F-35 news roundup

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Don't know if this was posted before. But here's a video showing how the cockpit avionics work in the JSF.

F-35 Cockpit Video

Interesting video.

That said my concerns includes:

a: LCD displays showing all virtual nav gauges. Short of the HUD this LCD panel (not sure in the video if it's only one or if its two separate LCD panels) when, NOT IF it fails and thus a total loss of fight aids what shall a pilot do? Yes, I guess the HUD will aid such but would not some other rudimentary analogue flight instruments be a good thing to have? Or if not maybe use multiple LCD displays that can be pilot switchable if one or more fails.

b: LCD displays and touch functions may be cool in iPhones, Android phones, iPads etc. but they are not TACTILE. The user MUST ALWAYS CAREFULLY LOOK AT WHERE AND WHAT THEY WANT TO TOUCH to activate something. It becomes time wasting and more laborious to the user. Regular 3D style touch buttons become intuitive quickly almost to the point that a user does not have to divert much attention visually (short of a quick glance) to activate/use these functions. LCD touch displays are maybe the "IN THING TODAY" esp. in consumer electronics but are not as user friendly nor IMO as durable as true, real 3D touch buttons or even mechanical switches. I can see in the heat of combat a pilot punching with his fingers the display too hard and maybe damaging it.

c: As to touch displays it's one thing to use bare fingers on them but how well will these LCD touch panels work with flight gloves on?

Just some thoughts of mine.

[-Neu-]

What I dont't understand aoubt the british side of this is, why do they insist on having a ski jump for the B model? 30+ years of USMC harrier ops from flat decks would suggest it is not really needed. And from the videos of deck tests on the Wasp the F-35 seems to be the same.

I think it has more to do with the different aims of the various carriers. Ski jumps basically allows to carry a bit more weight and use less fuel for take off than a flat deck. However it costs deck space that could be used for something else. Gators's are more amphib vessels rather than baby flatops... which is the opposite for the british who want large stovl carriers. Thus gators don't have skijumps, while the Brits do.

[Diamondback Six]

Les, it's two panels, but may have only one driver unit controlling 'em--looks like it's derived from the Rockwell Collins MFD2810 hardware, just a "Siamese twins" version with added FOG.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Les, it's two panels, but may have only one driver unit controlling 'em--looks like it's derived from the Rockwell Collins MFD2810 hardware, just a "Siamese twins" version with added FOG.

Thanks,

I still do not think relying on LCD touch panels in a combat plane is a wise thing. Multiple LCD displays are fine and such but I think stand alone tactile buttons are a more reliable and cheaper long term solution.

Touch pads even in the consumer world are more a PIA than real tactile buttons are. I can use my Harmony remote in a dark room and not really have to look at the buttons I need to work it. Touch pads ALWAYS require careful and longer looks at them to use. I think combat pilots in time may not like this touch pad set up in a combat jet's cockpit.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[Jay Chladek]

Last gun kill I can think of was an A-10 that downed a helicopter during Desert Storm with its GAU-8 after the sidewinders it fired didn't get a lock. That was 21 years ago. For an attack jet though, the gun does allow a strafe option when its out of missiles. There were more than a few incidents in both Afghanistan and Iraq where that happened when all the strikers had left was an M-61 and a load of ammo (the movie "Speed and Angels" documented one of the Iraq incidents).

LCD touch screens have been in use for awhile actually. The US forces haven't implimented them, but I understand Israel's F-15Is use them (heard that from Mudhen pilot who helped ferry some of the first jets to Israel). I believe the F-16Is have them as well. As for combat survivability of an F-35, if one takes a direct hit near the pit, I don't think it is going to be in the air too long anyway. The object with these newer planes is to not get hit, as opposed to being able to absorb hits given how they are crammed with so much mission critical gear (some of it single point failure items if a shell hits it, such as the lift fan on the F-35B).

[11bee]

Last gun kill I can think of was an A-10 that downed a helicopter during Desert Storm with its GAU-8 after the sidewinders it fired didn't get a lock. That was 21 years ago. For an attack jet though, the gun does allow a strafe option when its out of missiles. There were more than a few incidents in both Afghanistan and Iraq where that happened when all the strikers had left was an M-61 and a load of ammo (the movie "Speed and Angels" documented one of the Iraq incidents).

Which is why the Navy option seems to make more sense. Bolt the gun on close support mission but if you are performing a long range, stealthy, strike mission, you are probably not going to make a second pass to strafe your target once you have dropped all of your JDAMs. Personally, I think a gun on a platform like this is a bit ludicrous but if you persist in wanting to have one, at least make it detachable.

[GRAIL007]

Interesting video.

