on the other hand, I also thought the big advantage this plane had over the competition was the computer aided systems that took it past the human ability to fly?
The heads up display and what not was the advantage over the competition. Is that not the case?
The HUD? A fuggin' Lexus has HUD.
You're gonna need a better "advantage" than that if trying to maintain air superiority in 2015.
Travis
This week, Lockheed Martin officially took delivery of a key part of the F-35 fighter’s combat functionality—the pilot’s helmet. The most expensive and complicated piece of headgear ever constructed, the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is one of the multipurpose fighter’s most critical systems, and it's essential to delivering a fully combat-ready version of the fighter to the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force. But it almost didn’t make the cut because of software problems and side effects akin to those affecting some 3D virtual reality headsets.
Built by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems International (a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and the Israeli defense company Elbit Systems), the HMDS goes way beyond previous augmented reality displays embedded in pilots’ helmets. In addition to providing the navigational and targeting information typically shown in a combat aircraft’s heads-up display, the HMDS also includes aspects of virtual reality, allowing a pilot to look through the plane. Using a collection of six high-definition video and infrared cameras on the fighter’s exterior called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the display extends vision a full 360 degrees around the aircraft from within the cockpit. The helmet is also equipped with night vision capabilities via an infrared sensor that projects imagery inside the facemask.
The helmet is an essential part of the aircraft’s cockpit. Some pilots have called the helmet's austere touchscreen Panoramic Cockpit Display “the most naked cockpit in history“ because of its lack of switches and other physical instrumentation. When combined with the cockpit’s built-in voice recognition capabilities, the helmet will allow the pilot to track everything in the aircraft’s sphere of visibility.
The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.
That is the kind of schit I'm talking about. A two dollar circuit shorts out in that helmet and that plane is practically worthless.
This week, Lockheed Martin officially took delivery of a key part of the F-35 fighter’s combat functionality—the pilot’s helmet. The most expensive and complicated piece of headgear ever constructed, the F-35 Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS) is one of the multipurpose fighter’s most critical systems, and it's essential to delivering a fully combat-ready version of the fighter to the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force. But it almost didn’t make the cut because of software problems and side effects akin to those affecting some 3D virtual reality headsets.
Built by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems International (a joint venture between Rockwell Collins and the Israeli defense company Elbit Systems), the HMDS goes way beyond previous augmented reality displays embedded in pilots’ helmets. In addition to providing the navigational and targeting information typically shown in a combat aircraft’s heads-up display, the HMDS also includes aspects of virtual reality, allowing a pilot to look through the plane. Using a collection of six high-definition video and infrared cameras on the fighter’s exterior called the Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the display extends vision a full 360 degrees around the aircraft from within the cockpit. The helmet is also equipped with night vision capabilities via an infrared sensor that projects imagery inside the facemask.
The helmet is an essential part of the aircraft’s cockpit. Some pilots have called the helmet's austere touchscreen Panoramic Cockpit Display “the most naked cockpit in history“ because of its lack of switches and other physical instrumentation. When combined with the cockpit’s built-in voice recognition capabilities, the helmet will allow the pilot to track everything in the aircraft’s sphere of visibility.
The helmet runs for about $600,000, which doesn't include software integration with the aircraft’s systems.
I think that's a different version than the Lexus comes with.
Travis
Originally Posted by Geno67
Trump being classless,tasteless and clueless as usual.
Originally Posted by Judman
Sorry, trump is a no tax payin pile of shiit.
Originally Posted by KSMITH
My young wife decided to play the field and had moved several dudes into my house
I hope he doesn't respond in Spanish because I was going to ask the same question. Travis
Spanish? I hope he doesn't answer in Cuban! We'd really be screwed!
