JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 06 Feb 2014 07:56

raghuk wrote:The PAK-FA is not perfect, but there is a lot of activity going on in Russia(and India) to improve upon the things that you stated eg: RCS, IR signature etc and this is where we have an opportunity to learn. If we are able to understand from the problems the Russians are facing and also from the solutions they are coming up with, i feel its well worth the 6billion or whatever. The F-35 OTOH will be black box like everything else from that country and worse still it cant even enthuse our mango crowds in the air shows :lol:


Yeah? Show us poor plane building Americans your tech punch list, eh?

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 07:57

NRao wrote:Slow times.......

A senior USAF general, the head of the Air Combat Command, lying about what the F-35 was built to do.


Normal ops.

In peace times that is what Generals do: politicking, clearing the path, protecting the turf (especially USMC).

However, what the normal person views as "lying" (and that is normal), the gamers know it as part of the game - jockeying or positioning (which is also normal). The question, in this case, is, did the person/s whom that message was for get it and how did they react.

Hmm...different yard sticks for different folk heh. If a US General says something about F-35 or F-22 then its termed as part of his job to protect turf etc. However we go ballistic on a purportedly leaked meeting minutes where IAF officials made some comments about FGFA and call for immediate cancellation of the program.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 06 Feb 2014 08:02

sattili wrote:However, what the normal person views as "lying" (and that is normal), the gamers know it as part of the game - jockeying or positioning (which is also normal). The question, in this case, is, did the person/s whom that message was for get it and how did they react.

Hmm...different yard sticks for different folk heh. If a US General says something about F-35 or F-22 then its termed as part of his job to protect turf etc. However we go ballistic on a purportedly leaked meeting minutes where IAF officials made some comments about FGFA and call for immediate cancellation of the program.


Ha! You don't even know what the FGFA problems were, do you? You haven't got a clue.

How about a list, item by item?

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 08:10

Viv S wrote:The PAK FA on the other hand still has a ways to go. At least I hope the final version will be far more evolved (something as basic as a sheath for that engine is still missing). While it'll no doubt feature tremendous brute performance, there are still doubts about its RCS, IR signature, sensor fusion, build quality, maintenance, acquisition cost, operational cost and so on.

I'm willing to grant that this may not be the final word on the PAK-FA. But what is incorrigible is that some still consider a 'joint-development' of the FGFA viable and are supportive of investing $6 billion for a mere 15% work-share. Or for that matter, negotiating a deal even before we know what production variant looks like.

If FGFA (not PAK FA) turns out to be a lemon then India has to own part of the blame as we are involved right from the requirement stage. The key term, joint development is attacked on the context of work share. However we conveniently ignore that FGFA will have 43 stated improvements from the reference PAK FA, still we go on harping FGFA=PAKFA. Where is the information that India scrapped its 43 improvements and is going for PAK FA? You pay for development fee when you are getting something designed and made for your custom requirement. We have precedents in the SU30 MKI & MiG29K projects. So there is no question of waiting till we see PAK FA flying and then make buying decision.

On the other hand if we come to F-35- from Indian scenario: We are basically offered three versions of Turkeys - Farm fed, Organically grown & Over fed. All you can do is choose the one that fits your need or tailor your needs to fit the Turkey and sink $100billion on it. Its immaterial that IAF actually needs a Chicken or Emu or something else. We shall dump most technologically advanced Turkey on their heads and should tell them to live with it.
Last edited by sattili on 06 Feb 2014 08:53, edited 1 time in total.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 08:13

TSJones wrote:
sattili wrote:However, what the normal person views as "lying" (and that is normal), the gamers know it as part of the game - jockeying or positioning (which is also normal). The question, in this case, is, did the person/s whom that message was for get it and how did they react.

Hmm...different yard sticks for different folk heh. If a US General says something about F-35 or F-22 then its termed as part of his job to protect turf etc. However we go ballistic on a purportedly leaked meeting minutes where IAF officials made some comments about FGFA and call for immediate cancellation of the program.


Ha! You don't even know what the FGFA problems were, do you? You haven't got a clue.

How about a list, item by item?

Well this is not a FGFA thread to start with that. Now tell me how are you going to list the problems of FGFA even without the first prototype flying? Yes all we have is PAK FA prototypes so far. The First FGFA prototype is due in 2014, second one in 2017 and third one in 2019.

Short answer, no plane - no shortcomings :lol:

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 08:17

TSJones wrote:Yeah? Show us poor plane building Americans your tech punch list, eh?

Tech punch list not everything. Didn't MiG-25 with its abysmal tech punch list (whats with using vaccum tubes when TFTA US of A has cutting edge electronics in their planes) give brown pants to your generals?
Last edited by sattili on 06 Feb 2014 08:50, edited 2 times in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 06 Feb 2014 08:17

Hmm...different yard sticks for different folk heh. If a US General says something about F-35 or F-22 then its termed as part of his job to protect turf etc. However we go ballistic on a purportedly leaked meeting minutes where IAF officials made some comments about FGFA and call for immediate cancellation of the program.


Hmmm... Very, very interesting.

Reports from India, did state that the position of the IAF might/could have been to support their MMRCA decision. That is protecting their own turf.

What is different is that one took a stand in the public domain and the other seems to have done the same in a more private, but official environment.

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 08:27

NRao wrote:Hmmm... Very, very interesting.

Reports from India, did state that the position of the IAF might/could have been to support their MMRCA decision. That is protecting their own turf.

What is different is that one took a stand in the public domain and the other seems to have done the same in a more private, but official environment.

Its possible, IAF has its turf to protect from these politicos, may be they don't want all their capital dollars locked up on a future project than what they need immediately. IAF for long suggesting that development costs shouldn't be charged to them, they said LCA should be made national project and government should fund it independently rather than taking IAF capital budget away.

There is also snippet from the interview of a senior member of Tejas team - they are actually praising the IAF for acting tough on the IOC parameters which made them to work extra hard to meet the standards. But in the end it made Tejas much better plane. I will expect IAF to continue this role of counter balancing the gung-ho about FGFA,keep the designers realistic and drive hard to extract best results.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 09:18

sattili wrote:If FGFA (not PAK FA) turns out to be a lemon then India has to own part of the blame as we are involved right from the requirement stage. The key term, joint development is attacked on the context of work share. However we conveniently ignore that FGFA will have 43 stated improvements from the reference PAK FA, still we go on harping FGFA=PAKFA. Where is the information that India scrapped its 43 improvements and is going for PAK FA? You pay for development fee when you are getting something designed and made for your custom requirement. We have precedents in the SU30 MKI project, MiG29K projects. So there is no question of waiting till we see PAK FA flying and then make buying decision.


The FGFA will be nearly identical to the PAK FA. Accept it. '43 improvements' doesn't necessarily translate into a huge qualitative improvement. Any alterations will be minor and carried out primarily by the Russian side that's been developing the PAK FA for over a decade now. If the IAF wants a lower MTBO for the engine, or lower MTBF for the radar, its going to approach NPO Saturn & NIIP, not GRTE or LRDE.

