The F-35 Thread

[Night]

Where exactly do we have entire sections of infrastructure not connected to the internet? And remember that most damaging cyber attacks are actually conducted by agents on the ground, who pick the lock to the server room or coax a disgruntled employee into giving up a password.

As I said earlier, the computers that control the core reactions of nuclear power plants and refineries are not connected to the internet, because most of them have been operating since before the WWW internet protocol was even invented.

 

Second, what you are discussing is not cyber warfare, it is much more difficult to pull off and requires actual HUMINT (human intelligence, having an inside source, which the Chinese have been far less successful at).

[NineLine]

getting a little off topic... cyber warfare could be its own topic, but really not what this thread is about...

[countto10]

If you could hack an INS datalink that would be useful.:devil_2:

 

I'm sorry but your missile has selected you as a better target!

[TimeKilla]

 

Most of the US' infrastructure is largely immune to a cyber attack because it's simple. For the most part, it's not connected to the internet. It uses a large variety of operating systems and versions. Attacking US infrastructure would be any hacker's nightmare. I do believe that our government is largely full of technologically illiterate buffoons, but by complete accident (and in some cases outright neglect) they have created/allowed infrastructure to be largely immune to hacking.

 

Google, Gary McKinnon.

 

Sorry abit off topic.

 

Hope someday we might see the F-35 ingame but rather other aircraft first would not be my first choice.

 

In real life I guess its a decent aircraft maybe a bit overrated

Edited August 25, 2013 by TimeKilla
Adding more on topic text.

[PFunk1606688187]

P Funk, when I say that it is extraordinarily difficult to hack in to something and cause physical damage, that is very true. You, and many people in government, seem to give China an almost omnipotent ability to take out any civilian or military system it pleases. However this isn't true. Most hacking would be limited to making a computer unable to boot. It would be extremely rare to actually find a way to cause difficult to repair physical damage.

See this is where I detect your own prejudices colouring the conversation. I never said China was omnipotent, I just said that cyber warfare posed a credible threat. You're comparing me to the government too. Lots of tasty generalization there.

 

Direct action, kinetic engagements, are so costly politically, economically, and militarily, not to mention that ever looming nuclear threat, that a softer alternative that is harder to use as a lightning rod for war should become more and more of a clandestine tool.

 

I don't think China is omnipotent, but I do think that security systems are limited in the long run, that anything can be broken, and that China's been very effective so far at breaching classified information.

 

Most of the US' infrastructure is largely immune to a cyber attack because it's simple.

That is by far the most positive spin I've ever seen put on the US's crumbling infrastructure. How does it go, the US is a first world nation with a third world power grid? But I digress.

 

 

Now you can keep going on about how dangerous cyber warfare is - keep in mind that I do work in this very field - or you can throw out specific examples of vulnerabilities that the PRC could exploit.

 

Good, we finally get to the "Im an expert, and you're not" argument so prevalent on the internet. I'm not going to give you specific examples, but you're not listening to half of what I say anyway. Like the part about attacking non military things to create an economic impact or whatever other kinds of attacks you can make to target less secure data. Look at what happened to the markets briefly when somebody hacked the AP's twitter feed and reported explosions at the White House. With our whole society linked in you can be awfully creative in finding vulnerabilities.

 

 

I also think your treatise on the next total war is itself as vague if not more so than anything I've said about cyber warfare. You keep making comparisons to Nazi Germany and Soviet mass production strategies, but those political and economic systems are defunct. Nazi Germany's late war ideological drive towards superior tech was part of mad Hitler's scheme, but was also a function of a hopeless situation with an industrial capacity which was degrading daily.

 

Comparisons between Germany's end game and the US make no sense. However, if we were to give it another go, looking at Germany at the outset of the war their technological superiority in many fields was significant. Superiority of tech is nothing to scoff at, and it was only as the German situation degenerated that its development took on a desperate tone. Conversely, the Soviet reliance on basic utilitarian tech was a product of their own dysfunctional situation, not the least of which was a tactical inferiority owing to officer purges and a reliance on overwhelmingly superior manpower as a weapon on its own. It wasn't just T-34s that made up the Soviet strategy, it was a wholesale mass strategy. Human bodies as much as tanks were sacrificed in scores, even if they didn't have the equipment for them, especially because they didn't. Your supposition that an attempt to create a production model with the best tech is a failure to conceive of the expendability of your own pilots is just wonky. Even against pathetic inferior opponents, everytime the US has fielded aircraft they've lost some, they know its going to happen. To want to make your pilots, or soldiers, or crewmen, as invulnerable as possible is a good thing, it means they can kill more people before they die.

