F-35 HUD

[Randall172]

Found some cool videos of the F-35s modern displays




this is a sim of the F35

[Vraciu]

Oh no.....

 

[Devil 505]

I've seen sim pits that look more from a real plane than this.

[Gman]

Agree Devil, I was going to say that I've seen kitplanes that look more complex, but I suppose this is one of the positives with the F35, a very simple, fast, easy to use system.  Regarding that, article from yesterday from 4 high ranked/time USMC F35B pilots.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-experienced-usmc-f-35b-pilots-speak-about-their-aircraft-and-they-say-its-exceptional/

Specific excerpt:

I was conducting a strike mission and Red Air was coming at me.  In a 4th Gen fighter you must do a whole lot of interpretation.  You see things in azimuth, and you see things in elevation.  In the F-35 you just see the God’s eye view of the whole world.  It’s very much like you are watching the briefing in real time.

I am coming in to perform the simulated weapons release, and Red Air is coming the other direction.  I have enough situational awareness to assess whether Red Air is going to be a factor to me by the time I release the weapon.  I can make the decision, I’m going to go to the target, I’m going to release this weapon.  Simultaneously I pre-target the threat, and as soon as I release the A2G weapon, I can flip a switch with my thumb and shoot the Red Air.  This is difficult to do in a 4th Gen fighter, because there is so much manipulation of systems in the cockpit.  All while paying attention to the basic mechanics of flying the airplane and interpreting threat warnings that are often very vague, or only directional.  In the F-35 I know where the threats are, what they are and I can thread the needle.  I can tell that the adversary is out in front of me and I can make a very, very smart decision about whether to continue or get out of there.  All that, and I can very easily switch between mission sets.

[Vraciu]

But the Marines also thought the F2A was just fine.   

----


The following details discoveries in F-35A flight sciences testing:

- Testing to characterize the thermal environment of the weapons bays demonstrated that temperatures become excessive during ground operations in high ambient temperature conditions and in-flight under conditions of high speed and at altitudes below 25,000 feet.

As a result, during ground operations, fleet pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes prior to take-off when internal stores are loaded and the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. In flight, the 10-minute restriction also applies when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. Above 25,000 feet, there are no restrictions associated with the weapons bay doors being closed, regardless of temperature.

The time limits can be reset by flying 10 minutes outside of the restricted conditions (i.e., slower or at higher altitudes). This will require pilots to develop tactics to work around the restricted envelope; however, threat and/or weather conditions may make completing the mission difficult or impossible using the work around.

Page 44 - http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35_DOTE_2015.pdf

[Gman]

I don't disagree Vraciu, I was just pointing out the avionics/etc systems seem to be pretty straightforward, and fast/simple to use, which allows the pilots to work more quickly and efficiently.  Many pilots of the thing have said that this sensor fusion business and how the avionics and attack/defensive systems all work together does in fact work very well.

Heh, one thing you mentioned about the weapons, while watching the one video, seeing the part of the panel showing the weapons on board, with the two 1000lb class weapons and only 2 Aim120 icons there in green flashing, all I could think was "that's IT?!".  Only 2 weapons while in stealth/low observability configuration?

[Ack-Ack]

But the Marines also thought the F2A was just fine.   

Terrible example.   

[Zimme83]

Looks a bit like:
 

[Vraciu]

Terrible example.   

No, actually it is a perfect parallel. 

[Vraciu]

I don't disagree Vraciu, I was just pointing out the avionics/etc systems seem to be pretty straightforward, and fast/simple to use, which allows the pilots to work more quickly and efficiently.  Many pilots of the thing have said that this sensor fusion business and how the avionics and attack/defensive systems all work together does in fact work very well.

Heh, one thing you mentioned about the weapons, while watching the one video, seeing the part of the panel showing the weapons on board, with the two 1000lb class weapons and only 2 Aim120 icons there in green flashing, all I could think was "that's IT?!".  Only 2 weapons while in stealth/low observability configuration?

Yep.   That's it.  And they're trying to push air superiority on us with this?   It's laughable. 

[Vraciu]

I don't disagree Vraciu, I was just pointing out the avionics/etc systems seem to be pretty straightforward, and fast/simple to use, which allows the pilots to work more quickly and efficiently.  Many pilots of the thing have said that this sensor fusion business and how the avionics and attack/defensive systems all work together does in fact work very well.

Heh, one thing you mentioned about the weapons, while watching the one video, seeing the part of the panel showing the weapons on board, with the two 1000lb class weapons and only 2 Aim120 icons there in green flashing, all I could think was "that's IT?!".  Only 2 weapons while in stealth/low observability configuration?

Oh, yeah, on the avionics.  Definitely there is something to be said about this stuff.  We've had this technology in the civilian world for at least a decade (minus the military-specific stuff, obviously).   Mostly it is an improvement but sometimes it can be a hindrance.   So many options to get lost in.

I still can't help shaking my head at all this propaganda.   The Marine Hornet fleet is literally falling apart before our eyes.   The Corps is desperate to hold onto its VTOL fantasy (to the point it is costing lives).    Anyone who doesn't think there's a huge degree of political spin involved in these glowing reports is naive at best. 

Cheerio.

[Ack-Ack]

No, actually it is a perfect parallel.

It's really not.  The USMC did like the F2A-1, as it was a rather nimble aircraft that could turn as Boyington put it "in a phone booth" but considered the F2A-2 and F2A-3s as "flying coffins".  So as you see, your example isn't a perfect parallel at all, nor a good one to have used initially. 

[Vraciu]

It's really not.  The USMC did like the F2A-1, as it was a rather nimble aircraft that could turn as Boyington put it "in a phone booth" but considered the F2A-2 and F2A-3s as "flying coffins".  So as you see, your example isn't a perfect parallel at all, nor a good one to have used initially.

The point is the Marines felt the Buffalo was adequate to do a job which it later failed at miserably.   It was obsolete almost the day it was fielded and subsequent "upgrades" did nothing to change this reality.   The F-35 is identical in that regard, thus the comparison holds. 

[Randall172]

Let the engineers make the tools and the soldiers learn to use them.

use what the smart people tell you to use.

[Vraciu]

Let the engineers make the tools and the soldiers learn to use them.

use what the smart people tell you to use.

How about let the engineers make the tools the soldiers need?

Form should follow function.   Tactics should drive the equipment to be better (superior).  The equipment shouldn't drive the tactics to be worse (inferior).