The FGFA isn't the Su-30MKI or MiG-29K (and FYI neither was a JV), the Russians are neither starved for funding, nor do they need to route third-party equipment through India. If they need Israeli HUDs or French HMDs, they'll get it directly. The IAF's 'custom requirements' (IFF, BEL datalink, munitions integration) don't require a $6 billion investment (for a mere 15% work-share).

On the other hand if we come to F-35- from Indian scenario we are basically offered three versions of Turkeys - Farm fed, Organically grown & Over fed. All you can do is choose the one that fits your need or tailor your needs to fit the Turkey and sink $100billion on it. Its immaterial that IAF is actually needs a Chicken or Emu or something else. We shall dump most technologically advanced Turkey on their heads and should tell them to live with it.

The 'customization' spiel again? The aircraft's flight characteristics aren't customizable, and the avionics are built to a level of sophistication well beyond anything required by the IAF.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 06 Feb 2014 18:24

Navy F-35 Set For Sea Trials After Tailhook Redesign
By Dow Jones Business News, February 05, 2014

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/navy-f35- ... z2sY2XkCOk

The naval version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is due to start flight tests on an aircraft carrier at sea in October after Lockheed Martin Corp. said it had fixed the tailhook used to arrest the plane's landing on a ship's deck.

Lockheed was forced to redesign the tailhook, and said Wednesday that the naval version of the advanced jet--known as the F-35C--was "on schedule and progressing well for sea trials" after a test plane successfully landed 36 times with the new version during trials on land.

The problems with the tailhook and a pricey new pilot helmet had become symbolic of broader issues with the F-35 program as the complexity of trying to develop three different models simultaneously with a high level of shared parts led to a cascade of technical problems and cost overruns.

Lockheed and its partners on the F-35 program are looking to remove risks from the F-35C in the face an intense lobbying battle with Boeing Co., which wants the Navy to buy more of its F/A-18 planes, the mainstay of the U.S. Navy's existing carrier-based aircraft fleet.

The Pentagon plans to order 340 F-35Cs, 240 for the Navy and another 80 for the Marine Corps. The Navy aims to have its first squadron of jets ready to fly by early 2019, though a Pentagon watchdog last month cast doubt on whether the short-takeoff and landing version of the jet--known as the F-35B--would be ready for the Marines as planned by mid-2015. The U.S. Air Force is due to reach so-called "initial operational capability" with its F-35s in 2016.

Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of Operational Test and Evaluation, said in a report to Congress that it could take an additional 13 months to finish testing software on the Marines' jets. The Pentagon said it remains confident the F-35B will be ready on time.

The Pentagon on Wednesday cautiously welcomed progress on the carrier version of the jet after the testing of the new tailhook, which has a different shape to catch the arresting wires used to slow and halt the plane on landing.

""We're not declaring victory. We have a lot more testing to do and more data to collect, but the initial results have been promising," said a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office in an emailed statement.

The landing system faces another three to four months of land testing before being cleared for sea trials on the USS Nimitz, currently scheduled for October.

The Pentagon in October dropped plans for BAE Systems PLC to continue developing an alternative version of the pilot helmet after problems developed that included issues with its effectiveness at night and a latency snag that left pilots with delayed readings.

The original helmet became a trouble spot for Lockheed and its main partners in the project, Rockwell Collins Inc. and Elbit Systems Ltd., but the Pentagon said the problems had been resolved, while the competition from BAE had also driven down its cost.

Cost overruns, delays and technical glitches have dogged the F-35 program and made it a target for bipartisan attacks within Congress, but its funding has remained relatively unscathed. The U.S. still plans to buy more than 2,400 of the jets, and though some purchases have been pushed to the right, efforts to continue the ramp in production to reduce costs have been aided by recent wins from overseas governments.

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/navy-f35- ... z2sY2tSrxv

sattili
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby sattili » 06 Feb 2014 20:05

Viv S wrote:The FGFA will be nearly identical to the PAK FA. Accept it. '43 improvements' doesn't necessarily translate into a huge qualitative improvement. Any alterations will be minor and carried out primarily by the Russian side that's been developing the PAK FA for over a decade now.

So the 43 improvements in terms of composites in the airframe, avionics, FBW and other electronics doesn't count as customized plane for India? We will pass them of as minor alterations...wow.

Nobody is debating the fact FGFA is derived from and is very identical to PAK FA, however with customizations that India choose.
If the IAF wants a lower MTBO for the engine, or lower MTBF for the radar, its going to approach NPO Saturn & NIIP, not GRTE or LRDE

Wrong. IAF wont approach NPO Saturn or any Russian company, its the HAL which is the nodal agency. Let me make it clear once again, JV is signed between HAL and Russian company. Not with DRDO or ADE. These labs will be engaged by the nodal agency which in this case is HAL. What is the problem with that?
The FGFA isn't the Su-30MKI or MiG-29K (and FYI neither was a JV), the Russians are neither starved for funding, nor do they need to route third-party equipment through India. If they need Israeli HUDs or French HMDs, they'll get it directly. The IAF's 'custom requirements' (IFF, BEL datalink, munitions integration) don't require a $6 billion investment (for a mere 15% work-share).

No Russia doesn't need India to source those components, that is the reason they are developing PAK FA for their needs. FGFA is tailored for the requirements developed by IAF. FGFA prototypes are going to be tested in India not in Russia to ensure that our validation of the solution and drive improvements as we deem fit. If $6billion investment required or not isnt any fanboy call, it was negotiated and agreed. We sunk money into it, accept that. FGFA program is already underway with first Prototype due in 2014. F-35 for IAF is only a pipe dream and $100billion dollar costly one at that.

The 'customization' spiel again? The aircraft's flight characteristics aren't customizable, and the avionics are built to a level of sophistication well beyond anything required by the IAF.

Says who? IAF didnt formulate the requirements for F-35 nor does it test the plane for suitability in Indian conditions. However we are already passing the judgment that F-35 is well beyond anything required by IAF.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 06 Feb 2014 22:01

sattili wrote:So the 43 improvements in terms of composites in the airframe, avionics, FBW and other electronics doesn't count as customized plane for India? We will pass them of as minor alterations...wow.
Nobody is debating the fact FGFA is derived from and is very identical to PAK FA, however with customizations that India choose.


Wow indeed. Have you seen this list of 43 improvements? You think these improvements are over the production variant PAK-FA (as opposed to the T-50 prototype) ?

At Aero India, United Aircraft Corporation’s president Mikhail Pogosyan said that Russia and India would buy “over 400” aircraft and that the total market would exceed 600. He confirmed that all four prototypes built to date are now in flight test, and said that additional development aircraft will be completed “as necessary, after the two sides sign the full-scale development contract.”

Pogosyan further insisted that both Russian and Indian versions “will be based not only on the same platform, but also have identical onboard systems and avionics.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... hter-plans

Wrong. IAF wont approach NPO Saturn or any Russian company, its the HAL which is the nodal agency. Let me make it clear once again, JV is signed between HAL and Russian company. Not with DRDO or ADE. These labs will be engaged by the nodal agency which in this case is HAL. What is the problem with that?


A roundabout way of saying that the modifications (if any) will still be done by NIIP and NPO Saturn, but HAL will perform the 'critical job' of forwarding the request.

