I am not, PERSONALLY, well qualified to judge F-35 manoeuvrability, Vortex.

But I’ve spoken in depth to folk who most certainly are.

I’m surprised that anyone accepts the unqualified claim that JSF will be more agile, across the board, than the many different aircraft that it’s replacing. It would seem pretty clear that (like F-22) Lightning II’s agility will be largely dependent on thrust vectoring (wing loading and thrust to weight aren’t that different to the F-16, for example). It will probably be more manoeuvrable, subsonic, lightly loaded, than a heavy F-16C – but perhaps not as agile (in terms of nose pointing) as an F/A-18 and without some of the AV-8B’s unique capabilities.

1) The MiG-29 and Su-27 both have helmet mounted cueing systems and have had them since the late 1970s. They were the first of the modern generation of HMSSs. (Some F-4s had them in the late 60s, IIRC)

2) Recently retired RAF Jaguars had an HMSS but there seems little prospect of Tornado/Harrier being similarly equipped – despite the obvious advantages in the air-to-ground role. One would assume that giving Rafale a helmet would be a higher priority than M2k.

3) The Typhoon helmet comes in at Block 10. It is a full helmet mounted display system, and not just a cueing system

In July 06, FDN ran a piece on the Typhoon helmet:

Looks will kill

The Eurofighter Typhoon test team at Warton are now regularly flying the new ‘avionics Mk 1 helmet’ version of the aircraft’s Head Equipment Assembly (HEA), which some believe represents the most advanced helmet mounted display system currently being flown. By the beginning of July, BAE test pilots Mark Bowman and Will Jonas had each flown with the helmet three times, and were enthusiastic about the capabilities offered.

“It’s much more than just a HUD in your line of sight,” Jonas told Flight Daily News. “My impression is that we are ahead of the game, especially in the way in which we can see tracks from the radar and sensors. Even as you taxi out, the real world position of radar tracks can be displayed in the visor, so that you can see exactly where they are, even though they may be far beyond visual range, and all without having to interpret a radar display.”

The HEA brings together an array of advanced technologies and systems in a single integrated operational helmet, providing flight reference data and weapon aiming and steering cues through the pilot’s visor, allowing him to maintain situational awareness without having to refer to the head-down displays or HUD.

The HEA also incorporates a highly accurate optical Head Tracking System (HTS) which tells the aircraft system exactly where the pilot is looking, with better than 1° of accuracy at all viewing angles. This allows the Typhoon pilot to to slave weapons and sensors to high off-boresight angles, and to keep a target in his eyeline and designate it (using voice commands) even for an ‘over the shoulder’ missile shot.

Though technologically advanced, the helmet is light, well balanced and exceptionally comfortable and stable, with air-cooled temperature control. “It feels exactly like a normal helmet” Jonas told Flight Daily News, “with no weight issues, and with the centre of gravity in exactly the right place.” The helmet’s tough shell, blast visor, and secure fastening provide blast protection at up to 600 knots, while the helmet is fully compatible with modern aircrew NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) protection systems and respirators, and the visor provides laser protection. The mask allows positive pressure breathing for high g manoeuvres, while incorporating a Direct Voice Input (DVI) compatible microphone, while the built in earphones provide a high degree of attenuation of external noise

The full standard HEA will combine flight and targeting symbology with the picture provided by the fully overlapped wide (40°) field of view Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) displays. These can display complex symbology, imagery from the aircraft’s Forward Looking Infra Red (FLIR) sensors and from the helmet-mounted Night Vision Enhancement (NVE) image intensifiers. This enhanced outside world image will be projected on to the helmet display visor, exactly overlaid with the pilot’s actual view of the outside world. The NVE cameras will allow the pilot to see ‘through’ obstructions, including the cockpit sides and floor.

Eurofighter GmbH claim that this state-of-the-art HMD, combined with the aircraft’s unrivalled subsonic agility and high instantaneous and sustained turn-rates and highly manoeuvrable ASRAAM and IRIS-T short range missiles, will give the Typhoon pilot unmatched close-in combat superiority.

F-22 will not have a helmet display.

“Integration was abandoned because of technical difficulty. To add it in today would be very costly with the integrated avionics architecture. We do not expect to ever have a HMCS in the F-22 under the current buy of only 183 aircraft. If we were to get 381 then we could write new requirements for an F-22 C-Model that might include a HMCS.” Col Sutter, Chief of ACC/A8F, 5th Generation Fighter Division.

Larry Lawson was even more definite at Paris. The Raptor will NOT “be getting a HMD in post 2009-2010 period” and the lack is entirely down to the difficulties in mapping Raptor’s cockpit and other technical problems – NOT budgetary axes.

The F-22 has no funded datalink beyond IFDL and a VERY austere receive only L16 (text messages only?).

TTNT remains a possibility, but it’s years away, and it’s neither specified nor funded, and (apart from study contracts) work is not underway on giving Raptor a two way datalink.

APG-79 may be in service, but why have they put back the first cruise twice? (I know the answer, which is why I’d be hesitant about trumpeting about APG-79 just yet). The only fighter AESAs in service that seem to be doing as well as they should be are APG-80 and APG-77(V)1.

Bring It On,

If F-35 is in service in 2.5 years, then I’ll buy the beer! Though I don’t know if I can afford whatever you must be drinking/smoking. One unrepresentative testbed flying, and operational service in 30 months? I don’t think so!

I don’t need to show you technical information about JSF’s cockpit. I’ve spoken to people whose opinions I respect, and am confident that the truth will become widely known in the next few months.

You can either believe what Code One tells you, or you can listen to those who know, and can read what independent sources say. I like Code One – but I recognise that it’s Lockmart marketing propaganda.

And I believe that when it comes to MMI, JSF is behind Rafale and probably behind Gripen (though Gripen’s MMI is problematic to evaluate because so many elements are so uniquely Swedish). It’s certainly well behind F-22 and EF in this area.

If you have a single display, with no HUD and no back up, then a no-failure rate is acceptable. Anything else isn’t. One total failure in 24 flights is certainly not, and it’s a flawed concept, driven as much by cost as by deliberate design decisions.

and to start whining and crying about anti-Americanism when people don’t uncritically swallow Lockmart’s PR spin and nonsense (just because you’re not discerning enough to tell “$hit from shinola”) is asinine.

Joe,

You really don’t get it do you?

The KC-767 is great only if the single criteria is that the USAF must operate a US aircraft. Or if you can find an airfield where a 330 can’t operate because of wheel loading but which has a long enough runway to operate a KC-767 at full weight.

Far more airfields are fine for the KC-330 but have runways that the KC-767 can’t use at operational weights.

The KC-767 is an inferior tanker. Period.

The KC-330 is superior because it can carry more fuel (vital for a tanker) and more freight/passengers (vital for a tanker/transport) further than a KC-767, while burning less fuel, and while operating from the real world airfields that tankers need to use, while the 767 can only use such runways if operating at reduced weights.

(And the KC-767 is mired in difficulties at the moment).

The 777 is too big and too expensive to be offered as a tanker, and the 787’s wings flex too much, while the composite fuselage would make tanker conversion problematic.

And the 747-8 is an embarrassment. Large airliners have dominated the Transatlantic and other long range markets for decades – and in the present environmentally conscious times, big airplanes flying between hubs will soak up more of the growth than small ones operating between new city pairs. The reason that Boeing went for the 747-8 is that they dropped the ball and left it too late to compete head on with the A380, greed and inertia having led them to over-concentrate on warmed over 747s when a new design was needed.

No. CO, XO and two Flight Commanders.

The point of contention is this:

“While the RAF fielded some of their most-experienced and highly-qualified pilots, some of them being very senior performance evaluators in active service, the IAF pilots were a mix of ‘young to middle-level pilots’ from the ‘Rhinos’ squadron.”

Inference: Unfair fight – RAF Top Guns vs IAF Tyros.

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS

No.25 Squadron is a routine Tornado F3 squadron, with the usual proportion of experienced and inexperienced pilots and navigators.

Though it became the first RAF front line squadron equipped with the Eurofighter Typhoon on 31 March 2006. No.3 Squadron, RAF, is still not yet operational in the ADX role, and includes first tourists, pilots who are new to a radar-equipped fighter, and pilots who are new to the A-A role.

The basic Su-30 has been in IAF service since 1997, and 30 Sqn were raised in 2004, so have had some time to get ‘up to speed’ on the jet.

My impression of the exerience level of No.30 Squadron does not come from the Press Day at the end of ID, which was (as expected) more of a spotters’ day than a serious facility. Fortunately, I’d already achieved what I needed to.

Nick,

The claim was that the RAF had fielded its top guns which was demonstrably false. The Tornados were flown by No.25 (not the FJ&WOEU, for example) and the bulk of Typhoon sorties by No.3. These pilots included a number of first tourists, some of whom were LCR.

The claim was also that the Indians had fielded junior and mid-level blokes. The Rhinos’ execs (four Wing Commanders) all flew during ID, and so did a number of Squadron Leaders and senior Flight Lieutenants. I didn’t find a single first tourist among the Indians (there may have been some, but many people started to ask whether only experienced blokes are posted to the MKI). It may be true that any new IAF a/c type inducted will have “a fair amount of midlevel personnel, to devise the a/c SOP and then pass the trained cadre amongst different squadrons” but four Wing Commanders is most assuredly not routine in the UK – where even two would be extraordinary.

In any case the impression given was “Experienced veteran RAF pilots” vs “inexperienced IAF youngsters.”

And that’s clearly misleading.