That said my concerns includes:

a: LCD displays showing all virtual nav gauges. Short of the HUD this LCD panel (not sure in the video if it's only one or if its two separate LCD panels) when, NOT IF it fails and thus a total loss of fight aids what shall a pilot do? Yes, I guess the HUD will aid such but would not some other rudimentary analogue flight instruments be a good thing to have? Or if not maybe use multiple LCD displays that can be pilot switchable if one or more fails.

Les, there are two 8x10 inch Multi-Function-Displays with independent processors. If you screen fails that information is automatically transfered and mixed with the other MFD's info. There is also the standby instruments screen below the 2 main screens, showing attitude airspeed etc. There is also the helmet which is another independant system for navigation.

b: LCD displays and touch functions may be cool in iPhones, Android phones, iPads etc. but they are not TACTILE. The user MUST ALWAYS CAREFULLY LOOK AT WHERE AND WHAT THEY WANT TO TOUCH to activate something. It becomes time wasting and more laborious to the user. Regular 3D style touch buttons become intuitive quickly almost to the point that a user does not have to divert much attention visually (short of a quick glance) to activate/use these functions. LCD touch displays are maybe the "IN THING TODAY" esp. in consumer electronics but are not as user friendly nor IMO as durable as true, real 3D touch buttons or even mechanical switches. I can see in the heat of combat a pilot punching with his fingers the display too hard and maybe damaging it.

The touch screens are used at mostly in non-heat of combat situations, the HOTAS of the F-35 with it's more numerous buttons and switches than the F-16 or F-22 makes sure that in the heat of battle you never have to take your hands of the two controls. Also on the throttle there is a mouse like control to move a cursor on the screens if you want to select items that way. Mainly though the touch screens are used to configure the screens to the pilots preferences depending on mission flow. The 2 primary viewing areas might be a HSI depiction on one side showing SAM threats/enemy aircraft (and detection ranges) and the other side images from the sensors to visually ID the target, on RTB the screens can be reconfigured differently. With real 3D buttons the cockpit is more limited, and with any system as a pilot gains proficiency the looking for the switch and activating it becomes faster, this cockpit will be the same way.

c: As to touch displays it's one thing to use bare fingers on them but how well will these LCD touch panels work with flight gloves on?

Yes the screen works with gloves, I know I used mine in the F-35 sim in Fort. Worth, as it is not exactly the same as a I Phone screen, it does not require the skin to close the circuit. It uses lasers along the edge of the screen to triangulate your finger on the screen, only when you remove your finger does the screen take it as a "touch". So in heavy turbulence/buffet pilots will touch the screen and if they are not on the right function move the finger to the correct spot and then release the pressure. The screens are quite sturdy and accurate, they took anything from a light touch to a heavy jab.

Cheers

Mark

Edited July 17, 2012 by GRAIL007

[MarkW]

Another minor survivability point--a shell hitting the lift fan is only an issue if you need to land vertically. B's can land conventionally just fine. Given the number of times Harriers have taken cannon fire AND had to do VLs, I wouldn't put it on the top of my worry list.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Les, there are two 8x10 inch Multi-Function-Displays with independent processors. If you screen fails that information is automatically transfered and mixed with the other MFD's info. There is also the standby instruments screen below the 2 main screens, showing attitude airspeed etc. There is also the helmet which is another independant system for navigation.

The touch screens are used at mostly in non-heat of combat situations, the HOTAS of the F-35 with it's more numerous buttons and switches than the F-16 or F-22 makes sure that in the heat of battle you never have to take your hands of the two controls. Also on the throttle there is a mouse like control to move a cursor on the screens if you want to select items that way. Mainly though the touch screens are used to configure the screens to the pilots preferences depending on mission flow. The 2 primary viewing areas might be a HSI depiction on one side showing SAM threats/enemy aircraft (and detection ranges) and the other side images from the sensors to visually ID the target, on RTB the screens can be reconfigured differently. With real 3D buttons the cockpit is more limited, and with any system as a pilot gains proficiency the looking for the switch and activating it becomes faster, this cockpit will be the same way.

Yes the screen works with gloves, I know I used mine in the F-35 sim in Fort. Worth, as it is not exactly the same as a I Phone, please screen, it does not require the skin to close the circuit. It uses lasers along the edge of the screen to triangulate your finger on the screen, only when you remove your finger does the screen take it as a "touch". So in heavy turbulence/buffet pilots will touch the screen and if they are not on the right function move the finger to the correct spot and then release the pressure. The screens are quite sturdy and accurate, they took anything from a light touch to a heavy jab.

Cheers

Mark

THANKS MARK!

Very detailed info and reassuring to this aviation buff especially since the RCAF will be buying into this bird.