The 'problem' is that you don't need to invest capital upfront in a JV, to customize your aircraft. FYI, we were able to customize the MiG-21, MiG-27, Jaguar and Su-30MKI, all without throwing a chunk of valuable forex at a 'joint development' program.

No Russia doesn't need India to source those components, that is the reason they are developing PAK FA for their needs. FGFA is tailored for the requirements developed by IAF. FGFA prototypes are going to be tested in India not in Russia to ensure that our validation of the solution and drive improvements as we deem fit. If $6billion investment required or not isnt any fanboy call, it was negotiated and agreed. We sunk money into it, accept that.


Okay. How about you give us an example of an improvement that the IAF might request and how the JV will service that request.

And explain why the same upgrades will not be be carried over to Russian aircraft as well, rendering the distinction meaningless?

FGFA program is already underway with first Prototype due in 2014.


The program is still in the preliminary design phase and you think the first prototype will be delivered this year?!!

F-35 for IAF is only a pipe dream and $100billion dollar costly one at that.


Indeed. Do tell us about the PAK-FA/FGFA's lifecycle cost please.

Says who? IAF didnt formulate the requirements for F-35 nor does it test the plane for suitability in Indian conditions. However we are already passing the judgment that F-35 is well beyond anything required by IAF.


Clearly you're not getting the point. Changes to the airframe of any aircraft being delivered to the IAF - be it the Rafale, PAK-FA or even F-35 - will be prohibitively expensive. And in the unlikely event that the IAF still requests modifications, the bulk of the work will be done by the OEM (and not HAL).

As for avionics, those on the F-35 are already best-in-class and 'Indian conditions' don't change that fact. Similar story with the PAK-FA, the avionics will be no worse than this mythical FGFA's.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 07 Feb 2014 00:02

Viv S wrote:As for avionics, those on the F-35 are already best-in-class and 'Indian conditions' don't change that fact. Similar story with the PAK-FA, the avionics will be no worse than this mythical FGFA's.

Here is an example of Indian conditions which may necessitate major modifications to the F-35's airframe and avionics. After the Kargil War, the IAF realised the necessity of employing aircraft with two-man crews to execute strike missions mountainous terrain, especially in an environment where it did not possess complete air superiority. Unlike the US, UK, Italy, Norway, Japan, Soko, etc., the IAF may not have the luxury of a concerted anti-air offensive and SEAD campaign preceding CAS/strike operations. It may have to send strike packages into contested airspace throughout the duration of a conflict.

So the IAF may well require a tandem-seat F-35. This version will have to be developed specifically for India, an effort for which India alone will have to shell out cash. Or it will have to stick to using single-seat aircraft, which could be a major compromise.

Installing 'best in class avionics' alone does little to address these issues.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Feb 2014 00:48

Mihir wrote:Here is an example of Indian conditions which may necessitate major modifications to the F-35's airframe and avionics. After the Kargil War, the IAF realised the necessity of employing aircraft with two-man crews to execute strike missions mountainous terrain, especially in an environment where it did not possess complete air superiority. Unlike the US, UK, Italy, Norway, Japan, Soko, etc., the IAF may not have the luxury of a concerted anti-air offensive and SEAD campaign preceding CAS/strike operations. It may have to send strike packages into contested airspace throughout the duration of a conflict.


Its not really specific to the IAF. The USAF's Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition settled for a similar requirement - the F-15E is based on the two seat F-15D. Same for the Tornado and F-111. The F-35 was designed to replace all three with a pilot workload far lower than current single seat aircraft and comparable to two seaters.

Plus with the level of sensor fusion available, a two aircraft formation can perform the same tasks - with the leader designating ground targets & plotting the course, while his wing-man monitors a composite air threat picture, fusing data from sensors on both aircraft (as well as other friendlies in the vicinity). It'll be even more efficient for larger strike packages.


So the IAF may well require a tandem-seat F-35. This version will have to be developed specifically for India, an effort for which India alone will have to shell out cash. Or it will have to stick to using single-seat aircraft, which could be a major compromise.

Installing 'best in class avionics' alone does little to address these issues.


Well, the IAF/MoD has cancelled the development of the two seat variant of the PAK FA/FGFA. And both the Russians and Chinese designs are solely single seat. There's no reason why the IAF would pursue a two seat F-35.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 07 Feb 2014 01:29

Viv S wrote:
Mihir wrote:Here is an example of Indian conditions which may necessitate major modifications to the F-35's airframe and avionics. After the Kargil War, the IAF realised the necessity of employing aircraft with two-man crews to execute strike missions mountainous terrain, especially in an environment where it did not possess complete air superiority. Unlike the US, UK, Italy, Norway, Japan, Soko, etc., the IAF may not have the luxury of a concerted anti-air offensive and SEAD campaign preceding CAS/strike operations. It may have to send strike packages into contested airspace throughout the duration of a conflict.


Its not really specific to the IAF. The USAF's Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition settled for a similar requirement - the F-15E is based on the two seat F-15D. Same for the Tornado and F-111. The F-35 was designed to replace all three with a pilot workload far lower than current single seat aircraft and compared to two seaters.

I don't see what this has got to do with the USAF's or RAF's decision to do away with tandem seaters. Their requirements were very different from ours, unless one argues that they intend to carry out ground attack missions in heavily defended airspace. Neither country envisioned going to war in mountainous terrain against a more powerful adversary. They haven't fought a war like Kargil were the terrain forced fighters equipped with laser guided bombs strikes to carry out precision strikes at relatively low altitude while enemy fighters lurked close by.

Viv S wrote:Plus with the level of sensor fusion available, a two aircraft formation can perform the same tasks - with the leader designating ground targets & plotting the course, while his wing-man monitors a composite air threat picture, fusing data from sensors on both aircraft (as well as other friendlies in the vicinity). It'll more efficient still for larger strike packages.

So instead of using x tandem seat aircraft for a strike mission, we use x + n single seat aircraft where n is at least equal to one. Remember, every aircraft that is exclusively building a "composite air threat picture" is an aircraft that is not delivering bombs/missiles to the target. That means your fleet is suffering attrition without the enemy having fired a single shot. Moreover, if that aircraft is shot down, it leaves the rest of the formation very vulnerable to enemy action. That is not very efficient.

Viv S wrote:
So the IAF may well require a tandem-seat F-35. This version will have to be developed specifically for India, an effort for which India alone will have to shell out cash. Or it will have to stick to using single-seat aircraft, which could be a major compromise.

Installing 'best in class avionics' alone does little to address these issues.


Well, the IAF/MoD has cancelled the development of the two seat variant of the PAK FA/FGFA. And both the Russians and Chinese designs are for single seat aircraft. There's no reason why the IAF would pursue a two seat F-35.

We do not know for sure whether the tandem seat version was cancelled. All we know is that the order for the single seat version was reduced to 144 because of budget constraints.

