
    Anyway, the space is there to put an IRST on the nose.
    Fusion is again software driven.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    Fusion is again software driven.
    Fusion is NOT software driven. No matter what Saab or Dassault will tell you, Fusion is a direct legacy of your system architecture, hence driven by decisions that were taken upstream at an early stage of design with only a few possibility of retrofits.

    Some confounds fusion and fused information display. Those are not the same. Although Fusion typically ends up to pilots with the latter, this is just the modern way of interfacing the results.

    Fusion drives the plane design which itself interacts with the former. No matter what's your wishes are, post implementation of fusion will lead only to a poor increase of data deepness. It is then perhaps better to decorrelate your sensor sensitivity from each other and cluster the information treatment in a more traditional way. That's what many are doing reading b/w the lines. Only marketing fuses the process.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th February 2017 at 20:07.

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle View Post
    Those features don't require additional sensors, they are software driven functions. Adding them doesn't require more space and hardware. Well mabye a little for increased processing power.
    Most of those (save for data fusion) require an IIR/video based sensor that covers the full 360 around the plane. Besides the F-22, no other operational fighter has an IIR based MAWS. Rafale comes close but the body & wing block the view below the aircraft. There are several others that are working on an IIR based solution, but I cannot think of any that are operational.

    Will the F-35's EODAS be unique forever, obviously no. I'm not claiming that it will, just that is is now.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  21. #231
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Rafale comes close but the body & wing block the view below the aircraft.
    The Rafale cant feed images into a helmet like DAVE does, by using a pair of "fish eyes" the French got a huge coverage with just two sensors, but those images are hugely distorted, wich is entirely irrelevant for the job (detecting heat) they do, but are useless to feed into a pilot eyes (the poor chap would feel like he was on drugs).

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Fusion is NOT software driven. No matter what Saab or Dassault will tell you, Fusion is a direct legacy of your system architecture, hence driven by decisions that were taken upstream at an early stage of design with only a few possibility of retrofits.

    Some confounds fusion and fused information display. Those are not the same. Although Fusion typically ends up to pilots with the latter, this is just the modern way of interfacing the results.

    Fusion drives the plane design which itself interacts with the former. No matter what's your wishes are, post implementation of fusion will lead only to a poor increase of data deepness. It is then perhaps better to decorrelate your sensor sensitivity from each other and cluster the information treatment in a more traditional way. That's what many are doing reading b/w the lines. Only marketing fuses the process.

    That is absolutely false, no matter what LM say. Rafale (just example) was esigned for fusion since the origin (and it works without extra tracks appearing. . The whole architecture of the system is done for. Eurofighter also to a lesser extent. Gripen E/F also will. LM marketing ... NOTHING new (except in US environment).

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The Rafale cant feed images into a helmet like DAVE does, by using a pair of "fish eyes" the French got a huge coverage with just two sensors, but those images are hugely distorted, wich is entirely irrelevant for the job (detecting heat) they do, but are useless to feed into a pilot eyes (the poor chap would feel like he was on drugs).
    Absolutely. DDM-NG is not done for that. However, its data are fused (despite Tomcat opinion) inorder to implement tactical situation.

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    That is absolutely false, no matter what LM say. Rafale (just example) was esigned for fusion since the origin (and it works without extra tracks appearing. . The whole architecture of the system is done for. Eurofighter also to a lesser extent. Gripen E/F also will.
    Correct

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Absolutely. DDM-NG is not done for that. However, its data are fused (despite Tomcat opinion) inorder to implement tactical situation.
    Yes, agree

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,254
    The earlier video of the Japan B deployment was fascinating.

    I found the rear view of the lift nozzle in action slightly too organic- a little disconcerting but stunning to watch.

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Fusion is NOT software driven. No matter what Saab or Dassault will tell you, Fusion is a direct legacy of your system architecture, hence driven by decisions that were taken upstream at an early stage of design with only a few possibility of retrofits.

    Some confounds fusion and fused information display. Those are not the same. Although Fusion typically ends up to pilots with the latter, this is just the modern way of interfacing the results.

    Fusion drives the plane design which itself interacts with the former. No matter what's your wishes are, post implementation of fusion will lead only to a poor increase of data deepness. It is then perhaps better to decorrelate your sensor sensitivity from each other and cluster the information treatment in a more traditional way. That's what many are doing reading b/w the lines. Only marketing fuses the process.
    That is what the F-35 worshippers want us to believe. That fusing multiple sensors is some kind of magic pixie dust tech no one else has. In reality, it's just combining output of the sensors via common logic and making them cooperate and enhance each other's data flow without pilot's direct input. What exactly is there so mega advanced is beyond me, today you got $1,500 household appliances doing the same via a common cloud..
    Last edited by MSphere; 17th February 2017 at 20:45.

  28. #238
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    The Rafale cant feed images into a helmet like DAVE does, by using a pair of "fish eyes" the French got a huge coverage with just two sensors, but those images are hugely distorted, wich is entirely irrelevant for the job (detecting heat) they do, but are useless to feed into a pilot eyes (the poor chap would feel like he was on drugs).
    I was aware of that was was just stating which fighters had IIR based MAWS and not which MAWS could provide video imagery.

    Software can easily remove any distortion from a fisheye lens if & when they decide to display a video image.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,380
    @Mrmalaya: Agree. What stunned me was that there was no cover or added physical barrier against sea spray for example. Then I had a second thought on that silver coating of the bevel parts of the nozzle that might be so resistant due to temp and IR shielding requirement that it won't certainly bother much of a bit of salt.

    @Hallow: you are confusing fused data and correlated ones. We had the debate earlier. No need to bother everyone with a second one.
    Also, the DDM-NG isn't up the task for all kind of threat and azimuth situation. If so, we won't have seen those poor Rafale pilots frenetically doing tight donuts in the air in order to visually detect a Raptor buzzing them. The lacks of spectral* coverage needs to be addressed such as the lack of a 360 in helmet display. That bird needs a new cockpit suite.


    *in the very large sens of the term
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th February 2017 at 21:01.

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,630
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    That is absolutely false, no matter what LM say. Rafale (just example) was esigned for fusion since the origin (and it works without extra tracks appearing. . The whole architecture of the system is done for. Eurofighter also to a lesser extent. Gripen E/F also will. LM marketing ... NOTHING new (except in US environment).
    Typically, F-35 brags with things which are quite common even in today's commercial world. That shows how the long development times have almost completely nullified the technological advantage the F-35 would have had if it came on time. The problem is that F-35's systems are generic, based on 00's technologies and already could use some upgrade, even before the FOC has been achieved. In five years, a designer of an FC-1 Mk.III will simply choose from three types of COTS Chinese EODAS, two types of COTS Chinese EOTS, six types of COTS Chinese see-through helmet and use a COTS Chinese sensor-fusion interface to integrate the same capabilities on a plane with export cost of some $40mil..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES