Scorpion82
New Member
This would require the different operators sharing the IFF codes which is very unlikely. IFF codes are usually changed on a daily basis, sometimes even more often.
Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
I don't think it was IFF, but NCTR modes on the radar. The radar wouldn't recognise an F-5E or F-16 as potentially hostile.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Remember that claim came from a politician, not an operator. Does he honestly expect us to believe that our Hornets could not detect a hostile act with our radars? That it couldn't detect another aircraft flying in a potentially hostile manner, nor detect a missile launch? That it couldn't detect the type of other aircraft? Come on...
i heard it was the targeting stuff, we didnt have yank planes in our threat library and the yanks didnt want to release them
this also applied to the f-111 as i understand it and in fact was the platform discussed at the time when i heard this, it seems the "cards" were sent and held at the canberra usa embassy for release if needed
edit, this was pubic some 20 yrs ago and my memory would be close
this also applied to the f-111 as i understand it and in fact was the platform discussed at the time when i heard this, it seems the "cards" were sent and held at the canberra usa embassy for release if needed
edit, this was pubic some 20 yrs ago and my memory would be close
Last edited:
There may be a misunderstanding by some people about what is meant by source in this context. Every owner gets the source code that air-craft uses for they would not work without it. What they get is the de-compelled lines of code which is then very difficult to determine the higher level language it was writen in so as to then be able to deduce the algorithms or the logic-trees. This is a very common practice in high grade commercial software so that it cannot be modified and pirated.
The way hardware and software are developing, more and more of the value and the capacity of a system is found in the software. Take the new communications systems comming on line for an example. The hardware can process any kind of wave form within its ever increasing frequency band.
What does the term "wave form" mean? It means not only conventional things like the band width of a signal, modulation type, networking protocols, power management of voice, data ,and image streams but other things like spread-spectrum, frequency hopping, directional transmission, and encryption all of which must be coordinated with emission discipline and or jamming from the on board the aircraft and with other platforms. And that is just for the communication package on the air-craft. You can see why the algorithms and the logic trees of the computer code determines the air crafts strength and can also reveal its vulnerabilities in may ways more then the hardwar and must be closely protected.
I am not saying that the problems mentioned by other posters are not real or that they are not unimportant but that the issues envolved might be greater they is first realized.
Yes frequency/frequencies are a part of “wave forms” but only a small part. I do not know witch equipment you are currently working on and I only used communication as just one example of the point I wanted to make about the problems of integration and source code.
But there is a great deal of open source material available, under the general heading of Software-Reprogrammable or Software-reconfiguring radio that clearly makes the point for net-centric military communications on the cutting edge, that my descriptions are in fact accurate. Things like AM, FM, SSB, FSK, time and frequency division multiplexing and other RF information envelops were selected in the past in circuitry along with various band-pass or notch RF filters, logarithmic receivers settings, gain control settings, just to mention a few. Now in the newest equipment these are software selected features that can be changed on the fly. The hardware is designed to be as universal and wide band as is technologically possible so that both the transmit and receive signal paths can accommodate as many types and kinds of information content as possible.
Just think how much space it would take up if you needed a separate radio for every, link, frequency, modulation typed, data path that the F-35 is expected to work with? It would never get off the ground.
I found this one reference in just two minutes.
Software Reprogrammable Payload Fact Sheet - Office of Naval Research
nope, you're talking in generalist terms
in military terms we use waveforms specifically to refer to a bandwidth that is assigned to specific equipment. ie in a comms and a sensor battle management sense
you seem to be unaware that bandwidth management for JSF is not as you imply anyway. in Battle Management it certainly is not as described.
As ONR is involved with some of the programs we deal with, I can but assume that the reference used is for mass consumption and not actually reflective of what we are looking at now and for near future force constructs. These technologies are in service now. A single platform can manage multiple waveforms and freq sets without having to cart around discrete black boxes.
we use them in battle events here and now. a lighter logistics and capability footprint
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing or not. I am still talking about the degree of integration that makes the software code within the air-craft systems ever more important because it is now so multifunctional. We both agree that the days of specific single function black boxes are mostly over. But we are getting off point.
??? I worked in IT for 27 years, for government agencies & private firms, & 'source code' was always used to refer to what the programmers (e.g. me, in the 1980s & 1990s) wrote, usually in a high-level language. That is compiled to make object code, & that's what runs, e.g. as a file suffixed .exe on a Windows box. De-compiling is the process by which you attempt to derive the source from the object, & is notoriously difficult, because of how compilers (the programs which turn source into object) work, usually executing multiple passes to optimise the efficiency of the object code.
