IMHO the smartest thing that NG could do is work with BAE & LM to borrow as much of the avionics from the F-35 as possible.
Overview
–They (NG) already own the CNI (communication package & MADL), APG-81 & EODAS, so that’s a no-brainer
–They could split the cost of the EOTS upgrade with LM
–Since they have already worked with BAE on the ESM to APG-81 integration, that is also a no-brainer
–L-3 Communications for the ICP & Cockpit display.
–No need for the the F-35’s HMDS, a simpler (and lighter) HMD should be fine but the F-35’s HMDS could still be used.
–Depending on the requirements, the F135 might also fit the spec and would lend itself to future ADVENT/AETD upgrades
–UAI, coming in F-35 Block 4, would allow for faster & cheaper weapons integration for LRS-B
How It Works
–The software in the F-35 has been designed from the ground up to be upgradeable (software & hardware)
–Generic backend ICP. There is no need for specialized processors as it’s all software driven.
–Middleware allows you change hardware (new displays, engines, radars, etc) without the need to recode large amounts of the program.
–The F-35’s modular avionics lends itself to adding/removing functionality as needed.
–Thanks to the above, individual items (radar, ESM, etc) lend themselves to scalability without the need to recode large parts of the software.
Case Examples
–If you want a larger display, rotate the 8×10 panels and add another one. New display is 10×24 (vs original 8×20)using the existing hardware.
–You can make the AESA array & ESM receivers larger for more sensitivity while keeping the backend processing engine.
Benefits
–Much shorter development time for LRS-B
–Much cheaper development cost for LRS-B
–Cheaper procurement, maintenance, and future upgrades for BOTH the LRS-B and the F-35.
Regarding an EO system, the LRS-B will certainly need one, whether it is the F-35’s EOTS on not. But concerning the capability of finding moving targets on the ground, isn’t the philosophy of using only one EOTS manually used by one pilot not outdated.
I imagine that now with today’s processing power, it would be possible to process a video in RT. A plane could have several EOTS, each searching for its own target automatically with target recognition software. Using the radar to find targets is likely to betray the position of the plane.
For instance, to search mobile launchers, each EO system would look at one road. The map with all the roads would be stored in a database so the software knows exaclty where to orient each EO system. Other search patterns could be used, like each EO system searching in its own search zone.
With that kind of capability the LRS-B would find much more targets on the ground and would have a higher probability at using its large number of bombs per sortie.
If each EO system costs 2-3 million, integrating around 8 systems would cost only 20 million, which is a tiny fraction of the cost of the plane. Multiple EO systems would also enable to engage several targets simultaneously with cheap LG weapons, the LSDB1 for instance.
Regarding the helmet, if the LRS-B has the DAS, it’s probably worth it to give it the Gen III helmet. The pilot would not have much visiliblity in his cockpit, so the helmet would give it the capability to see through the airframe. 400k is negligeable compared to the cost of the plane. If the helmet is too heavy for a long flight, I guess they can put on their Gen III helmet only when needed, the rest of the time they can use a regular helmet.
Sign In
