The F-35 Thread

[Mugatu]

^^

And RISK, even though processes transistor counts double every 2 years, you'll find most platforms are using old technologies (powerpc's or the motorola 680x0 family). You've got more processing power in you PC than an F-22 would have ;) It takes years to get processor qualified for airborne applications. I once attended a presentation on how adverse the US is to risk and probably why the F-22 was chosen of the YF-23, they quoted the US only moves ahead on each design by about a 10-20% leap in technology (can't remember the exact figure) due to the risk.

[Weta43]

Yep - I agree those are all impediments, but regardless of whether it's the ideas above or others, there are counties that are spending money & have begun developing reasonable indidgenous technical knowledge - eg India & China

(+ Japan). China's military budget is increasing quickly - my understanding is that it's still a tiny fraction of that of the USA as a % of GDP, and they're running a trade surplus / positive ballance of payments, so there's plenty of room for growth ...

- & Russia has historically made some seriously impressive technological advances on meagre budgets - it's the getting the money to field them that they have had trouble with for the last few decades. If they develop a prototype, they'll probably have a good customer book fairly quickly to subsidise their own production.

[Slayer]

^^

And RISK, even though processes transistor counts double every 2 years, you'll find most platforms are using old technologies (powerpc's or the motorola 680x0 family). You've got more processing power in you PC than an F-22 would have ;) It takes years to get processor qualified for airborne applications. I once attended a presentation on how adverse the US is to risk and probably why the F-22 was chosen of the YF-23, they quoted the US only moves ahead on each design by about a 10-20% leap in technology (can't remember the exact figure) due to the risk.

 

Thus we have a 486DX4 in our beloved Blackshark :)

[Weta43]

Thus we have a 486DX4 in our beloved Blackshark

 

That & the fact it was probably put together from parts manufactured in the 90's

[nscode]

Yeah, and they've chosen to use the top tech of the day, unlike other 90's systems that usually use 8086ish processors. :) That can be both good and bad. It shows you a nice moving map. But if you find your self in the middle of nowhere, ask your self: could it be becouse of the FERR# bug ;)

 

 

As for the transistor growth rate, it became less relevant years ago. If we were to purely increase the number of transistors in CPU-s, the theoretical heat dissipation/area would rise to that of the Sun. In other words, you can't do that :) So, what was the answer, kids? Yes, it's the parallelism! Did you hear it, ED? Parallelism :D

[Mugatu]

Ada 2005 alive a kicking ;) Tasking built in since Ada 83.

[nscode]

Oh, whan more idea just struck me: probabalistic processors :) Let me just get you into those. With current processors, random internal errors are an issue. They are not the errors due to bad code, but the errors due to static, overheat, cross induction, and so forth. To put this even closer to you, when you overclock your processor over the limit, it doesn't just stop working (well it does if the bios detects that you've crossed the line, but that's another thing) it begins to make errors. Some 1s randomly become 0s, and some 0s become 1s. So, current computers detect this, report an error and halt.

 

But! What if you don't care if in a see of 1s and 0s, some of them are wrong. Now you should ask: but how could you not care? Well, there are cases when it really is acceptable. One proposed use is the MP3 decoders. If you have thousands of sound samples per second, and out of those, let's say 44000, few hundred are a bit off, your ear is not going to notice this. (HiFi people would be jumping by now, but hey - they don't use MP3 anyway, do they? ;)) So if can live with a few hundred errors per second, you can have a processor that runs at a higher clock, can take more heat, is cheaper, and maybe most importantly - doesn't care for errors.

 

So now, back to radars. You have some signals coming to you. Much of those are noise, false returns, ECM maybe, and what not. So, you already have nice algorithms to process all that data, that is full of - errors! Now if there are already so many errors in the data it self, it should not be a problem if your signal processors induce another 5-10% errors, provided that the performance of your data processing (and within that - error rejection) rises enough to compensate. And if it rises even more, you can use that extra to do with the actuall signal processing. :)

[Vault]

Out of curiousity does anyone here know the technical reason why the F-35 and most types of US fighters have the IRST sensor located on the underside of the fuselage whilst most of the Eurocanards and Russian fighters have them located on the top of the fuselage?.