 

The kill ratio I've read for the German Tiger Tank was something in the range of 10:1. The gun had better range, it had better penetration, and it was armored such that it was only through numbers that the laughably inferior Sherman could outmaneuver it to get kills. It wasn't the Tiger Tank that was the problem. The funny thing about the US is that they make more advanced aircraft for themselves and NATO than Russia or China can right now. All heavily advanced Russian aircraft are numerically inferior to similar American aircraft, and the numbers keep getting worse. The US is going to do two great things at once. Produce one of the most advanced aircraft in history, and produce a lot of them. Lets not forget the fact that its widely accepted that had the Germans had a better industrial situation their wonder weapons could in actual fact have had a profound effect on the outcome of the war, even if in the end they would have lost. It wasn't the tech, it was the timing.

 

EDIT. At the moderator. I'll drop the cyber warfare stuff. Above post is the last I'll post about it.

Edited August 25, 2013 by P*Funk

[NineLine]

[tflash]

Hot pit refuel Miramar

 

[AndyE]

It's going to suck opening the SPR panel when those fasteners start to strip...

[*Rage*]

LM are certainly pushing out alot of F35 material.

[DUSTY]

The most comprehensive F35 avionics/cockpit video I've seen so far. Looks really enticing!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2CXB3UZq24

[countto10]

Eric Palmer blog: F-35 gen II helmet--night-vision acuity, "off the charts poor"

 

Inside Defense (subscription) has reported some things about the recent F-35 helmet issues that you will not see in the fan-base media.

 

The helmet system for the F-35 is in deep trouble.

 

Back in May, Col. Killea, then-branch head for aviation weapon systems requirements, stated that the night-vision camera in the F-35 helmet was an "abject failure."

 

Test pilots had the following to say about the gen II helmet, "It's not good, we recommend that you don't use it in any phase of flight."

 

Night-vision acuity, according to Killea, "was off the charts poor".

 

In the case of the Marines, who are supposed to declare intiial operating capability in 2015, they can use the distributed aperture system (DAS) to cover for some night-time tasks where the helmet was supposed to be the prime pilot interface. Tactics and procedures will have to be changed until and if a suitable helmet solution appears that has any war-fighting relevance.

 

DAS is the system of cameras built in the F-35 airframe that was marketed heavily by the marketing people.

 

DAS imagry can be viewed via the flight display touch-screens or the helmet. DAS cannot be used for tanking or ship-board operations because it has a blind spot not mentioned in the cartoon.

 

The F-35B will not return for more ship-at-sea testing until 2016.

 

How the Marines intend to use this aircraft as a credible weapon system is still open for debate.

 

The marketing pukes (and General Amos) can now claim that the F-35B has just realized 1000 pounds in weight savings for USMC/Navy ops, since, the gun pod is out of the picture. Maybe for good.

 

U.S. Marines see progress in F-35 testing despite challenges | Reuters

 

Glavy said the helmet being developed by a joint venture of Rockwell Collins Inc and Israel's Elbit Systems was "not exactly" where officials wanted it, but was optimistic that a useable helmet would be ready by mid-2015.

 

He cited progress on the helmet, but said the Pentagon continued to fund work on an alternate helmet by Britain's BAE Systems through the third quarter of fiscal 2014.

 

[TaliG]

The most comprehensive F35 avionics/cockpit video I've seen so far. Looks really enticing!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2CXB3UZq24

 

pfff, LoMac with 2 sceens looks and behaves way better :megalol: (if you take out some bugs ofcurse)

[NineLine]

OVJX5U1kb0Y

[nr1jc]

I herd the AV-8B had to slow Down and lower flaps for that toad to do AAR together With it (the toad beeing the F-35)

[aaron886]

I herd the AV-8B had to slow Down and lower flaps for that toad to do AAR together With it (the toad beeing the F-35)

 

Sounds like reliable info, thanks for the big hint.

[nr1jc]

np:)

[Invader ZIM]

Tsk Tsk, so much hate for the night vision system without really going into the details on what the problem actually was with the system, or mentioning that issues were being solved with multiple competitions between companies working to solve the issues. Yet somehow this system is judged a total failure, impossible to rectify. Good thing others who have first hand access to the technology don't see the doom and gloom the media likes to paint.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-team-makes-headway-with-helmet-mounted-display-389953/

 

By: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC 09:59 29 Aug 2013 Source:

 

Lockheed Martin, Vision Systems International and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) are making progress with solving night vision acuity problems on the F-35's helmet-mounted display, says a senior test pilot assigned to the programme.