In any case, the F-35, which was "not built as an air superiority platform" is hardly a viable replacement for the PAK-FA/FGFA. If it is being pushed as a replacement for the MMRCA, we need to take into account that one-third of those are still projected to be tandem-seat.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Feb 2014 02:55

Mihir wrote:I don't see what this has got to do with the USAF's or RAF's decision to do away with tandem seaters. Their requirements were very different from ours, unless one argues that they intend to carry out ground attack missions in heavily defended airspace. Neither country envisioned going to war in mountainous terrain against a more powerful adversary. They haven't fought a war like Kargil were the terrain forced fighters equipped with laser guided bombs strikes to carry out precision strikes at relatively low altitude while enemy fighters lurked close by.

The F-35 also replaces the F-117 which was explicitly designed for strike in heavily defended airspace.

So instead of using x tandem seat aircraft for a strike mission, we use x + n single seat aircraft where n is at least equal to one. Remember, every aircraft that is exclusively building a "composite air threat picture" is an aircraft that is not delivering bombs/missiles to the target. That means your fleet is suffering attrition without the enemy having fired a single shot. Moreover, if that aircraft is shot down, it leaves the rest of the formation very vulnerable to enemy action. That is not very efficient.

Both aircraft in that scenario can deliver bombs onto target. The flight leader can designate ground targets for both, reducing the work-load on his wing-man. You can do same with 4.5G aircraft as well, but the F-35's sensor fusion makes the task much easier for the pilot.

We do not know for sure whether the tandem seat version was cancelled. All we know is that the order for the single seat version was reduced to 144 because of budget constraints.


The tandem seat FGFA has been cancelled.

India had initially pitched for 166 single-seat and 48 twin-seat fighters, but the IAF now plans to stick with single-cockpit fighters to reduce costs and protect stealth features. (link)

Significantly, all of the 144 FGFA India now intends to purchase will be single-seater jets. Earlier, the Indian Air Force planned to procure 214 units– 166 single-seaters and 48 twin-seaters. (link)


Plus Mikhail Pogosyan stated explicitly that the PAK FA and FGFA will share the same airframe.

As far as the cut in the order goes, our economic pressures are short term. Given that the delivery of the 144 aircraft wouldn't be complete before 2025, if not much later, the downsizing cannot be blamed on budget constraints.

In any case, the F-35, which was "not built as an air superiority platform" is hardly a viable replacement for the PAK-FA/FGFA.


While the PAK FA will deliver the kind of kinematic performance and range the IAF is looking for, its RCS, IR signature, build quality, uptime, and most important, affordability, are still in doubt. Best to wait and see, especially on the last count.

If it is being pushed as a replacement for the MMRCA, we need to take into account that one-third of those are still projected to be tandem-seat.


If the objective is - 'ground attack in heavily defended airspace' - the F-35 is far away a safer option than the Rafale B.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2014 03:12

The tandem fgfa is history, due to cost.

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 07 Feb 2014 03:32

Viv S wrote:The F-35 also replaces the F-117 which was explicitly designed for strike in heavily defended airspace.

I would not mind India acquiring a handful of F-35s to deliver the first blows against an enemy, or to carry out a few crucial strikes deep inside heavily defended airspace. But to make it the primary strike aircraft? No.

Viv S wrote:Both aircraft in that scenario can deliver bombs onto target. The flight leader can designate ground targets for both, reducing the work-load on his wing-man.

The flight leader still needs to concentrate on flying the plane. A constraint that a tandem seater does away with. And anyway, that still leaves behind the possibility that the aircraft doing the designation and watching the airspace could be shot down. leaving the rest of the flight vulnerable to attack.

Viv S wrote:The tandem seat FGFA has been cancelled.

Ah, thanks, looks like I was wrong. I haven't been following the FGFA project much.

Viv S wrote:
In any case, the F-35, which was "not built as an air superiority platform" is hardly a viable replacement for the PAK-FA/FGFA.

While the PAK FA will deliver the kind of kinematic performance and range the IAF is looking for, its RCS, IR signature, build quality, uptime and most importantly, affordability are still in doubt. Best to wait and see, especially on the last count.

Agreed. I would wait and see where the F-35 goes too :)

Viv S wrote:
If it is being pushed as a replacement for the MMRCA, we need to take into account that one-third of those are still projected to be tandem-seat.

If the objective is - 'ground attack in heavily defended airspace' - the F-35 is far away a safer option than the Rafale B.

Safer, maybe. Less effective, very likely.

Aditya_M
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Aditya_M » 07 Feb 2014 20:37

Viv S wrote:Both aircraft in that scenario can deliver bombs onto target. The flight leader can designate ground targets for both, reducing the work-load on his wing-man. You can do same with 4.5G aircraft as well, but the F-35's sensor fusion makes the task much easier for the pilot.


Theory always works in theory, in practice it often does not.

As Mihir says, you're still putting double the workload on the lead pilot. Second, this method requires communication between the flight, something you don't want to have to do in a combat zone (with or without solid encryption).

I do however want to take exception to this:

Viv S wrote:In any event, the F-35A's hardware problems have almost completely been rectified while software issues remain which should not impact the aircraft's cost.


Famous.

Last.

Words.

Enough projects have been doomed by managers who think that fixing software bugs wont 1) Take time or 2) Cost money. In the case of the F-35, the software issues surrounding the helmet have been massively expensive for LM and for the US in general. Those glitches in fusing the video from all cameras into one 3D world-view were as much a software issue as they were hardware.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 07 Feb 2014 22:11

you're still putting double the workload on the lead pilot


It would help a lot if one were to define what is meant by "workload". Especially in the F-35 the pilot is not the traditional "pilot" (just compare the AV-8 with the F-35, as an example). So, the plane itself offers a quantum leap in "piloting". Add to that network centricity and we have a totally different situation - one that cannot be really compared to anything that is out there right now.

So, what exactly is the "double" here? (Trying to understand)

On software, yes, the risks are very, very high - no one is questioning that, we all know that. The question is if they will achieve the goal. Do you/we/whoever think this is not possible - is the question. (NOT when.)

On the helmet (which seems to be attracting a lot of attention), heck they have stopped work on the alternative!!!! What more do you want in terms of level of confidence? (And, BTW, that is NOT a LM issue. The helmet has a huge Israeli component to it.)

On cost - all side, with the exception of David Axe and the like, have rebooted. In 2011 Congress got fed up - rightly so - of the escalating costs and forced the issue of moving the risks to the vendors. Point being, yes, it has cost a lot, but time to move on. Here on out, if the cost exceeds to the agreed amount teh vendors absorb it (their stock prices go down) (check out the args they have made too - they are very interesting).

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 07 Feb 2014 23:51

Mihir wrote:I would not mind India acquiring a handful of F-35s to deliver the first blows against an enemy, or to carry out a few crucial strikes deep inside heavily defended airspace. But to make it the primary strike aircraft? No.

Then question becomes which alternative will superior to it at strike.

Rafale: Decent ESM systems. Optional WSO. But no internal payload. Can be replaced in the role, by multiple Tejas.

PAK FA: Internal payload. Superior kinematics. No all-aspect stealth. No EOTS equivalent. Efficacy of ESM systems, questionable. Limited weapons inventory.

I did consider a mixed force - PAK FA covering from high altitude with F-35s performing EW support and carrying out critical SEAD/DEAD strikes & deep interdiction - but the cost of operating of multiple platforms will be a concern.


