SpudmanWPThe are hiring pilots from Oz (no, not Australia, the other Oz).
SpudmanWPEeer any aidea of power consumption of NGJ? I don’t
NGJ pods, just like the the -99s before it, will generate their own power and cooling.
SpudmanWPReally? Linking to a file on your local computer??? 🙂
SpudmanWPIt’s a good thing external developments can in no way impinge on the F-35’s performance in and suitability for its intended roles, then, in the way that the iPhone rendered the existing mobile phone paradigm obsolete almost overnight.
(I’m not convinced lack of margin for future growth is a major problem for F-35, but the analogies offered here are not comforting. If anything they confirm just how vulnerable highly-evolved modern aerospace programs like F-35 are to anything which upsets the paradigms upon which they are constructed.)
The F-35 has plenty of growth room for doing things that are inline with what it is, a multi-role fighter.
It would be different if you substantially changed that core functionality however.
The iPhone did not change the paradigm overnight. It took years of previous tech developments (hello Palm and Windows phones) and it’s best feature, marketing to make it a success. btw, it is no longer the market leader in the area of Smartphones, but that’s a whole other thread.
SpudmanWPI had stated that smaller/newer components allow for less power and less heat in order to generate the same RF energy.
For example:
If you have a radar that sends 1xWatts of RF energy using 2xWatts of power. Then install new, smaller components that are 10% more efficient. Now you have a radar that sends 1xWatts of RF energy using only 1.8xWatts of power.
Conversely you also have the option of increasing the RF energy and keeping the power the same. In this instance you can send 1.1xWatts of energy using the previous 2xWatts of power.
Obviously changing the technology and functions involved in a dramatic fashion (like your example of going from a MSA to a PESA/AESA array) can greatly alter the power required. However, for that increase in power you also get an increase in performance. In your radar instance, the Irbis-E is roughly 4 times better than the N001 while only using roughly twice the power. If they wanted the same performance they could have cut the power requirements considerably.
How is that not living in the real world?
SpudmanWPCellphones were getting smaller and smaller until outside forces changed the trend. The increase in size, data, and power requirements is tied directly to Smartphones. The screen had to get larger to handle finger inputs and video/app playback, data rates had to increase to handle the new types of bandwidth, and a larger capacity battery was needed to drive it all.
Notice that this was a completely new function for phones and not a natural evolution of their basic function.
SpudmanWPWhat world are you living in man?!?
Smaller components = You can fit more components in. Which pushes up overall power draw. That has always been the case.
I would be living in the real world.
You are ignoring that for any given watt, more can be done.
Let’s look at your question about 20 year old CPUs.
Actually, trying to find matching info on performance of 20 year old processors is next to impossible. The closest I could get to is a 15 year old AMD K6-3D. It had a Passmark score of 90 @ ~30w. Compare that to the previously mentioned FX-6300 that has a score of 6400 at 95w.
Looking at the per-watt performance the K6-3 is 3 Pass/Watt and the FX-6300 is 67 Pass/Watt….
That is a 22 fold INCREASE computing power per watt of energy.
Final thought, you don not HAVE to increase the number of CPU-watts or T&R modules that you install if you are getting an increase in performance for the same legacy watt/module.
Compare a 20 year old Mac to an iPhone today. The Mac used much more power for less performance than what an iPhone can do.
btw, on the AESA issue and number of T&R modules, there is a limit to the number put can pack per square foot due to wavelength interference issues. You can keep making them smaller but you cannot pack them in closer.
SpudmanWPYes, but in practice, what actually happens? Nobody says “Great! We can get the same performance from something smaller, & have some empty space in the nose of our Scruggs Wonderplane!”. Oh no – they say “Great! We can fit more TRMs into the nose of the Scruggs Wonderplane & get higher performance!”.
With each T&R producing more RF for the same or less heat & power, you get a net gain in performance while staying within the existing space, power & heat model.
The RACR/SABR programs are a good example of this. They are drop-in AESA upgrades for the F-16 program that use the existing connections and meet the space, power & cooling constraints of the F-16.
