Forum: General F-35 Forum

One of the offshoots of the Japanese competition was the revelation that the F-35 is pojected to enjoy a LER of 6:1 based on TAC BRAWLER simulations. In prior years, the LER was reported as 3:1.

Anyone familiar with TAC BRAWLER and who can explain how it works? How realistic is it and are the results borne out when they actually go out and recreate the training scenarios in the real world?

Are there more advanced or credible simulation tools available?

F-16.net Sponsor

Who performed the simulation? Military or civilians. We all now how Repsim's little simulation went based off APA's "guesses". LM seem to have some good simulation systems which seem to render the aircraft RCS and affact on radar return from all angles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAGZwHmq5OE

Watch from 0:45.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v& ... FTRRrVVkIA

I found the above link which goes into great detail about TAC BRAWLER. The bottom line seems to be that the pilot who is provided the greatest situational awareness will best deal with threats, accomplish his mission and come home alive. The F-35 seems to have been designed and built with the lessons learned from years of countless TB simulaions in mind.. State-of-the-art sensors suite, offboard data links, voice links , sensor fusion , HMD, panoramic display should give the F-35 pilot a serious edge over the competition.

Haven't seen nor heard what happened to code since AMRAAM and early F-22 program days (20 years).

At that time the physical models were very very good and complete. But input data from Wright-Pat was occasionally subjected to user modification to meet user expectations -- which may or may not have been correct. Wright-Pat foreign weapons systems divisions are obviously making modelling guesses, but at least official highly educated guesses. Not sure if final reports necessarily highlighted the modified nature of data actually used in studies and modified by staff pilots both to make proposed weapons look feasible and to meet their own prejudices about enemy systems.

An aspect of the TAC BRAWLER code itself at that time was a rather "strong-willed" and nearly deterministic AI designed to ultimately close in for dogfighting no matter what the situation. Actually a very good AI if you took into account that it was written in FORTRAN at that time and designed to represent elite pilots going to a dogfight under near optimal conditions. It took hundreds of runs to handpick a few score results where conflicts with dogfight tactics did not ruin the scenario.

Other compromising aspects of the system at that time were that sensor information was perfect (little EW or nature effects like weather). Also AI pilots tended to be instantly perfect at detection, evaluation and reaction -- or on rare statistical occasions totally oblivious. No simulation of cockpit tasks which might divide or divert attention from certain instruments or displays. Along that line the model supported no interfering ground threats. Nor was terrain masking implemented even statistically. Weather and night and day only effected instruments and the Mark One eyeball in a crude statistical way -- rather than tactical cloud objects and glinting sunlight or rocket exhaust light in the dark or black on black of tactical illuminated plane at night. It was always a clear but very high light overcast day in TAC BRAWLER at the end of the [Link pending approval] I understand that programs were underway to change that fast for flight simulators of that day.

It would be very interesting to know how TAC BRAWLER has changed since then - but fortunately I don't have a need to know. But I can see that maybe the dogfight mode still survives and twists results so that users are selective about how results are interpreted.

I can assure you that the flight maneuvers of our plane and our weapons are possible and accurate -- if not necessarily best choices. To a fairly high degree enemy planes fly correctly too if they have been observed at airshows.

But what is questionable about recreations is (1) newer enemy weapons performance where reliable sources have not captured weapons for analysis and use, not sat in cockpits, read operational nor manufacturing documents nor captured multiple combat or maneuvering drone uses -- and also (2) detection and reaction aspects are predetermined by simulation.

Recreations of simulations tend to spoil the game by telling you exactly where to look, when to look and and with what instruments. Recreations are not going be counted failed unless it turns out that you can almost never find target even with all those clues. Recreations also dictate how everyone [Link pending approval] after reports may suggest variations.

Thanks for your insights sillycoder. Given the proliferation and dependence on computerized simulations, one can only assume that the technology is doing what it is suppose to do in mirroring real life scenarios.. bottom line though is GIGO still rules.

Thanks for your insights sillycoder. Given the proliferation and dependence on computerized simulations, one can only assume that the technology is doing what it is suppose to do in mirroring real life scenarios.. bottom line though is GIGO still rules.

Okay, that's just bizarre, popcorn. I managed to load this page in between your double posts, so that I only saw the first one initially.

Caught popcorn mid conversation there did we count to 10? Wink

LOL! Hope you get that case of the stutters fixed soon popcorn!

FlightDreamz wrote:

Caught popcorn mid conversation there did we count to 10? Wink

LOL! Hope you get that case of the stutters fixed soon popcorn!

Thanks and apologies to one and all... very strange as it only happens on this site.. have deleted and reinstalled it, checked,all,my settings, etc. but nothing seems to work.. the maddening thing is like all good gremlins it does it's mischief intermittently making it harder to pin down.. Sad