The flight leader still needs to concentrate on flying the plane. A constraint that a tandem seater does away with. And anyway, that still leaves behind the possibility that the aircraft doing the designation and watching the airspace could be shot down. leaving the rest of the flight vulnerable to attack.


Unless its entering air combat where pilot input is critical, the aircraft can more or less fly itself. And do so on a course that minimizes its RCS to enemy air and ground based radars. A second pilot would still have been good to have, but the downside is the same as that offered to the explain the two seat FGFA cancellation - increase in RCS and cost.


Agreed. I would wait and see where the F-35 goes too :)

Sure. If the IAF does a full cost-capability analysis of both and then decides to opt for the PAK FA, I'm all for it. But right now, we're simply gifting a $35 billion contract to them. At the very least we should be using the F-35 to squeeze the Russians on cost or ToT.


Safer, maybe. Less effective, very likely.

You can load the F-35's external hard-points with stores too. For the same payload you'll get better avionics fit, better performance, higher range and as well as a lower RCS.


Image


Replace weapon stations 3 & 9 with fuel tanks and replace internal payload with 6 AMRAAMs.


Its easily more potent than the Rafale's heaviest ever configuration.

Image

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 08 Feb 2014 00:23

Aditya_M wrote:As Mihir says, you're still putting double the workload on the lead pilot. Second, this method requires communication between the flight, something you don't want to have to do in a combat zone (with or without solid encryption).


The aircraft does more of the work for the pilot than any of its predecessors. This is the DAS imagery video posted here before. On the F-35, picture will include cues from the EOTS as well as the APG-81.

Also, the F-35's MADL is a directional data link. Operates line-of-sight. A hostile receiver won't be able to detect it, let alone jam or decrypt it.


I do however want to take exception to this:

Viv S wrote:In any event, the F-35A's hardware problems have almost completely been rectified while software issues remain which should not impact the aircraft's cost.


Enough projects have been doomed by managers who think that fixing software bugs wont 1) Take time or 2) Cost money. In the case of the F-35, the software issues surrounding the helmet have been massively expensive for LM and for the US in general. Those glitches in fusing the video from all cameras into one 3D world-view were as much a software issue as they were hardware.


Allow me to clarify. Software issues won't change the flyaway or production cost of the aircraft. Also implementing a software fix on an aircraft is relatively simple. So delays are an issue for the USMC which wants combat capability in 2015, but not for the USAF or an export customer.
Last edited by Viv S on 08 Feb 2014 00:52, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3953
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby kit » 08 Feb 2014 00:50


Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 08 Feb 2014 01:02

kit wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_vXqtCkVy8

Stealth as a scam ?


Well here's a list of stealth aircraft under development -

US:
F-35
X-45
X-47
Next-Generation Bomber

UK:
Taranis

France:
nEUROn

Germany:
Barracuda

Russia:
PAK FA
PAK DA
SKAT

China:
J-20
J-31
601-X
Rumored B2 analogue

India:
AMCA
AURA
*cough* FGFA

Rather widespread scam?

Edit: Missed that one.
Last edited by Viv S on 08 Feb 2014 04:12, edited 1 time in total.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 08 Feb 2014 02:16

^^^^^

?????

$36 billion for FGFA???

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 08 Feb 2014 02:32

Viv S wrote:Rafale: Decent ESM systems. Optional WSO. But no internal payload. Can be replaced in the role, by multiple Tejas.

Not all roles, no. The Tejas has nothing equivalent to the Spectra. It doesn't carry the kind of payload the Rafale does. It may lack the flight performance. It lacks range. There are no plans to integrate some of the Rafale's ground attack munitions on the Tejas.

Viv S wrote:Unless its entering air combat where pilot input is critical, the aircraft can more or less fly itself. And do so on a course that minimizes its RCS to enemy air and ground based radars. A second pilot would still have been good to have, but the downside is the same as that offered to the explain the two seat FGFA cancellation - increase in RCS and cost.

This is exactly where theory differs from practice. In theory, you can imagine an aircraft practically flying itself while the pilot monitors the airspace, and detects/tracks/manages/attacks ground targets. In practice, you will get laughed at if you ask a pilot to relinquish control of his plane in contested airspace.

Viv S wrote:If the IAF does a full cost-capability analysis of both and then decides to opt for the PAK FA, I'm all for it. But right now, we're simply gifting a $35 billion contract to them. At the very least we should be using the F-35 to squeeze the Russians on cost or ToT.

Can't disagree with that.

Viv S wrote:You can load the F-35's external hard-points with stores too. For the same payload you'll get better avionics fit, better performance, higher range and as well as a lower RCS.

This is a fighter that flies like a brick on internal loads. How do you think it will handle the thin air of the Himalayas when carrying external stores, especially when the enemy will bring highly manoeuverable Su-27s against it? If the IAF was okay with such compromises on flight performance for a cheaper platform with superior avionics, it would have chosen the Super Hornet.

Viv S wrote:Replace weapon stations 3 & 9 with fuel tanks and replace internal payload with 6 AMRAAMs.

Where is this mythical F-35 that can carry 6 AMRAAMs?

Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 880
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mihir » 08 Feb 2014 02:39

Viv, it has come to my attention that some people reading this thread do not grok the importance of the debate we are having, and are instead poking fun at us. Just yesterday, I had the following exchange with a see-near BRF mullah...

http://imgur.com/IA1C6tc

:mrgreen:

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 08 Feb 2014 04:01

Mihir wrote:Not all roles, no. The Tejas has nothing equivalent to the Spectra. It doesn't carry the kind of payload the Rafale does. It may lack the flight performance. It lacks range. There are no plans to integrate some of the Rafale's ground attack munitions on the Tejas.

You don't need the Spectra or AASM for basic strike/CAS missions. An LDP and LGB is sufficient. (Incidentally, the Damocles wasn't qualified on the Rafale until 2011.) For roles such as SEAD and deep strike, a stealth aircraft is always preferable.

When operating from FABs, the Tejas' operating range is sufficient and two units can be employed to carry a payload comparable to the Rafale.


This is exactly where theory differs from practice. In theory, you can imagine an aircraft practically flying itself while the pilot monitors the airspace, and detects/tracks/manages/attacks ground targets. In practice, you will get laughed at if you ask a pilot to relinquish control of his plane in contested airspace.


He's not relinquishing control of the aircraft (he's not engaging 'autopilot'). But target/threat ID, fusion of sensor data and handing off of coordinates is all performed by the system. And while sensor fusion is also a strength of the Rafale & EF, the F-35 does so with a greater degree of refinement. And like I said before, all 5G aircraft currently in development are single seat and that's chiefly because the utility of the WSO, has not judged sufficient, given the cost and performance compromises in a two seat aircraft.


Viv S wrote:If the IAF does a full cost-capability analysis of both and then decides to opt for the PAK FA, I'm all for it. But right now, we're simply gifting a $35 billion contract to them. At the very least we should be using the F-35 to squeeze the Russians on cost or ToT.

Can't disagree with that.

Fancy that. Months of debate and we finally find something we can agree on. :D


This is a fighter that flies like a brick on internal loads.


