SpudmanWPIf EO-DAS is that good, why do you need EOTS at all, let alone advertise an IRST function?
Because while EODAS can detect and track, it cannot ID a target beyond a few miles. The increased aperture size, increased pixel count, and zoom functions of EOTS will allow much greater detect, track, and ID ranges vs EODAS.
You also need the laser designator in EOTS.
SpudmanWP@mike
Sorry I was a bit snarky. That’s what I get for posting past midnight during a week where I’ve had less than 4 hours of sleep each night.
@LO
Here are a few things that less than 15 minutes can bring up:
1. The F-35 simulators are a family of systems that include a desktop “pilot training” unit to familiarize the pilot with the avionics and HOTAS unit, a cockpit simulator, a Full Mission Simulator (FMS),etc
2. Actual F-35 software is loaded into the simulators so that they do exactly what the F-35 does, feature-wise. This also allows newer Blocks to be developed with the help of the simulators without the need to rewrite the simulator interface.
3. The Flight Model physics engine in the simulators is constantly being tweaked as info from the flight the program is gathered.
4. A variety of simulators and real assets (planes, ships, ADA, etc) can be combined from around the world to create virtual “Red Flag” exercises without the need to actually gather the assets physically (Distributed Mission Operations).
5. The F-35’s themselves have training aids built into the plane that allow for mission and fault training without actual physical assets.
6. Reduces in-plane pilot training by 50%
7. Hardware-in-the-loop testing
Here are some quotes about the simulators:
A. “This is as High Fidelity as you can get…
This really is the ‘King of Simulators’…
This doesn’t get any better than this” –BAE Systems test pilot
B. Feedback from the pilots who have flown the FMS is that they sometimes forget they are in a simulator. “We often get feedback that the pilots forget they weren’t actually in the aircraft,”
C. “When we go out in the aircraft, the predictions that the flight test engineers give us, that we verify here in the simulator, they’re really ‘spot-on’ when we get out there, actually in the environment and start moving the stick and pushing the rudders.” –F-35 Test Pilot
D. “Our first landing on the Wasp was just exactly like we practiced” –Lead Ship Suitability Engineer
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/gtl/documents/new11-20/120010322-5%20(F-35%20LII%20PC%20bifold%20Low).pdf
http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Committees/M_S%20Committee/2011/February/NDIA-SE-MS_2011-02-15_Evans.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2XpjLtnPsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgZz7o_VEjA
http://news.usni.org/2013/11/26/lockheed-installs-f-35-sims-new-training-site
SpudmanWPDo you read what you type before hitting the Enter key?
The entire point of Data Fusion is to reduce pilot overload. The pilot no longer needs to look at multiple displays ans try to correlate data. He no longer needs to decide what data to share. He no longer needs to do a lot of the manual tasks just to get the equipment to function normally.
Pilots know exactly what they are getting into thanks to the best simulators ever built. They allow pilots in real planes, pilots in simulators located around the world, and computer generated planes to learn, develop, and sharpen their skills without the need for lot’s of “airtime”.
And what’s the dig about “Chain of Command”? There has always been, and always will be ROE issues to deal with. If anything, the data gathering and sharing that the F-35 provides will make the commander’s job easier. The level of sensor tech in the F-35 will also allow positive ID to happen sooner thereby giving the F-35 pilot more options.
Please do yourself a favor and lay off the “if it makes it to service” remarks, it’s getting embarrassing.
SpudmanWPThe only ones thinking that it is “mandatory” are the critics and not the the people actually using it, that’s why I say it’s a “perceived” failure.
Is every plane that delivers CAS today equipped with it? If not then your argument holds no water.
btw, ROVER is a video comms channel and would not only require new software but new hardware as well. The hardware flying with Block 2B arrived with Tech Refresh1 back in 2008 with Block 0.5 which means that the planning for which would have been years earlier.
Block3 will introduce TR2 which should allow for ROVER in Block4.
Higher tempo/arrive on site quicker? Will the F-35 go supersonic on a CAS mission?
Can the Harrier? The F-35 can if it want’s to.
Will the F-35 deliver an hour loiter at 360 nm with 3,000 lb of bombs and a gun?
Can the Harrier? The F-35 can if it want’s to.
Carla yes confirm. Hurry, house with blue roof!
Morgan copy, but 5 houses have blue roofs!
um, EOTS is b&w, not color.
Don’t get me wrong, it would be easier with ROVER, but you are also ignoring all the benefits like:
1. Morgan: What is ETA
Carla 1: 30 mikes
Morgan: WTF, they will be on our position in 20!!
Carla 1: Sorry, to make the range I need all the tanks I can carry and can’t go supersonic
2. Morgan: We’re taking mortar fire from unknown locations
Carla 1: No problem, we see them and are engaging!
3. Carla 1: Morgan, are you transitioning the Bridge at Coordinates-X
Morgan: That is affirmative
Carla 1: Be advised that we see several vehicles moving from the southwest thru the river valley using the fog for cover. They will be at your location in 5.
SpudmanWPSpeaking of a “few guys getting killed”, what about the fact that the F-35 can operate at a higher tempo, from farther away, arrive on site to deliver CAS quicker, gather info better, share that info farther & faster, and operate at night better than the Harrier vs having ROVER.
The saddest thing I have seen here, especially as it relates to ROVER, is the narrow vision in which some focus on a perceived weakness of any airframe while completely ignoring all of it’s benefits.
Considering that ROVER was not even around with the F-35 started development, it’s absence from Block2B will not affect how the Marines intend to use it and how they have been trained to operate CAS.