 

Test pilots recently tested a modified second-generation helmet fitted with a new 1600x1200 resolution ISIE-11 night vision camera coupled with a new display management computer/helmet, says Lt Col Matt Kelly, an F-35 test pilot assigned to the JPO.

 

Kelly says the ISIE-11 immensely improves the helmet's night vision capabilities.

 

"The ISIE-11 has great potential for tactical operations," Kelly says of the new system. However, there is still a lot of work to do before the helmet is ready for fleet release - the system will have to be demonstrated in the air before test pilots give it a green light.

 

Meanwhile, the F-35 JPO is still funding parallel development work on a BAE Systems-developed helmet into the third quarter of 2014.

 

F-35B test pilots on the USS Wasp are using the existing helmet with the current ISIE-10 camera, which has been judged to have deficient night-vision performance.

 

The ISIE-10 has inferior night vision capability compared with the ANVIS-9 night vision goggles (NVGs) used in the Boeing AV-8B and F/A-18. However, pilots say it is easier to land the F-35B unaided by the night vision camera on a ship than a AV-8B with NVGs.

 

 

Want to see what the "according to Killea, "was off the charts poor", ISIE-10 looks like at night regarding digital night vision acuity?? Well check it out.

 

Video of the now outdated and horribad ISIE-10 module in an urban setting:

 

http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics/vision-systems/vision-systems-products/nightvista/nightvista-in-urban-setting/

 

Video of the ISIE-10 off the charts poor module in a dark rural setting:

 

http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics/vision-systems/vision-systems-products/nightvista/nightvista-in-rural-setting/

 

Info on the ISIE-11 chip used in the new camera: http://www.intevac.com/intevacphotonics/vision-systems/vision-systems-products/ebaps-technology-overview/

 

The above videos are of the outdated ISIE-10 and the pilots rejected it, I cannot show you videos of the ISIE-11 but it's a big leap in resolution and performance possibly over that of the ANVIS-9 with Omnibus VII autogated Gen 3 tubes.

 

I wish the media would look more into their statements. The article even shows what camera they are using, google fu will let anyone see videos and info about these new types of night vision systems and be able to judge for themselves instead of using blanket statements about horribad poor night vision performance.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Invader ZIM

[OutOnTheOP]

Sounds like reliable info, thanks for the big hint.

 

Can't tell if serious....

 

I do hope that's sarcasm... I mean, y'know, between a subsonic attack aircraft, a prop-driven transport, and a supersonic fighter-bomber, it's clearly the supersonic one holding everyone back. :doh:

 

...even though the F-35s are clearly at high angle of attack, with leading edge slats deployed, hardly struggling to keep up :megalol:

[countto10]

[Emmer]

Dutch to buy F-35 Lightning II

 

Today the Dutch Minister of Defense announces the purchase of 37 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the Royal Dutch Air Force to replace the outdated F-16 Fighting Falcons.

With the option to purchase more A/C afterwards.

 

The purchase stays within the reserved 4,5 billion euro with an annual 270 million euro to fly the units.

 

The introduction starts gradually in 2019 and by the end of 2023 all F-16's should be replaced.

 

[aaron886]

Welcome to the "club," prepare for the media sh**-storm! :D

[Pilotasso]

Today the Dutch Minister of Defense announces the purchase of 37 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the Royal Dutch Air Force to replace the outdated F-16 Fighting Falcons.

With the option to purchase more A/C afterwards.

 

The purchase stays within the reserved 4,5 billion euro with an annual 270 million euro to fly the units.

 

The introduction starts gradually in 2019 and by the end of 2023 all F-16's should be replaced.

 

 

That will start the slow death of F-16 EPAF, meaning something will have to be done soon after that for all other participating F-16 users.

[Python]

Will be a shame to see the Dutch F-16's go, I guess we'll be needing an orange dragon F-35 now.

 

 

Sidewinders...

Edited September 18, 2013 by Python

[countto10]

Found this lying round. Can't be sure of the origins.

 

[Pilotasso]

We have discussed this before, looking at legacy fighters curves we can pretty much dismiss the F-35 "data" also.