[nscode]

The F-35 has optical sensors all around.

 

But I gues it's down to tactics. Some like to sneak in from below, some like to throw them selvs on you from above :)

[GGTharos]

The F-35 has all-around coverage.

 

Also it is the case that the IRST is also meant to be the guidance device for LGBs, which may require close to vertical angles looking down.

[Vault]

The F-35 has optical sensors all around.

 

But I gues it's down to tactics. Some like to sneak in from below, some like to throw them selvs on you from above :)

 

The F-35 has all-around coverage.

 

Also it is the case that the IRST is also meant to be the guidance device for LGBs, which may require close to vertical angles looking down.

 

Thanks for the replies gentlemen. In a nutshell am I correct in saying that tactically the US and Eurocanard Fighter/bombers use IRST for both A2A and A2G and the Russian's fighter/bombers use IRST for A2A only?.

[GGTharos]

The older Russian fighters yes. If you look at the MiG-35 OLS, it's more like the F-35's, just more technologically backwards.

[RedTiger]

...it's more like the F-35's, just more technologically backwards.

 

You're gonna get lots of lovely responses for that comment. :megalol:

[tflash]

The Pirate and OSF IRST are mainly meant for visual ID at BVR ranges. In the case of the Rafale, e.g. it is also employed in A2G scenario's with long standoff weapons. But mainly for visual ID. Very interesting if you are to intercept an airliner, so that you can clearly see what is going on.

 

It can also be used for a kind of stealth attack together with IR missiles, and Rafale crews do train for that kind of scenario.

 

But for targeting A2G, neither Pirate nor OSF is really used: Typhoon will get Litening III, Rafale will get Damocles pod.

 

Mig 35 has a frontal optronics AND a downward looking one integrated in its belly. F-117 also had two: one forward looking and one belly mounted.

 

The F-35 concept is way more advanced and more integrated with the airframe.

[nscode]

You're gonna get lots of lovely responses for that comment. :megalol:

 

Why? It's a fair comparison. Only, you could rather say that F-35 optics are more technologically fast-forward, and MiG-35 is more or less in level with other current aircraft.

 

The question for the F-35 thread is how practical and justified that fast-forwardness is :)

[Vault]

Thanks for the reply again. To get back on thread I don't know why the F-35 is being so heavily criticised, TBH I can't find another fighter that has all the systems that the F-35 has. Can anyone else on this forum show me a fighter with the same amount of systems as the F-35?.

[tflash]

The criticisms are our way to fill winter evenings. They mostly stem from a couple of considerations:

 

- The JSF is a Joint program. This means it has to fulfill requirements of outright competitors like US Navy, Marines and USAF. Each side has suspicions the program favours the other one's requirements

 

- The JSF is an international program, involving sensitive US technology. Non-US buyers might fear they won't get the full capabilities.

 

- The JSF is a multirole aircraft, so there are reasons to believe it cannot excel in all roles, hence a lot of speculation as to whether it is good enough in A2A

 

- The JSF risks to close other fighter production lines in the US, like F-22, F-15, Hornet. Of course, Boeing people are not suppsoed to be happy about this thought

 

- The F-35 has some enemies, like Dr. Carlo Kopp, the ubiquitous Australian air defense expert, and a couple of US fighter jocks.

 

- The F-35 seems fat, certainly compared to F-16.

 

So, just to name a few sensitivities around the F-35!

[RedTiger]

Why? It's a fair comparison. Only, you could rather say that F-35 optics are more technologically fast-forward, and MiG-35 is more or less in level with other current aircraft.

 

The question for the F-35 thread is how practical and justified that fast-forwardness is :)

 

"level" != "backwards" ;)

 

In all honesty, I don't know enough about either to say that the MiG-35 is backwards, forwards, sideways, etc. Saying something is backwards has a negative connotation. It implies that not only has there been no advancement, but there's also been a regression, maybe to a technological dead-end. Plus IIRC there have been some discussions here where the argument about the OLS was either it being a great technological innovation vs. worthless, no more, no less.