[Kei Lau]

Another minor survivability point--a shell hitting the lift fan is only an issue if you need to land vertically. B's can land conventionally just fine. Given the number of times Harriers have taken cannon fire AND had to do VLs, I wouldn't put it on the top of my worry list.

Do you mean on a carrier without the trap cables or just a long runway on a land base?

[11bee]

Given the number of times Harriers have taken cannon fire AND had to do VLs, I wouldn't put it on the top of my worry list.

Interesting... How many times would that be? I don't recall hearing of many (any?) instances of this occurring.

On a somewhat related note, take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

It's a summary of Harrier losses over the years and is pretty sobering. Especially what seems to be the high percentage of USMC accidents that resulted in fatalities.

What does this mean for the F-35B? Not much except to demonstrate that V/STOL operations are inherently more dangerous than conventional ops. I wonder what the reaction is going to be when we start losing F-35's, which will inevitably happen? The press made it seem like the end of the world when those two F-22's crashed.

Edited July 17, 2012 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Interesting... How many times would that be? I don't recall hearing of many (any?) instances of this occurring.

On a related somewhat related note, take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses

It's a summary of Harrier losses over the years and is pretty sobering. Especially what seems to be the high percentage of USMC accidents that resulted in fatalities.

What does this mean for the F-35B? Not much except to demonstrate that V/STOL operations are inherently more dangerous than conventional ops. I wonder what the reaction is going to be when we start loosing F-35's, which will inevitably happen? The press made it seem like the end of the world when those two F-22's crashed.

IT should be noted that the difference between the AV-8A and AV-8B is practically night and say, another reason for high attrition "back in the good old days" was the extreme emphasis on Low level, that cost NATO forces between 6-8 aircraft accidents and incidents a month.

Plus The F-35 is VASTLY easier to land. Yet another reason the USMC is excited. Less time landing = More time combat training. The First F-35B landing on a ship was performed by an F-18 pilot who had never landed vertically on a ship before that!

Harriers are not easy to fly and very unforgiving of even slight mistakes. Plus I can add a few personal "way to go dumb@$$" pilot screw ups that I know off hand... it not always the tools, sometimes its the carpenters. One squadron I know of seem to make it a tradition to not tie a jet down well enough and lose at least one harrier over the side of the ship per deployment. can't argue with tradition.

Edited July 17, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Spongebob]

Just a point...the wire-dynamics (computer) model L-M used came from NAVAIR, so, not really L-M's fault. They got some bad gouge. Incidently...it's the same model the X-47B used.... Essentially, the model showed them that the main wheel to hook point distance could be shorter than on traditional aircraft (important when you're enclosing the tailhook). It ended up the model was bad.

Saavy folks will remember that T-45 had a zillion tailhook issues too. And from a couple of co-workers with A-12 stink on them - probably would have had the same issue with that.

[GreyGhost]

My Dad was still at McAir Fabrication when T-45 was ramping up ...

He said it was a PITA of a program due to all of the Metric to Standard and vice versa measurement conversions in working with BAe ... He told me it was causing all sorts of troubles on the computer controlled milling machines, etc ... This was in the late 80s ... Funny how something relatively simple can cause havoc ...

-Gregg

[MarkW]

Throw in when the widened the nose of the T-45 by two inches to accommodate the carrier qualified nose gear, they essentially wrecked the aerodynamics of the whole jet. Massive sections of the wing had flow reversal and separation at relatively benign angles of attack. There was a substantial effort made to restore the flying qualities to the point where it could be used as a training aircraft. And this too was in the heyday of lots of smart people working on lots of jets with lots of direct experience. This stuff isn't an exact science.

Edited July 18, 2012 by MarkW

[MarkW]

Back to news...

Ministers 'confident' over aircraft carrier fighter planes

The Joint Strike Fighter purchase issue has become highly politicised

The government has said it is confident there will not be a second U-turn on the type of fighter planes to be used on the navy's new aircraft carrier.

In May, the coalition said it was changing from its proposed "catapult and trap" planes to jump jets.

But newspaper reports say problems with the US-led Joint Strike Fighter project could force another change on the UK.

However, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said he had had reassurances at the "highest level" in Washington.

In its defence review in 2010, the coalition announced that it was cancelling the previous Labour government's decision to purchase jump-jet version of the Joint Strike Fighter (the F35-B) and opt instead for the catapult and trap (F35-C) type, which required a different set-up on deck.

But, in May this year, it performed a U-turn, saying it would revert to the F35-B, as costs had increased. It added that the price of this change of mind would amount to £100m.

'Mothball'

Now the Sun newspaper reports that another alteration is likely. It says the US - which is leading the F35-B project - is likely to cancel its orders, as Washington struggles with a government debt crisis.