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
All of the this is it and there is no other option is pure Lockheed propaganda. We can kill the turd today and order enough refits to get us a few years down the road while we design new aircraft. We do our best work under the gun and when the project isn't a corporate welfare program. When we were spooked by the Mig 25 we designed and built the F15 and F14 and got a related design effort spinoff in the F16. There is a metric chit ton of weapons technology and integration work done on this F35 project that can be reasonably quickly adapted to better airframes and allowed to blossom without the do everything weight to hold it down. The only thing that is keeping the F35 alive is politicians at the Pentagon , think tanks , and the Capitol. The A10 needs a technical lift probably because I don't see need for an entirely new design. It's a work horse job and the airframe will do what it needs to do. A bunch of new design dual role attack fighters like the F15E and some pure air superiority fighters like the the F22 but made less expensive. The Navy needs its own purpose designed aircraft. The Marines need to have their wings clipped for the most part and be restricted to whirly birds and maybe some ground attack fixed wing aircraft. There also needs to be a change in management and the first new order being no universal complex systems all services wide. Military purpose built not political purpose built. JMO
Last edited by Daveinjax; 04/15/15.
‘TO LEARN WHO RULES OVER YOU, SIMPLY FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICIZE’
Conspiracy theorists are the ones who see it all coming…
No thanks, I'd just as soon leave him in his grave, thank you.
Ed
"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell
Off subject, but its only a few more months before the prime and sub contractor is supposed to be chosen on the next big bomber project, B-3 or LRSB or what ever you want to call it. According to this last story;
I'm not a huge fan of the F-35, but that article has some issues. The fan on the B model does not hurt the performance of the A or C model in any way. So all the overweight, slow, whatever does not apply to the Navy or USAF variants. It's not the fastest plane, but it will be much closer to the enemy than the specs indicate. Carrying weapons internally means it goes as fast loaded as empty. Add rails and missiles to any MiG and will not come anywhere close to what they advertise. And, the MiGs are not world beaters to begin with. The AMRAAMs and 9Xs certainly don't care about the relatively small difference. So it "only" turns as well as an F-16. Ummm, that's pretty damn good! And the 9X tied to the helmet really turns well. The F-35 doesn't have a traditional fixed HUD. It's part of the helmet. Whatever the assumptions were in that simulation are crap. I'd be surprised if 1 F-35 was lost to a Chinese built Sukoi. They're a bunch of GCI cripples and will fold in the fog of war. Let's see how they perform when getting jammed, have no comms, are dealing with deception and their AWACS is flaming debris falling from the sky. That's where US trained fighters shine. And I am certain the F-22 will decimate any enemy and make them think real hard about getting anywhere near US fighters (those few that are left). I may be a Navy guy, but the F-22 f'ing rocks!
F-35 is a debacle but I don't blame Lockheed. It is another artifact of the DoD acquisition system which is held hostage to the Congressional budget.
I have an elderly friend whom I met through my Grandfather who met him in 1947 when he taught him to fly T-6's in 1947. This gent went on to a career in ADC flying F-86D, F-94, F-89, F-102, F-106 and finally finishing as a Colonel in F-4's with the KY Air Guard. He said that as they evolved they expected all the new jets to be really flawed and that the next version would be better. At the time they were amazed that a jet cost $750K but readily accepted that it was an evolutionary process. He ejected from two with major (obviously) failures, an F-89 in Alaska and an F-102 in North Dakota. For campfire content he also has a letter from Jack O'Conner congratulating him on is superb Caribou and asking for details of his hunt.
The pursuit of perfection has resulted in an acquisition cycle that is so long that the initial requirements, matched against the technology cycle and then limited by Congressional budget limitations means an evolving requirement that always leads the ability of whatever you're building to meet what the services need. We've seen it with the F-35, V-22, the Seawolf, the CVN-78 and a myriad of smaller (or less media-centric programs).
Because failure is so career denhancing (new word!) the controls around what gets built get so extravagant that the costs skyrockets.
On the topic of the F-35, it's a mess. Other than the amphibs, the USMC has used the VTOL capability less times than can be counted on one hand. How much is that worth? Yes, there is the Royal Navy requirement to be assessed but still. The idea of a single engine jet at the boat makes my blood curl. Sure, one can accept that the F-135 motor is more reliable than any any tactical jet engine ever but when it fails in blue water ops it means I'm riding around in my LR-1 300 miles from 03-94-2L and hating life.