 

So saying something like this is backwards might step on some toes, not that I care too much about toes. ;)

Edited January 7, 2009 by RedTiger

[Vault]

The JSF is a multirole aircraft, so there are reasons to believe it cannot excel in all roles, hence a lot of speculation as to whether it is good enough in A2A.

Hi tflash. Thanks for replying. The F-35 has LO, AESA, HMS, EOTS, a 360 degree distributed aperture system, and a integrated ECM/EWSP system running on big proccessor's. I don't have any doubt of the capabilities of the F-35 in the A2A role but that's my opinion.

 

The F-35 has some enemies, like Dr. Carlo Kopp, the ubiquitous Australian air defense expert, and a couple of US fighter jocks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Mr Kopp also an enemy of the F-15? The only air superiority fighter to exsist with 0 A2A losses and multiple kills?.

 

The F-35 seems fat, certainly compared to F-16.

Compare how much internal fuel the F-35 carries to the F-16 and add the internal payload with the advanced avionics that's why it appears fat. The F-35 has superiour range, acceleration and cruising height to the F-16 AFAIK.

[Vekkinho]

2009 year of firsts

 

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/F-35_Production_Testing_and_Participation_Shift_Into_High_Gear_in_2009100017242.php

 

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Second_F-35B_STOVL_Fighter_Achieves_Successful_First_Flight100017226.php

[Maximus_G]

Out of curiousity does anyone here know the technical reason why the F-35 and most types of US fighters have the IRST sensor located on the underside of the fuselage whilst most of the Eurocanards and Russian fighters have them located on the top of the fuselage?.

The F-35 has optical sensors all around.

All-around DAS is primarily a WVR system: "Our requirement is to have seamlessly stitched, near 20/20 visual acuity".

Its sensors provide continuous 360 deg coverage. And given the system's throughput of 1 Tb per hour, it's about 1,5 Mb per frame of 1 camera, if it's 30 fps. It looks normal for a compressed monochrome image from a wide-angle camera.

 

Now for comparison, a modern FLIR can provide aerial target identification through its IR image at ranges of 15-25 km, and that's "quite" beyond our eyes abilities. So, DAS doesn't functionally replace systems like Eurofighter's Pirate or it's own EOTS in A2A abilities, if we're talking about range.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Maximus_G

[Vault]

All-around DAS is primarily a WVR system: "Our requirement is to have seamlessly stitched, near 20/20 visual acuity".

Its sensors provide continuous 360 deg coverage. And given the system's throughput of 1 Tb per hour, it's about 1,5 Mb per frame of 1 camera, if it's 30 fps. It looks normal for a compressed monochrome image from a wide-angle camera.

 

Now for comparison, a modern FLIR can provide aerial target identification through its IR image at ranges of 15-25 km, and that's "quite" beyond our eyes abilities. So, DAS doesn't functionally replace systems like Eurofighter's Pirate or it's own EOTS in A2A abilities, if we're talking about range.

 

I've read up on on the JSF's EOSS a while ago and your statement is correct, DAS is more orientated towards SA, DAS is not used for weapons guidance, DAS tracks airbourne/ground targets and sends the target information to EOTS for weapons guidance. Intrestingly EOTS is also able to automatically align the aircraft to boresight of a tracked target. The PDF's below are worth reading.

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1232.pdf

 

http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/Photos/MFC_F-35LightningII-Product_Card.pdf

Edited March 3, 2009 by Vault

[Vault]

Carlo Kopp's & Goons e-mail expressing grave concerns for the VLO JSF RCS against 20KW Irbis E.

 

http://www.migman.com/org/AirPowerAustralia/docs/08-02-18-Releasable-LM-Response.pdf

[mvsgas]

Here is something I did not know. Apparently the F-35B and C will not have an internal gun.

http://www.gdatp.com/Products/Gun_Systems/F-35/index.htm

 

Sorry, Here is a better link to pdf :

http://www.gdatp.com/products/Gun_Systems/F-35/F-35.pdf

Edited March 16, 2009 by mvsgas

[SuperKungFu]

hmm i didn't know about that either. Cmon the gun should still be there! This is vietnam all over again with the F-4.