F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Gremlin29]

A few comments regarding the HMD and sensor integration. The leap forward in situational awareness between this system and a HUD is a quantum leap. To put it into context as a comparison, going from maps and compass to GPS would be a tiny baby step. Threat symbols are not going to clutter the pilots view and will in fact give them an incredible advantage. In the Longbow you can fly with air surveilance radar on and opt to display icons in the HMD. I do just that when I am operating in high aircraft density areas and it is amazing what a usefull tool this can be. I would imagine the F35 display to be quite a bit more capable than that of the Longbow in this regard.

As for FLIR, it is a lousy sensor for air to air in the context of a HMD. State of the art FLIR can see through obsurations like cloud and rain to a point, but FLIR picture quality is and always will be affected by the same detractors regardless of MRT and resolution capability. There are only so many pixels in a display. The FLIR sensor is likely to be close to 1/1 unity magnification (I would "guess" this can be changed) and a fighter sized target at 8K is going to be smaller than 1 pixel. With radar or an RFI generating icons in the HMD, you wouldn't need to "see" the threat anyway and the missile/gun is either going to be in constraints to shoot or not.

To me,the F35's selling point is less about the airframe and is more about sights,sensors, and displays. The SA that can be achieved by the integration of this and more is where it's capabilities lay.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To me,the F35's selling point is less about the airframe and is more about sights,sensors, and displays. The SA that can be achieved by the integration of this
and more is where it's capabilities lay.

Yep, and hence why more than a few of us get frustrated at those who concentrate on the platform and who seem oblivious to the system issues

 

[Haavarla]

And for country like Norway, the F-35A systems fused with weapons like the NSM(JSM), is the most pressing issue. I would jump to a conclusion that any degretation in platform performance is not a big deal as long as we get the NSM properly integrated into our F-35A. If we get this right, our defensive capabilies would rise far beyond any capability we had in the past.

While i'm not a big fan of the tripple F-35 program and several issues of its design, the range, LO, Systems is good enough for our AF.

 

[ADMk2]

And for country like Norway, the F-35A systems fused with weapons like the NSM(JSM), is the most pressing issue. I would jump to a conclusion that any degretation in platform performance is not a big deal as long as we get the NSM properly integrated into our F-35A. If we get this right, our defensive capabilies would rise far beyond any capability we had in the past.

While i'm not a big fan of the tripple F-35 program and several issues of its design, the range, LO, Systems is good enough for our AF.

The platform performance hasn't degraded, it's going as well as it's ever going to go, unless they significantly change the airframe configuration, weight or engine. There are planned performance improvements in later blocks, but I can't see outstanding kinematic performance ever being a real design goal for this platform.

What has changed are the expectations on it from the program. Instead of being "much" better than legacy fighters in combat configuration it's only going to be "slightly" better kinematics-wise, whilst continuing to deliver much improved range, payload, sensor, avionics, LO and so on.

In short a very significant all-round improvement over the fighters it is designed to replace. The benefit of an "all" LO force (ie: every single aircraft in a force package being LO) has not yet been realised in many areas I think. Previous experience of a select portion of a force structure having LO capability, provides only a limited insight into how much more survivable and capable such a structure will really be.

And I agree with new generation weapons, plus internal carriage of systems like JSM, SDB II and JSOW C1, this aircraft is going to offer tremendous capability for it's respective users.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Northrop Grumman AAQ-37 Sensor System Demonstrates Hostile Fire Detection Capability

BALTIMORE, Feb. 11, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.


A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at:
F-35 JSF Distributed Aperture System (DAS) Sensors Demonstrate Hostile Fire Detection Capability - YouTube


While being flown on Northrop Grumman's BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.


The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.


"The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system. These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action," said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman's DAS business area director.


Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting.


Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit Northrop Grumman Corporation - The Value of Performance for more information.

Just to be clear, this is not a Blk3 capability, but a follow-on development.


With that being said, the EODAS clarity s amazing!

 

[Atasas]

Surely, you guys discussed some aspects, But I found this:
Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

“The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by eight seconds,” Gilmore’s report stated. The F-35B and F-35C also had their turn rates and acceleration time eased. The B-model jet’s max turn went from 5.0 to 4.5 g’s and its acceleration time to Mach 1.2 was extended by 16 seconds. The F-35C’s lost 0.1 g off its turn spec and added a whopping 43 seconds to its acceleration.

Whoa, thats as much as non aviator I could say:sick

 

[SpudmanWP]

Old news already discussed....

 

[ADMk2]

Surely, you guys discussed some aspects, But I found this:
Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

Whoa, thats as much as non aviator I could say:sick

And? What's the problem here exactly? Is this the first time a platform won't meet an intended specification at entry to service?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Surely, you guys discussed some aspects, But I found this:
Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com

Whoa, thats as much as non aviator I could say:sick

A smarter way to discuss this would have been to post the article and then ask for comment, rather than present it as a "fact accompli" - no pun or paraphrasing intended

your current approach smacks of being a bomb thrower rather than someone who wanted to get some detail and/or clarity around development and capability issues

there are lots of other forums where people can post and abandon semblance of open debate. this isn't one of them

 

[jack412]

I would narrow it to "Is this the first time a platform won't meet an intended specification from the tech demonstration to the SDD platform ?"

If it's a real problem they send it back to design. Though I'm sure the wind tunnel testing and CAD of the post SWAT would have foresaw this and it was an already a known, confirmed by flight test and publicly announced.
The point was made by spud that if the final spec of the SDD platform isn't the same spec as the production platform, then there is a problem.

 

[colay]

Neat, a Hostile Fire Detection App is in the works for the F-35, the "smartphone" of strikefighters. Great stuff with undoubtedly more pleasant surprises to come. The jet has decades of evolution ahead of it and it's hardware and software architecture has been specifically designed from day 1 to accommodate change. The final F-35 configuration could be as different from the first one as a Block 60 Viper,is from the original F-16A.


The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In | SLDInfo


The F-35 With Software Upgradeability Built In

The F-35 is built on a foundation of 21 century technology. The F-35’s onboard computer, microchips and software are among its most critical components. The Integrated Core Computer (ICP) was designed from the start to undergo capability upgrades every few years, as technology progresses. System software will be upgraded over time through a block process. Each block represents the most mature capability for the aircraft at the time of release. The aircraft is combat ready beginning with Block 2. In a real sense, the software will never be finished on the F-35. As new code is written and capability refreshes are completed, the F-35 software will evolve over time to further enhance the aircraft’s performance...

 

[SpudmanWP]

And thanks to a MASSIVE userbase, developmental and production costs are spread very thin, come cheap, and come OFTEN

 

[Atasas]

OK here it goes-
I read an article and as non too overly informed follower of this development- couldn't be sure if issues where discussed.
Might have not been, but appears it did- then it would (does) make sense.
in my (read my post again) non professional opinion "goal posts" are moved by a lot.

A smarter way to discuss this would have been to post the article and then ask for comment, rather than present it as a "fact accompli" - no pun or paraphrasing intended

your current approach smacks of being a bomb thrower rather than someone who wanted to get some detail and/or clarity around development and capability issues

there are lots of other forums where people can post and abandon semblance of open debate. this isn't one of them

"thank you" for your comment- evaluation of my opinion- I care very much!
Apart from "fact accompli" to my post, I don't see any contribution in it by you either. Mind finding other forum for yourself to express your opinions or frustrations?

 

[Bonza]

OK here it goes-
I read an article and as non too overly informed follower of this development- couldn't be sure if issues where discussed.
Might have not been, but appears it did- then it would (does) make sense.
in my (read my post again) non professional opinion "goal posts" are moved by a lot.

"thank you" for your comment- evaluation of my opinion- I care very much!
Apart from "fact accompli" to my post, I don't see any contribution in it by you either. Mind finding other forum for yourself to express your opinions or frustrations?

No contributions from GF, ey? You might want to check his posting history, when you get back from your holiday, smart arse...

 

[Beatmaster]

Question that bares in mind is a few posts back it was said that the signature of the F-35 would still be visible (As for 99% of all aircraft) but when you take the Agile F-16 in mind then how agile will the F35 be with its single engine and rather small wings?

My point is the F35 will be so filled with computers and such, and its indoor weapons will there be room to have sufficient dogfight capabilities to neutralize adversaries, or will it just be a sluggish piece of high powered metal flying around?

Because detecting and destroying most targets using its BVR capabilities is a real nice feature, but one must assume that BVR only lasts till a opponent manages to creep up (As there are much faster airplanes out there who would be very capable of intercepting a F35)

Because personally i got the impression that the F35 is not that fast and not that agile, so does its "high tech features" not fall prey to lesser but faster and more agile enemies?

For example the Dutch are going to replace their F16 with the F35, and so far the F16 has been a blessing to the Netherlands as it performed WAY above anyones ideas and it has served the Netherlands very well.
And as you probably know the Dutch F16 with their modifications has proven to be true multi role and combat proven, which during the balkan war was a real nice feature as the Dutch where to only ones back then who could switch in flight to suit a different mission and config.

Now all this history the F16 has world wide, where is the F35 going to fit in?
Because i admit to have been wrong in some of my previous posts about the F35, but fact is that the F16 has a very nice track record in virtually every aspect, specially as being a semi/full multi role platform.
Will the F35 be able to match that or is the F35 more tuned to specific tasks without being able to excel in for example air to air combat and more importantly close air combat and high speed interception situations, because for this the F16 was just a marvel.

So to sum up things as from a dutch POV.
If you take the current dutch F16 and place it directly next to a of the shelf F35
Then what would the RLAF gain and what would it lose?

Is there a list available where these aspects are layed out?

 

[ADMk2]

The F-35A has demonstrated 9.9G instaneous turns. It has been taken to greater than 70 degrees angle of attack, has demonstrated Mach 1.6 and "supercruise" at Mach 1.2 (or rather the ability to fly at Mach 1.2 using military power - dry thrust only.)

So given these are verifiable FACTS, let's just drop the idea once and for all that the F-35 is "slow" or that it isn't "agile" shall we?

No fighter that can manage those things is "slow" or not very "agile". There might be other fighters out there faster or more agile, but these things come with such a huge range of assumptions it's pointless continually going over them.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter in every sense of the word. The ONLY thing any F-16 variant will do better than an F-35 is carry a second person. That's what 35 years of development between the two aircraft gives you.

The end.

 

[Beatmaster]

The F-35A has demonstrated 9.9G instaneous turns. It has been taken to greater than 70 degrees angle of attack, has demonstrated Mach 1.6 and "supercruise" at Mach 1.2 (or rather the ability to fly at Mach 1.2 using military power - dry thrust only.)

So given these are verifiable FACTS, let's just drop the idea once and for all that the F-35 is "slow" or that it isn't "agile" shall we?

No fighter that can manage those things is "slow" or not very "agile". There might be other fighters out there faster or more agile, but these things come with such a huge range of assumptions it's pointless continually going over them.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter in every sense of the word. The ONLY thing any F-16 variant will do better than an F-35 is carry a second person. That's what 35 years of development between the two aircraft gives you.

The end.

Alright thats exactly what i wanted to know, thanks for that.
Another question, given the Dutch defense network, will the F35 be able to "connect" and operate within the NLD network centric as well being integrated into Nato/EU networks, as this was a real issue back then with F16, Eurofighter and Rafale and other EU variants.
Because during missions and training events it was time and time proven again that some nations could not fully integrate into the supporting networks and utilizing the assets connected to it?
Now from what i understand the F35 is almost a flying server, but will it be able to connect to any network if there is a need for it or will it require additional packages and modifications to enable this?

 

[mAIOR]

Better yet, will the F-35 have the ability to act as a server if the need arises? Like, using an F-35 to do a strike coordinator role better assets are unavailable? I think I read a couple of years ago that an F-22 was used as an AWAC replacement for a while until another AWAC could arrive at the scene. That's impressive computing power.

 

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 can provide data to outside networks via MADL, Link-16, or SatCom. How those networks use the data is up to them.

Cockpit demonstrations of the F-35 have shown the ability for one F-35 to assign targets to other F-35s. I don't see why this cannot be extended to non F-35 assets.

View attachment 5799

View attachment 5800

 

[gf0012-aust]

Better yet, will the F-35 have the ability to act as a server if the need arises? Like, using an F-35 to do a strike coordinator role better assets are unavailable? I think I read a couple of years ago that an F-22 was used as an AWAC replacement for a while until another AWAC could arrive at the scene. That's impressive computing power.

I'd avoid the analogy of seeing it as a server, Its more an issue of an asset (not just JSF) as being an additional element in an array of distributed nodes, some of which can be load levelers

some of those nodes can take on more "directive" roles/ Its a systems distribution and capability issue.

the design construct of being a "server" invites issues of single points of failure etc.... the whole intent of an array is to reduce points of failure. nodes are parts of the array construct