The acceleration of the aircraft in the subsonic envelope is very similar to the acceleration performance of an F-16 with a centerline tank on board. Often in chase situations the F-16 chase aircraft will need to select afterburner during the climb. The most impressive part of this is the performance of the F-35 with full internal weapons (two 2000-pound JDAMs; 2 AIM 120s) is changed very little. (link)


How do you think it will handle the thin air of the Himalayas when carrying external stores, especially when the enemy will bring highly manoeuverable Su-27s against it? If the IAF was okay with such compromises on flight performance for a cheaper platform with superior avionics, it would have chosen the Super Hornet.


?? 'Thin air of the Himalayas'? The Himalayas rise up to around 30,000 ft while the flight ceiling for most fighters is over 50,000 ft.

In any case my comparison was with a Rafale loaded with heavy external stores. Add on the 3 EFTs, 4 bombs with racks and 6 missiles and it'll handle far worse than the F-35. The net drag is greater and its a smaller aircraft to start with, so the excess thrust available will be lower. The F-35 weighs about 3.5 tons more empty, but the difference in thrust is 4.2 tons.


Viv S wrote:Replace weapon stations 3 & 9 with fuel tanks and replace internal payload with 6 AMRAAMs.

Where is this mythical F-35 that can carry 6 AMRAAMs?


The F-35A will be able to carry 6 Aim-120s from Block 5. But lets take only the Block 3(IOC) capability for now; 4 AMRAAMs. Its still a comparable air-to-air load.

Rafale: 2 Meteors + 4 MICA
F-35: 4 Aim-120D + 2 Aim-9X

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Viv S » 08 Feb 2014 04:05

Mihir wrote:Viv, it has come to my attention that some people reading this thread do not grok the importance of the debate we are having, and are instead poking fun at us. Just yesterday, I had the following exchange with a see-near BRF mullah...

http://imgur.com/IA1C6tc

:mrgreen:


A pox on them! The load on NSA servers has been known to shoot up when the BRF's JSF thread starts humming.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4565
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Manish_Sharma » 08 Feb 2014 19:37

Cross-posting from R & D thread:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1591107#p1591066

Sagar G wrote:Nation faces major cyber threat from imported defence systems, DRDO Chief

India faces a major cyber security challenge from imported Defence products which can come laden with snooping virus or malwares and should thus get involved with the production of weapon systems from their nascent stage, chief of Defence Research and Development Organisation Avinash Chander said on Friday.

Addressing the media at Defexpo 2014 here, Mr. Chander, who is also the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, said cyber security can be enhanced by getting involved with the software of the projects from the time they are developed so that “cocoons” could be built around them.

“For real security, the answer lies being involved with it from the design stage," he said, adding that similar control cannot be possessed over a system that is procured from outside.

Responding to a question on India’s ability to check for malware or snooping devices in advanced systems like the C-17 and C-130J Super Hercules aircraft procured from the United States, Mr. Chander said “when an equipment is bought from outside, you have no control.”

Stressing the need to protect the country’s military equipment from hacking, he said there was a need to ensure that hackers are not able to target the “critical or core systems”.

Noting that a major reason for the threat posed by malwares or snooping virus was that it was difficult to assess them in an “integrated system”, Mr. Chander said the problem was compounded by the fact that most foreign countries do not provide the source code for the equipment sold by them.

The DRDO chief said the problem behind unsecured procurements also had its genesis in the fact that many agencies took their own decisions concerning foreign purchases of equipment. He called for having guidelines to protect systems against subversion. "Cyber security is our biggest security challenge and requires a new paradigm in purchase processes. When we buy, we must buy with security in mind," he said.


The Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister said DRDO has also undertaken in a big way the development of cyber technology tools. It has also taken to installation of controlled networks and securing the local are networks.

Besides, it was working on its own security mobile systems, development of Avdhani processors, and developing its own routers, operating systems and analysis systems.”


Sonia/MMS combo not only damaged India economically but also did good in doing so militarily. Now keep guessing when will the sanctions and trojans strike.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 09 Feb 2014 16:54

yes, i want a short, stubby, aircraft.

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/m ... lx3Vg.jpeg

...from the old british ufo show. Amazing prediction for the f-35, eh?

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19537
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Karan M » 09 Feb 2014 18:04

Looks pretty much the same.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 09 Feb 2014 21:06

Jan, 2014 :: Electronics take charge

Image
Helicopter performance is enhanced by Rolls-Royce controllers.

The print article has far more details.

Electronic controls are slowly transforming aircraft engines of all types, bringing improved fuel consumption, improved efficiency, and more power. As the functionality of control units for jet engines increases, digital management is also adding more capabilities for helicopters and small piston engines.

Full authority digital engine controls (FADEC) continue to leverage the advances in semiconductors and software to improve engine management. As microcontroller capabilities soar, engine controllers can handle functions beyond the engines themselves. For example, the Lockheed Martin F-35B’s engine controller also manages the short takeoff/vertical landing system.

“Engine controls can be linked to other electronic systems on the aircraft when the engine control is expected to be the flight control,” said Louis Celiberti, Director of Control & Diagnostic Systems at Pratt & Whitney Engineering. “During STOVL operation, the F135 engine control is the heart of the integrated flight and propulsion control. The engine control software uses advanced methods to de-couple a highly coupled engine system comprised of the main engine and a lift fan with a driveshaft attached in between. The result is wings-level, rock solid hover and vertical landing performance.”

While the F135 represents the high end for engine controls, digital systems are also expanding their reach into the low end. Rockwell Collins is shipping what it says is the first dual-channel engine control unit for use in light sport aircraft. The controls for the Rotax 912 iS piston engine were developed in conjunction with the BRP-Powertrain affiliate of Bombardier Recreational Products. The ECU automates tasks like adjusting air/fuel mixture and controlling exhaust gas temperatures.

“Now operators can operate the engine with ease, without having to worry about completing manual tasks to optimize performance throughout all operating conditions,” said David Vos, Senior Director, Control Technologies for Rockwell Collins.

Design teams are also doing more with ECUs in helicopters. Rolls-Royce recently deployed a dual-channel FADEC system on the M250-C47E, the first new helicopter to be launched by the company since 2005. The advanced FADEC helps improve the fuel burn and cut engine operating costs.

Whether FADECs are employed on the simplest recreational plane or the most advanced jets, design teams face myriad challenges. Hardware and software must operate efficiently without glitches or failures, forcing engineers to work overtime to eliminate mistakes.

Software is a primary focus. Many aircraft routinely run several million lines of code. Increasingly, this software is generated by computer, not programmers.

“As controls get more complex, code generation tools are gaining attention,” said Mahendra Muli, New Business Development Director at dSPACE. “Advanced automatic code generation tools are being used to convert algorithm models into well-documented C-code used in production controllers with efficiency, repeatability, and high quality, while easing the process to comply with stringent standards such as DO178B/C."

Both hardware and software must continue to run even if other systems on the aircraft fail. Though many systems share information, they must also be segregated from each other so problems in one subsystem don’t cause errors in a related system.

“Engine controls should be isolated from other systems when a level of system redundancy is required to achieve flight safety requirements,” Celiberti said. “Systems require isolation to ensure cross contamination does not take place and allow secondary systems to be deployed when primary systems fail.”