What the users get is the object code, the executables, the .exe files or their equivalent under other operating systems (e.g. called OMFs under some old mainframe OSs - Object Module File).
You are correct. But the term when used by nonprofessionals like me and the politicians gets sloppy.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #93
Japan May Drop F-35 From Shortlist
I guess this just upped the chances of the Super Hornet? Well, surely it goes from 1/3 chance to 1/2 chance, but...
If Boeing is indeed serious about the International roadmap, it seems like that is a better deal for Japan as they would more likely have greater "participation"?
I guess this just upped the chances of the Super Hornet? Well, surely it goes from 1/3 chance to 1/2 chance, but...
If Boeing is indeed serious about the International roadmap, it seems like that is a better deal for Japan as they would more likely have greater "participation"?
What would much better mean to the Japanese?
If the Japanese were to buy some kind of modified version of the Supper-bug what kind of modifications would the Japanese want and would then be willing to develop to provide for their special version? I am not very knowledgeable about Japanese air doctrine or what unique requirements they might have.
I am assuming that they would want the best plane they could get and they would not be willing to just provide comparable equipment or subsystems which just did the same things as the ones already designed but would then just cost more.
Because of the high costs and marginal effectiveness of that approach so as to just to say that they have Japanese content. We all know that they have the technical ability to develop their own state of the art systems and even complete aircraft but because they do not buy that many units and because they do not export development is very expensive.
What would much better mean to the Japanese?
If the Japanese were to buy some kind of modified version of the Supper-bug what kind of modifications would the Japanese want and would then be willing to develop to provide for their special version? I am not very knowledgeable about Japanese air doctrine or what unique requirements they might have.
I am assuming that they would want the best plane they could get and they would not be willing to just provide comparable equipment or subsystems which just did the same things as the ones already designed but would then just cost more.
Because of the high costs and marginal effectiveness of that approach so as to just to say that they have Japanese content.
We all know that they have the technical ability to develop their own state of the art systems and even complete aircraft but because they do not buy that many units and because they do not export, development is very expensive.
I wonder how quickly the japanese can get F-18 built.
If JASDF were to choose F-18 in this selection, and I believe there is a big chance they will, I am pretty sure they will modify it for AAM-4B and ASM-2 missiles.
JASDF's priority has always been air defence, followed by anti-shipping. They prefer AAM-4 over AMRAAM because of its longer range, ECCM and ability to shoot down low flying cruise missiles. In order to operate AAM-4s, F-18 will have to be fitted with J/ARG-1 device on top of software modifications. One of the reasons Typhoon is disadvantaged against F-18 in this selection is that Typhoon's weapon hardpoints cannot acommodate AAM-4 because of its size.
Scorpion82
New Member
Is it a given that the AAM-4 wouldn't fit on a Typhoon? It's diameter is arguably somewhat larger than that of the AMRAAM or Meteor, but who knows? Or do you have direct sources confirming this?
And why should it be necessary to fit a Japanese radar onto any aircraft to support that missile? AAM-4s are used by F-15Js as well and these are certainly not fitted with the J/APG-1!
Anyway maybe Meteor is an attractive option for the Japanese, somewhat smaller and lighter than the AAM-4 but with even greater range.
And why should it be necessary to fit a Japanese radar onto any aircraft to support that missile? AAM-4s are used by F-15Js as well and these are certainly not fitted with the J/APG-1!
Anyway maybe Meteor is an attractive option for the Japanese, somewhat smaller and lighter than the AAM-4 but with even greater range.
Japan wasn't even on the defined list - and thats because they dawdled about trying to overplay the (non existent) F-22 card
they can't get JSF in the timeline they want, because there are 11+2 cistomers ahead of them
the only slot at risk are the RN jumpers and those slots are likely to be picked up by CTOL buyers - be they RAF or be they Israel and Singapore seeking a short run
Both Israel and Signapore esp the former would be looking at picking up any vacated slots. but as only 2 have spoken internal politics re deferment, but none have actually deferred, then that option is slim as well
the problem here is about a flaw in their decision making process - its got zero to do with capability.. they played the wrong card with pushing for the F-22, never got into the tech tail for JSF and are now paying the price for it - all compounded by the fact that they had no capability contingency plan (unlike Australia)