SpudmanWPDon’t teach me how to make CAS please, i learnt how to do it in early 1992… And kept up to date till 05/22/2014…No downwards video link is a HUGE step back. And in contradiction with many Roe’s in asymetric conflicts. Not to talk about implementing an upwards video link only very few countries have (which is the aim of FMV btw.)
You did not ask me for the ideal way to do CAS but “how do Marine Corps expect F-35 IOC performing CAS without ROVER?”
The answer to that is the same way that that they did it before ROVER came along.
They apparently decided that having the F-35B IOC and doing CAS without ROVER for a few years is more important than sticking with the Harrier and having ROVER.
SpudmanWPThe same way they have been doing CAS for DECADES before ROVER.
They will use a combination of laser designators, GPS, map coordinates, EOTS, EODAS, and the all-mighty Mk1 Eyeball to pick out the targets.
SpudmanWPIt looked great when I saw it 🙂
SpudmanWPWhoopy do. So what?
Your orignal claim was GW1 demonstrated a non permissable air environment and a permissable sea environment.
That was clearly not the case or only the case due to the two CVN’s.
The CVNs were not there to protect their little brothers but to put more planes into the air for other air operations. If they were not there, there still would nave not been any air or naval threat against the small deck carriers.
Libya was another example of Small Deck carriers operating in a naval permissible environment yet sending their planes into a non-permissible environment (hence the need for Growlers).
SpudmanWPEven then two US ships were mined.
An LHD/A does not act alone as it would have other assets that would deal with mines and surface targets that it does not take care of itself. The LHDs don’t go into mine-able waters until they have been cleared by the support fleet. This is just another reason why the F-35B is better than the Harrier, greater range allows the LHDs more flexibility.
Two United States Navy ships involved in such operations, the cruiser Princeton and the helicopter carrier Tripoli, were damaged on Monday by mines thought to have been planted by Iraq. The Tripoli, flagship of the mine countermeasures flotilla, was gashed but remained capable of normal operations; the escorting cruiser Princeton, her steering disabled, was towed to port, American military officials said.
SpudmanWPAh, my bad – so it can take off with a full tank and 3k lbs of munitions?
Correct
SpudmanWPYou are missing the point of the GW1 scenario. It was a clear example of a non-permissible target environment while having a completely permissible naval environment.
No, the F-35B cannot take off of an LHD at MTOW. However, ~3000lbs of bombs is not MTOW. The MTOW of the F-35B is 15,000lbs of weapons.
SpudmanWPIf the target environment is non-permissive to the extent that the F35 stealth and supersonic capabilities are genuinely required i’m pretty sure that the opposition will be able to make the launch environment somewhat non-permissable as well.
Did you miss the GW1 example? They had a very formidable ADA network but no Air or Naval force to speak of.
Libya saw Rafales and Mirage 2000D operating prior to US jamming support arriving. Not the best example to support the case for the F35.
The arrival of the Growlers allowed the target set to open up and (due to the ranges involved) the time on target for the Growlers was limited. F-35s don’t have to wait for anything.
So, what munitions are carried with this “range” off an LHD?
At IOC, 2x1000lb JDAMS or 2x500lb Paveways and 2xAMRAAMs.
Later, up to ~3000 lbs of mixed munitions.
SpudmanWP[QUOTE=mike currill;2175730]
Not necessarily, the Harrier didn’t burn holes in the ship and if the F-35 needs afterburner as well as lift engines to get off a carrier it’s an even more flawed concept.
The F-35B’s afterburner disengages when the nozzle rotates. The AB never touches the deck.
the Harrier worked by the time it went into service. {So does the F-35} When (if) the F-35 makes it into squadron service {Next year btw} they’ll spend the first 5-10 years ironing out the wrinkles {Concurrency allows them to already be doing that.} They’ll probably also find it won’t lend itself to midlife upgrades and development as well {Making stuff up now? The F-35 is designed for updatability (UAI, multinational already-funded Post-SDD dev work, CTOS-based hardware, middleware, C# based coding, large customer base, common avionics, etc}.
Once again – do you expect any to operate off an LHD in a non-permissible environment?
This drives at the very core of what has shaped the F-35 into what it is today. Yet the entire raison d’etre of the F-35B is a logical fallacy.
If the environment is permissable why is the F35 needed?
The F35 gang can’t have it both ways. Either the LHD is going to be sailing into an environment which carries a large threat to the LHD itself or the LHD will be kept well out of the way of a threat environment.
Do you really think that a ship of the nature of an LHD will be permitted to stand in close and become a honey pot of a target?
It’s the “Target Environment” that can be non-permissive, not the launch environment. The F-35B’s 500nm range allows it to get from one to the other. A classic example of this was GW1. Downtown Baghdad required the F-117 while the carriers sat unmolested in the gulf. A modern example of this would be Libya where the only sea-based air assets in the area were small deck carriers. Because there was no real threat to the carriers, no CVN presence was required.
SpudmanWPThe F-117 is in a class of its own.:)
It should have NEVER have been “F”. IIRC that designation was a piece of “misinformation”.
I did not include it because I consider it to be “B-117” or “A-117” 😉
I have to contest that point. The F-35 was eliminated on cost alone. The Typhoon bid was less but didn’t offer as many twin-seaters as were requested, however, the F-35 bid didn’t offer any.
EADS left required items off of the bid, so they did not meet the price for the required number of planes & R&D.
The F-35 did not need dual-seaters therefore none were required (the same goes for weapons integration R&D). This was not a freebie however. The F-35 can get away with no trainer F-35s because it’s an easier plane to fly and it has a more robust training program that includes better simulators (which were part of the bid).
Sign In