The newspaper adds that this could force another change on the UK government.

But Mr Hammond told MPs: "We've made a decision to revert to the Stovl [short take-off and vertical landing] system. We are quite confident of the delivery."

He added: "We've had the highest-level discussions with US officials who support the programme."

Fellow defence minister Nick Harvey said people "shouldn't believe everything" they read in the press, adding: "We have every confidence that it will come into service as planned."

As part of its defence spending review in 2010, the government decided to "mothball" one of the two aircraft carriers, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth, ordered by Labour.

Abandoning the plan to fit the "catapults and traps" needed by the F35-C to one of the carriers while mothballing the other, opened up the possibility that both could eventually become operational, it argued.

[Wolfgun33]

National Gaurd Transitions

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Joint Strike Fighter purchase issue has become highly politicised

Classic British understatement?

[Devilleader501]

IT should be noted that the difference between the AV-8A and AV-8B is practically night and say, another reason for high attrition "back in the good old days" was the extreme emphasis on Low level, that cost NATO forces between 6-8 aircraft accidents and incidents a month.

I have to agree here. The reason for the crashes isn't necessarily because VSTOL's are more dangerous to perform instead of conventional landings. 90% of these crashes happened because of faults in the aircraft. I have only ever heard of a few crashes involving VTOL. and the list that Wikipedia provides is not even close to being accurate. There have been a ton of aircraft go down here. I live in Yuma Az and have heard of three crashes in the last 7 years or so involving the Harrier. The most recent was an aircraft that went down in a populated area just behind our Walmart.

The pilot ejected safely but 2 houses were destroyed. Luckily no one was home in either house otherwise it would have been catastrophic. The harrier is a 30+ year old airframe and the technology used to make it fly which I have heard is like trying to fly a pancake smothered in butter is ancient compared to the F-35B.

If you think we will not have an F-35 go down every now and then you are sadly mistaken. But I do think the F-35 will be more reliable. Reason being is because of the research involved nowdays. we have had 30+ years to figure out better ways to make things work.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The most recent was an aircraft that went down in a populated area just behind our Walmart.

I remember that. It had a couple of 500# bombs too. Still have no idea what the pilot was doing there...

[Devilleader501]

Taiidan, it was about 7 years ago heres the story

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159723,00.html

[-Neu-]

If you think we will not have an F-35 go down every now and then you are sadly mistaken. But I do think the F-35 will be more reliable. Reason being is because of the research involved nowdays. we have had 30+ years to figure out better ways to make things work.

Its pretty certain that it will. Modern Jet engine reliability rates are extremely high. Maintained properly it is exceptionally rare to see a failure due to excellent design and better materials.

I was reading a PW study a few days ago and 100% of all fatalities due to engines were caused by human errors, but they have been trying to combat that through better engineering and education. The outcome is that single engine mishap rates are at their lowest ever.

[MarkW]

Back to the news:

Carter Addresses Joint Strike Fighter Program

American Forces Press Service – 21 July 2012

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=117213

It goes up to 11...

Likely F-35 noise levels: The good and the bad

Northwest Florida Daily News – 22 July 2012

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/noise-51173-eis-profiles.html

The Chinese are coming!! The Chinese are coming!!

Is this China's new stealth fighter?

Foreign Policy Magazine – 20 July 2012

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/20/is_this_chinas_new_stealth_fighter

[TaiidanTomcat]

Is this China's new stealth fighter?

Foreign Policy Magazine – 20 July 2012

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/20/is_this_chinas_new_stealth_fighter

It can't be because the F-35 sucks and that really looks like an F-35, which sucks. China just does everything awesomer and that won't be awesome if its a JSF knock off. There also isn't any need for it because even though the J-20 is still in prototype stage and we barely know anything about it, it outclasses the F-35 in every possible way.

[Devilleader501]

ROFLMAO I had to post this. Not only do I disagree with this so called noise environmental impact study but I also disagree with them making our pilots stick to a certain modeled flight profile just to please the people who think the aircraft is to noisy. Personally I think if its too loud then move away because 70% of the Military bases on US soil were built before your house in the first place. I just dont think for the sake of noise that we should make our pilots fly a certain modeled profile and risk a crash because some pencil pusher thinks that dropping throttle 10% will lessen noise levels.

I also got a chuckle out of this guys comment.

Emanuel Manu Korda · Top Commenter · Orientierungsstufe Ravensberger Strasse Wolfenbüttel

The only F35 with two engines is the SVTOL version, and the second engine has just enough power the hover the jet in the air, its not for flying purposes ;)

Reply · Like · 3 hours ago