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 10 Feb 2014 17:13

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... F-Purchase

Italy threatening to make further cuts.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 11 Feb 2014 11:26


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 13 Feb 2014 10:03

Feb 10, 2014 :: Combat aircraft with advanced avionics

Air power is key in combat. Militaries worldwide rely increasingly on combat aircraft for missions ranging from intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to search and rescue, cargo and personnel transport, and precision weapons targeting.

"Combat is done with air power now," Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Billie Flynn affirmed in his talk on military fighter aircraft at the Aerospace Innovation Forum in Montreal. The key to pushing the technology envelope, to push what the aircraft itself can do, is to take the human, who has historically been the limiting factor, out of the equation, he says. Yet, to do more with less, innovation is required. Modern avionics are answering the need for increased situational awareness, greater performance, and various military-operations and peace-keeping capabilities.

Comprehensive cockpit

Connectivity and visualization in the cockpit are critical, and that means: "big screens, touchscreens not buttons, high fidelity in front of the pilot's head so that wherever he looks he sees what's around him, and broadband connectivity to ensure everyone has the same amount of information," Flynn says.

Aerospace and defense engineers set a new standard for combat aircraft avionics with the 8-by-20-inch panoramic cockpit display on the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Md. The large, active-matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) is designed by L-3 Display Systems in Alpharetta, Ga., to lessen the pilot's traditional workload while increasing situational awareness.

The touchscreen "display system delivers information for all the major functions of the F-35, including flight and sensor displays, communication, radio and navigation systems, as well as an identification system which gives the pilot total situational awareness," says a representative of LynuxWorks in San Jose, Calif.

L-3 Communications Display Systems engineers selected the LynuxWorks DO-178B-certifiable LynxOS-178 real-time operating system (RTOS) to power a portion of the F-35 panoramic cockpit display subsystem. L-3 engineers chose the RTOS based on key factors, such as adherence to open standards, Linux compatibility, POSIX API interoperability, and support for the ARINC 653 specification, officials say.

Integrated information

"Avionics are doing a better job of providing an integrated situational awareness picture for the pilot," explains Curtis Reichenfeld, chief technology officer of the system solutions group at Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions, headquartered in Ashburn, Va. "Instead of the pilot having to look at data from the radar and infrared or electronic warfare sensors and put all the data together, the processing capability on military aircraft enables that whole process to be done automatically so the pilot is seeing the complete situational-awareness picture without having to fuse the data himself.

"Older avionics architectures had independent systems, each with its own displays; now, we are seeing integrated and network-centric systems fusing data and presenting the combined data on a single display for the pilot to access more quickly and efficiently," Reichenfeld continues. "All the formerly separate data is now presented as a single resource."

Today's combat aircraft are "much more highly integrated and have much higher levels of data fusion, all for the purpose of reducing pilot workload so they can better focus on the mission at hand and reduce the need to do the data analysis by checking three or four different sensors or instruments," Reichenfeld notes.

Pilots have long had sensors to help them, Lockheed Martin's Flynn affirms but pilots have historically had to manage sensors. "They would decide what to look at and do their best to figure out what's important while [also] busy flying the airplane. It was never going to get better as long as the human was in the loop." The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor marked a paradigm shift, he says. "With the F-22, we finessed sensor fusion-fusion of sensor data and 8.6 million lines of software code to figure out if information is relevant."

Increased situational awareness in the cockpit is a game-changer for military pilots, lending to faster and better-informed decisions. "The pilot is no longer a limiter and he's more effective," Flynn says. "Let him fly the airplane."

Sensor-laden aircraft

The F-35 is indicative of a growing trend wherein manned and unmanned military airframes sport a growing number of sensors. The prevalent and ever-increasing use of airborne sensors is driving the need for powerful embedded computing and networking systems.

The ability to fuse data into a cohesive combat picture provides pilots with a better understanding of what the threats are and how to overcome them, says Mark Grovak, avionics business development manager at Curtiss-Wright Controls Defense Solutions. "What makes this possible is putting more processing onboard the aircraft." A robust processing infrastructure, including thermally efficient, high-performance computing systems, is needed to handle the large data sets and run the advanced algorithms that provide the pilot with the desired situational awareness, he adds.

Advanced avionics on the F-35 Lightning II furnish the pilot with real-time access to comprehensive battle-space information and the ability to share sensor data and actionable information. The Lockheed Martin-led team behind the F-35's advanced avionics includes Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon, and Mercury Systems.

Engineers at Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) segment in El Segundo, Calif., licensed the Mercury Systems RACE++ Series multicomputers for the F-35 JSF's Integrated Core Processing (ICP) system. The ICP is the sensor processing system with an open-system architecture designed to maximize the use of standards-based, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products.

"Incorporating COTS technology into an open system architecture throughout the F-35 will enable frequent technology updates at low cost," explains Bob Coultas, hardware program manager for the ICP for Lockheed Martin.

The onboard system incorporates a liquid-cooled, ruggedized multicomputer capable of performing 40 billion sustained operations per second and of multi-mission computing to process electronic warfare, electro-optical, infrared, and radar data. Mercury's multiprocessor technology is used in the signal processor (SP) and signal processor input/output (SPIO) modules of the ICP. Mercury's signal processing systems were used in the Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP) of the JSF, and its RACE++ Series PowerStream systems were selected for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase.

JSF software


The F-35 takes advantage of considerable software resources, in addition to modern avionics hardware. The fifth-generation fighter jet reportedly comprises more than 20 million lines of software code, segmented into blocks and largely written in C and C++; yet, it also uses software code in the Ada computer programming language from the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor military fighter aircraft.

The F-35 Lightning II, among the most complex military platforms to date, has suffered some production and deployment setbacks due the sheer volume of software code employed. Yet, aerospace and defense technology firms are working hard to remedy the situation.

The F-35 runs the Integrity DO-178B securely partitioned, safety-critical, certified real-time operating system (RTOS) from Green Hills Software in Santa Barbara, Calif. Datel engineers implemented the LDRA tool suite for software verification related to the F-35 engine, and developers at Parasoft Corp. in Monrovia, Calif., are working directly with Lockheed Martin engineers on static code analysis for JSF.

Engine assurances

Engineers at Ultra Electronics Controls (formerly Datel) in West London, England, selected LDRA software verification tools for their work on the Pratt & Whitney F135, the engine of choice for the F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation tactical fighter developed by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman.

Datel engineers had specific technical requirements related to their work on the Engine Ice Protection System (EIPS) for the Pratt & Whitney F135 Engine on the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter project, and the Wing Ice Protection System (WIPS) for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. They needed a software verification tool able to integrate with their target environment, which included the Texas Instruments TMS320F2812 and TMS320F2808 digital signal processors (DSPs). Datel personnel made use of LDRA's complete structural coverage analysis solution at unit, integration, and system test levels. These tests were applied to source and object code, making use of the LDRA tool suite's red-box mode.

"It was important to Datel that it was able to develop their software to a known coding standard and, consequently, MISRA-C:1998 was selected to be applied to this code," a company representative says. The LDRA tool suite simplifies the process by enforcing various standards using drop-down menus, which proved important for Datel.