SpudmanWPYou are comparing across two aircraft types, not upgrades of the same airframe.
Yes, exactly. Shrink your T/R modules and you can fit more of them in your radardome.
More T/Rs = More power consumption = More cooling.
Smaller components mean less power and less heat generated for the same RF output.
One of the specific benefits of GaN over GaAs is lower power and heat per transmitted watt of RF energy.
http://www.csmantech.org/Digests/2013/papers/030.pdf
CPU processors, transistors, etc also benefit from smaller packaging.
A 95w CPU today is much more powerful than a 95w CPU from 10 years ago.
For example, in 2003 AMD released the Opteron 90nm (Singe Venus Core) CPU that used ~105w at 2.8Ghz
Today you get a 6-Core FX6300 CPU at the same ~95w but running 3.5Ghz. Clock-for clock it is also much better than the original Opteron.
–the numbers from Passmark
Opteron 154 = 741 Passmark score
FX-6300 = 6385 Passmark score
So, almost 10 times the performance for less power and less heat.
SpudmanWPWhen have those trends ever applied to fast jet avionics when performance was increased?
Name a few examples.
F-35 TR1 (during Block 1 upgrade)
CPU cards went from single core to quad core
Another example is shrinking T&R modules
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226704[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226705[/ATTACH]
SpudmanWPA lighter airframe HAS ALREADY been introduced, before the first F-35B was ever made. It was called SWAT.
SpudmanWPhttp://www.pprune.org/tech-log/100428-prop-shapes.html
Squared off tips are less efficient, but allow higher solidity and therefore more power can be delivered to the airflow by a propeller of given diameter.
C130 – short field takeoff is a primary performance requirement, so high power output is necessary.
P-3 – oceanic endurance is a primary performance requirement, so efficiency becomes the overriding concern.
All the above is just off the top of my head, so I await correction.
SpudmanWPThe idea of the F-35 program was to have the Block 3 software from the start and with the related capabilities.
Not sure what you mean here. If you mean that the USAF was to have Block3F at IOC and now they are at Block 3i, that was a decision to go to IOC early in order to save time & money. A couple of years later those same 3i F-35s will get 3F since the hardware is already there. No big costs involved.
The US-forces will have a rising number of F-35s as one of the most expensive training aircraft in the world for some years to come.
The USMC goes IOC in 2015 and the USAF in 2016. Here in the US we declare IOC after all the tactics, procedures, and training regimes are developed. All these procedures take time AND planes to get it done. The LRIP F-35s are not sitting around doing nothing. This ensures that IOC jets are fully capable of going into combat unlike others like the Rafale that was declared IOC before their first training sqdn was ready or any OT&E work was done.
The F-35 was designed from the ground up to be easily upgradeable in the field. Its hardware borrows a lot of “open” technology and its avionics suite employs multiple “middleware” layers so that new/updated hardware can be introduced without having to rewrite/certify large sections of the software. This is evident by the fact that TechRefresh packages are planned for every other Block and are relatively inexpensive, especially when compared to F-22 upgrades.
SpudmanWPThe F-35 is being introduced to allow it to employ it’s weapons well outside the detect/track range of defending systems. Concentrating those systems around high value targets just exacerbates the target’s problems.
SDB, JSOW, JDAM-ER, JSW, all can be employed (internally) from 100+ kms away which is well outside the detection range of you defending IRST sensors. Any radar that goes active will get targeted which will further open up gaps.
SpudmanWPYou do prove all my claims.
Nice try, but that is not what you said.
You claimed that the F-35 will “run your very expensive hardware for years well below the promised performance”.
This is not the case as the Tech Refreshes will come along every-other Block upgrade to keep up with the software. TechRefresh2 will come to the fleet as part of the Block3i transition in 2016, not “years before” it’s needed but at the same time.
The hardware HAS to come first as you cannot test the software without the hardware but you can do the hardware without the software.
Sign In