I don't like single engine off the boat, and the acquisition world is colossally screwed up. That I can agree with.
Edit: had we chosen to build Block 60 F-16s, updated F-15Es, and F/A-18s and use some of the savings on missile, radar and countermeasure technology we Could have retained an advantage and been more fiscally responsible.
I hope he doesn't respond in Spanish because I was going to ask the same question.
Travis
Nothing even comes close to it in performance. That said, WAY too expensive to risk it on such menial tasks as CAS. I've always liked the cheaper and LOTS approach, especially since we are really the only Superpower left. Chinks can't really build anything we can't squash. What we SHOULD have done back in the 90s, was build the Tomcat 2000, A6-F, F-15Es and LOTS of F-16s and take our time with the super fancy stuff.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
F-35 is a debacle but I don't blame Lockheed. It is another artifact of the DoD acquisition system which is held hostage to the Congressional budget.
I have an elderly friend whom I met through my Grandfather who met him in 1947 when he taught him to fly T-6's in 1947. This gent went on to a career in ADC flying F-86D, F-94, F-89, F-102, F-106 and finally finishing as a Colonel in F-4's with the KY Air Guard. He said that as they evolved they expected all the new jets to be really flawed and that the next version would be better. At the time they were amazed that a jet cost $750K but readily accepted that it was an evolutionary process. He ejected from two with major (obviously) failures, an F-89 in Alaska and an F-102 in North Dakota. For campfire content he also has a letter from Jack O'Conner congratulating him on is superb Caribou and asking for details of his hunt.
The pursuit of perfection has resulted in an acquisition cycle that is so long that the initial requirements, matched against the technology cycle and then limited by Congressional budget limitations means an evolving requirement that always leads the ability of whatever you're building to meet what the services need. We've seen it with the F-35, V-22, the Seawolf, the CVN-78 and a myriad of smaller (or less media-centric programs).
Because failure is so career denhancing (new word!) the controls around what gets built get so extravagant that the costs skyrockets.
On the topic of the F-35, it's a mess. Other than the amphibs, the USMC has used the VTOL capability less times than can be counted on one hand. How much is that worth? Yes, there is the Royal Navy requirement to be assessed but still. The idea of a single engine jet at the boat makes my blood curl. Sure, one can accept that the F-135 motor is more reliable than any any tactical jet engine ever but when it fails in blue water ops it means I'm riding around in my LR-1 300 miles from 03-94-2L and hating life.
You'll have Kevin looking around for a butter knife to slit his wrists now. EVERYTHING in his world in Wall Street and the Corporate world's fault. Good post Pugs, as usual, spot on.
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
On the topic of the F-35, it's a mess. Other than the amphibs, the USMC has used the VTOL capability less times than can be counted on one hand. How much is that worth? Yes, there is the Royal Navy requirement to be assessed but still.
There was talk of the RN ditching the VSTOL version of the F35 and going with the standard carrier version..
It would have required our two new carries being equiped with Cats now rather than some point in thefurture as is currently planned..However the penny pinchers got involved and we are now stuck with the vstol version.
That said, it will still be a quantum leap foraward from the Harrier..
You know there is lots of talk about drones and all taking over the mission of manned aircraft, but I haven't really heard too many people talking about what the perfection of and the deployment of laser systems will do to aircraft and missiles as a whole. If/when those get workable anything in the sky that can be seen will die. Nothing is faster than light. They won't even need targeting systems that are all that complex relatively speaking as that there won't be any need to calculate leads or trajectories or anything like that. It won't be the complex problem of hitting a bullet with a bullet. It will be more like hitting an airplane with a laser pointer.
I think it is possible that we find ourselves in a position in the next 50 years or so where the top weapons systems are once again heavily armored ships armed with rail guns for ordnance delivery and lasers for protection.
![[Linked Image]](http://i492.photobucket.com/albums/rr288/Bwnci/welsh-flag-large-anim.gif)