Datel staff also needed an automated, intuitive unit testing tool which would save time, free up highly qualified staff, increase test efficiency, and improve motivation to test through a repeatable, less error-prone process. They found their solution in TBrun, LDRA's tool for the automated generation and management of unit tests. In the end, Datel reduced the time needed to confirm the verification results and increased the repeatability of its internal process.

QA on JSF

Lockheed Martin officials in the Maritime Systems & Sensors (MS2) business unit selected Parasoft's Jtest, C++test, and Insure++ tools in 2004 to support quality testing for its software. (The MS2 unit became the Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training, or MST, unit in 2012.)

"Our systems provide critical support when lives are on the line," Martina DelRocini, software subcontract management at Lockheed Martin, explains. "Quality assurance throughout our processes ensures our systems meet their demanding requirements."

Jtest and C++test automatically verify compliance to coding rules while generating and executing unit tests to ensure quality early in the software development cycle. Insure++ detects memory errors, such as corruption, leaks, and allocation errors in C/C++ code.

This relationship with Lockheed Martin "demonstrates Parasoft's ability to help large-scale software development organizations prevent software errors in what are some of the most complex systems being developed today," adds Larry Johnsen, Parasoft director of military/aerospace solutions.

Parasoft's Software Development Compliance solution provides code analysis for compliance with the Joint Strike Fighter Air Vehicle C++ Coding standards.

Combat-ready resources

Without ground support, there is no air support. Maintenance technicians are an important part of the equation, as are the various electronics and mechanical tools they employ.

In the U.S., every time a sailor or marine has flown a mission over the past 20 years, the Consolidated Automated Support System (CASS) has validated that the aircraft is combat ready, a Lockheed Martin representative says. U.S. Navy officials are now replacing CASS with a new version, the electronic CASS (eCASS), designed to simplify testing and accommodate new weapons systems over the next 30 years. Aircraft maintenance personnel will use eCASS to troubleshoot and repair aircraft assemblies at sea and ashore to return equipment to readiness status quickly and efficiently.

CASS is credited with saving the Navy more than $2 billion through standardized training and test programs. Yet, it was designed more than two decades ago and would be more costly to maintain than to replace with an open-architecture system.

"eCASS will be the workhorse for avionics repair across the Naval Aviation Enterprise," explains Chris Giggey, deputy program manager for Automatic Test Systems, of the U.S. Navy's Naval Air Systems Command's Aviation Support Equipment Program Office (PMA-260). "This system provides us with capabilities critical to support of naval aircraft and gives us the ability to launch combat-ready aircraft from carriers anytime and anywhere in support of the nation."

"eCASS runs 20 percent faster, is even more reliable, and is highly compatible with legacy CASS stations," says Randy Core, director of enterprise test solutions at Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training. "This speed and reliability will ultimately help the Navy increase aircraft availability."

eCASS is based on the LM- STAR commercial automated testing system, featuring open software and hardware architectures to provide eCASS with long-range upgrade capabilities. LM-STAR is being called "the cornerstone of the F-35 harmonization plan," enabling avionics manufacturers to develop tests that will seamlessly transition from the factory floor to fleet maintenance depots.

Lockheed Martin is producing 36 eCASS stations and associated support equipment under a $103 million U.S. Navy contract. Lockheed Martin engineers have completed development of the eCASS architecture, paving the way for initial production to begin. The first station will be delivered in November 2014. Naval Air Systems Command officials plan to deploy eCASS on every aircraft carrier and at many Fleet Readiness Centers.

Typhoon technologies

The Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, currently the largest military procurement program in Europe with 719 aircraft under contract and 571 on order, was designed to accommodate avionics upgrade packages to ensure its longevity.

"Eurofighter Typhoon was designed, from the outset, for capability growth. It is something we firmly believe sets us apart from the competition," says NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA) General Manager Jesus Pinillos Prieto.

The latest Typhoon, known as a Tranche 3, includes provisions that future-proof the combat aircraft, enabling it to take on additional capability in the future, including a high-speed data network. Taken together, there have been hundreds of modifications, changes, and additions, which effectively means Typhoon has now taken a massive step forward, says a BAE Systems representative.

"For casual observers, the aircraft is little changed from its sleek predecessor but it has a number of provisions that will allow it to take on additional capability in the future," says Mark Kane, BAE Systems managing director-combat air. "At the nose, a new internal structure has been built and work has been carried out on power, cooling, and electronics so a new E-Scan radar could easily be accommodated."

Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH manages the Eurofighter Typhoon program on behalf of partner companies Alenia Aermacchi/Finmeccanica, BAE Systems, and Airbus Defence and Space (formerly Cassidian, the defense division of EADS).

Northrop Grumman Italia in Rome, Italy, provides the Eurofighter Fiber-optical Gyro Inertial Navigation System and a global positioning system (GPS) receiver for Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon multirole combat aircraft Eurofighter aircraft in all participating nations (United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and Spain).

Northrop Grumman's inertial navigation system and GPS receiver are based on fiber-optic gyro technology and feature an anti-jam antenna system and selective availability/anti-spoofing module architecture. The GPS unit also supports such future enhancements as digital maps and direct drive display, which employ a graphics processor capable of controlling the aircraft's multifunctional displays for improved viewing and integration in the aircraft's avionics.

The F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon, representing modern airframes with novel avionics, have set the bar by which militaries will judge future combat aircraft. At the same time, avionics innovations of the future will continue this trend of enabling military personnel to do more with less, predicts Lockheed Martin's Flynn.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 16 Feb 2014 19:26

With a new PM at the helm,Italy heavily cash-strapped may not be able to buy the original number.In fact,EU/NATO nation should pool their defence requirements and reduce defence expenditure as they have politically and economically virtually integrated,with no border checks,etc.This will also help in stabilising EU defence manufacturers and depend less upon US aircraft manufacturers who have had in the past a field day with large purchases of F-16s,F-15s,etc.As the post by Austin said,China has in fact become the biggest salesman for Lockheed and the JSF,with fears about China's stealth birds worrying Asian nations.It is going to be very tough going for the intended global sales of the JSF.As Snake-Oil Singh recently said in the Indian context (probably a lurker of BRF?),"one has to cut one's coat according to the cloth"!

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2014 05:36

60 Minutes had a segment on the F-35: Good, Bad and the Ugly.

Bottom line: "We are buying a lot of these planes" - Gen. Bogdan.

* It cost twice what it cost to go to the moon
* 54,000 total tests per version (with some commonalities I assume)
* Helmet + associated computer cost % 0.5 mil per
* Simple issues, such as, wing tip lights did not conform to FAA standards, had to be redone, added to cost + time
* Tires still a problem (this is mind boggling)
* MC Gen did let out that F-35 can detect *any* plane between 5-10 times the distance
* Problems still exist with the software (nothing new there)
* This plane is not about turns, speed, climb rate, etc (pilot stated - that is all old school). It is about the amount of information the pilot has at hand and shared
* It is not a plane, but a flying computer

FWIW.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20741
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 18 Feb 2014 08:30

Poor Gen."Bogged-Down"! I don't envy his task,but he's extremely focussed and dedicated.That's the kind of attitude that our DPSU chiefs should have.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests