Search found 448 matches: +constructive

Return to advanced search

  • Author
  • Message
lukfi

Re: F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

24 Jan 2020, 22:04

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Is this based on your personal experience maintaining aircraft or managing maintenance operations? I've seen aircraft parts that easily exceed the yearly wage of the maintainers working on them.

Yes, but those are not the spares you buy very often.

I am not an aircraft maintainer myself, but I have family members working in a company that does aircraft servicing, and I did a summer job there years ago (in administration, not working on the aircraft) where I saw some technical manuals for servicing some components of a Mil helicopter. While the parts for military aircraft are indeed expensive, the work is expensive too! Not only there's a lot of manual work with disassembly, cleaning, defectoscopy, assembly and testing of the components, before they can be installed back into the aircraft. There's also copious amounts of red tape, as not only the parts must have proper manufacturer certification, but also the company itself. It has to undergo regular audits and stick to sometimes inefficient administrative processes. Add to that the inefficiencies that come with being a state-owned company. The worker may not make that much money himself but overall there's a lot of people involved.

Now that we got that out the way, let's talk about the Gripen.

Saab is positioning it both as a more or less direct competitor to the F-16 Block 70 (e.g. for Philippines), but also in competitions against the F-35, like Canada or Finland. (Btw I never said the Gripen would be the best for Canada, I liked the Rafale better for them.) It can't match the F-35 on capabilities, it's not supposed to. It's touted as not the best, but "good enough" with lower cost. Thanks @ricnunes for the link with the $85M price. That was back in 2016, so maybe Saab would be able to go lower than that, but even at $75M that's not really a meaningful difference against the F-35A.

The only thing that can possibly redeem the Gripen is lower operational cost. It is often repeated that the F-35 is more expensive to fly than most jets and Gripen is cheap to fly. I do value constructive skepticism! So, is it true, or not?
XanderCrews wrote:F-35. This thing is gonna cost about 27000 dollars an hour to fly.
Gripen E. This thing is gonna cost about 27000 dollars and hour to fly.

The problem is, these two numbers are not comparable. The first is beyond wishful thinking at the moment, and the second, if I remember correctly, you said that's from Switzerland. You don't know how these numbers were calculated and what is included in them.

I tried to Google the Gripen's $27k figure but came up empty handed, can you provide the link? If this is the projected CPFH of the Gripen E, then I'm wondering if they also calculated the costs for the other participants (Rafale and EF Typhoon). That could give us an idea about how the Gripen compares. Without that, it's just a meaningless number. I can also give you some meaningless numbers, and (unlike you) I can provide links!

Let's look at the F-35 first. Numbers are supposedly for the A variant.
Code: Select all
https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/generational-conflict/

In early May, Vice Adm. Matt Winter, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, told a House subcommittee that the current flight-hour cost for the plane is $44,000. During the same hearing, Robert Daigle, director of the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office, said his office projects a cost of $29,000 per flight hour for the F-15EX.

Code: Select all
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/05/02/one-of-the-f-35s-cost-goals-may-be-unattainable/

“The department doesn’t see a path to get to $25,000 dollars per flying hour by FY25,” said Robert Daigle (…) Both CAPE and the F-35 Joint Program Office arrived at similar projections for the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant’s cost per flying hour in FY24, with CAPE estimating $36,000 per hour and the JPO pegging costs at $34,000 per hour, said Daigle


And now the Gripen. E/F is not in service yet but there are numbers from current C/D operators.
Code: Select all
https://www.flightglobal.com/saab-reveals-full-gripen-e-design-cost-savings/112646.article

The Swedish air force lists its current per-hour operating cost with the type as being around SKr48,000 ($7,560).

Code: Select all
https://www.flightglobal.com/paris-south-african-air-force-boosts-gripen-availability/124498.article

Mashaba says Gripen operating costs are between South African rand (R) 80,000 and R100,000 ($6,300-$7,800) per flying hour.

Even when looking at numbers from the same air force, the calculation is sometimes different. The following article is several years older, from 2013, so they may have pushed the cost down since then, but it seems more likely that fuel was not included in the above number. This link is also interesting because it offers comparison with a different aircraft, the BAe Hawk Mk. 120.
Code: Select all
https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/saaf-jets-arent-in-storage-says-general-1572829

Bayne said the “dry costs” (without fuel) for a Gripen were R104 600 per flying hour and fuel cost R30 800, giving a total “wet cost” of R135 400. Hawks fly at a dry cost of R67 500, with fuel costs of R15 400 and a total cost of R82 900.

SAAF is a relatively small air force (they have 26 Gripens) and don't fly them too much, so the cost per flight hour is probably higher than it could be. I don't know what exactly goes into the calculation but if I wanted to compare meaningless numbers as you like to do, the CPFH of the Gripen C/D is less than a third of what the F-35 is projected to be in 4 years.

The Gripen E/F is a heavier plane like you mentioned so that could mean maybe +20 % to the operating costs?

As for the SwAF Gripens vs. RNoAF F-16s: of course whoever you ask tells you they won :mrgreen: Gripen has a reputation for being very maneuverable (as all canards) so it's surprising an F-16 with its 1970s aerodynamics could outmaneuver it. Nevertheless, this is how Swedes tell the story:
Code: Select all
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-Swedish-fighter-Gripen-hold-up-against-the-American-fighters-the-French-Rafale-and-the-Eurofighter/answer/Stefan-Englund-%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%B3-%E3%82%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%AB%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89

Re: Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize AC

06 Dec 2019, 07:53

MORe ON SLATE. I'll assume the F-35 version will integrate inside the airframe and not have to use 'a pod' for gorsake.
Cubic seeks 2020 contract to integrate the F-35 with a cutting-edge training tool
04 Dec 2019 Valerie Insinna

"...The Air Force Research Laboratory aimed to create a technology suite that would allow the service to blend simulators and virtual elements with live training under the Secure Live, Virtual and Constructive Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) program.

In August and September 2018, the Air Force and Navy validated that it could take an F/A-18 Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle outfitted with that gear and run complex flight training scenarios where, for instance, an F-15E pilot flying with a wingman in a simulator could face off against live and virtual adversaries that emit the threat information of Chinese fighter jets or integrated air defenses.

“Over the course of three weeks [in August and September 2018], we flew multiple days, multiple exercises. We flew almost 100 sorties in support of the demonstration,” said Mike Knowles, the head of Cubic Global Defense, AFRL’s industry partner on the program. Knowles spoke with Defense News during the at the Interservice/Industry, Training, Simulation and Education Conference.

Now that SLATE’s technology demonstration phase has ended, the services are identifying their next steps, and Cubic is hoping for more work.

“Air Combat Command and the F-35 Joint program office are working to fund our division’s proposed look at SLATE capabilities integration with the F-35,” Dave Noah, Maj. Thomas Adams and Maj. Jason Lingle, who work in AFRL’s Continuous Learning and Program Assessment division, wrote in the lab’s fall 2019 magazine.

The Navy, meanwhile, is interested in holding additional demonstrations with the SLATE technology at Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada, Knowles said. “We’ll see some experiments with the Navy take place this summer and into the fall," he said. "A fifth-gen study on the application of LVC for the F-35, I suspect we’ll see that start this [coming] year also.” [more about SLATE]…

...The SLATE’s 5GATW waveform and security architecture were formulated with fifth-generation aircraft in mind, so the F-35 can use the SLATE pod without needing additional data safeguards. The challenge is integrating the technology with the F-35’s more advanced sensor fusion system, Knowles said.

“On the F-15 and F/A-18 — fourth-generation [jets] — Boeing helped in working the integration between the SLATE pod and the sensor fusion in the aircraft,” he said. “The F-35, given its capabilities are significantly more than a fourth-generation aircraft, the sensor fusion is significantly more complex...."

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... ning-tool/
spazsinbad

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

20 Apr 2019, 11:36

There is always MORE: search.php?keywords=Live%2BVirtual%2BConstructive&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

Using ADVANCED SEARCH (top of page) with the search text string Live+Virtual+Constructive then search the F-35 sub forum with ALL AVAILABLE text one will get the URL above with some 112 hits on eight pages.
falcon.16

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

20 Apr 2019, 11:20

zerion wrote:Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021


Thanks. :thumb:

I am going to read it.
zerion

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

20 Apr 2019, 00:48

Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021
spazsinbad

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

aussiebloke

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

13 Mar 2019, 15:31

spazsinbad wrote:Was there NOT a story about 'RED FLAG' simulated radars NOT being realistic threats for the F-35? Upgrades needed - no?


Upgrades are underway:

The Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) began accepting Radar Signal Emulators in late CY16 to support the DOT&E-initiated Electronic Warfare Infrastructure Improvement Program (EWIIP). As of October 10, 2018, 9 of 16 emulators had been accepted on the NTTR and had been used to conduct integration testing with the F-35 and other range test assets.- The RSEs will be used to provide operationally realistic threat laydowns for use in F-35 IOT&E.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY ... f35jsf.pdf

Completed system development and initiated production for the Radar Signal Emulators to provide open-loop, transmit-onlysystems that will accurately emit waveforms of threat radar systems operating in the C and S radio frequency (RF) bands.Delivered 8 of 16 Radar Signal Emulators at the Nellis AFB Test and Training Range, NV and initiated site acceptance testing.Continued production of the remaining 9 Radar Signal Emulators.

https://apps.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2 ... B_2019.pdf

The Air Force Warfare Center is developing a strategic plan to guide investment in capabilities toallow the NTTR to more accurately replicate current threat environments of our new defense posture.The Air Force is supporting these efforts through collaboration with the DoDand the Department of the Navy to develop and field the Advanced Radar Threat System version 1 (ARTS1) and Advanced Radar Threat System version 2 (ARTS2). These systems provide a more realistic training environment because they will close the gap between our current and required threat simulation capabilities.-This development effort (also known as the Electronic Warfare Infrastructure Improvement Program (EWIIP)) uses a significant portion of the approximately $550 million effort to develop and field 25 open air range threat simulators representative of advanced threat systems in the Western Pacific Region.

http://www.nttrleis.com/documents/revie ... an2014.pdf

Lockheed Martin will build the ARTS-V2 to provide threat-representative radar tracking and reaction such as acquiring, tracking, and engaging several aircraft simultaneously with representative receiver, processor, and electronic counter-countermeasures.
The system will emulate advanced anti-aircraft missile radiated power, threat signals, antenna patterns, operational modes, and threat tactics, and can send real-time radar data to the Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS)-controlled threat environment at the Range Control Center (RCC). ARTS-V2 will provide multi-spectral threat representation.
The ARTS-V2 is part of the overall Advanced Radar Threat System (ARTS) project to develop and field high-fidelity threat phased array radar for live, virtual, constructive aircrew training for anti-access and area-denial environments.
ARTS will provide the advanced capabilities necessary to train aircrews in the employment of F-35 aircraft against foreign fielded live double-digit surface-to-air missile threat systems. The program consists of the strategic long-range ARTS-V1 and the tactical short-range ARTS-V2 systems. The solicitation for the ARTS-V1 system was released in January.

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/artic ... siles.html
optimist

Re: F-35A at Red Flag 19-1

09 Mar 2019, 04:02

The truth is, the main stuff is done in very expensive battle sims, like Brawler, Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar . They add man in the loop for a bit more fun. The red flag training exercise is just that, a training exercise.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/do ... 70/0000%22
Gary Liberson, who is on his right, has 22 years of experience as an operations analyst and research engineer
with McDonnell Douglas, the RAND Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He has extensive
experience with combat analysis, methodologies and analysis techniques. He is considered an expert in Brawler,
Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar constructive simulation tools. His areas of expertise include combat
aircraft systems and tactics as well as advanced threat analysis.
maro.kyo

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

01 Mar 2019, 17:17

steve2267 wrote:
maro.kyo wrote:Yet another reply in which you argue what that is basically the same opinion as to mine. Are you doing so on purpose?
Didn't I just say that :
1) I'm skeptical towards the positive commercial outcome of the KF-X overseas
2) The possibility of it being a better deal than a legacy fighter like SH is going to be unlikely
3) Those possibilities largely depend on when the production of legacy fighters will end

Now if you're going to post yet another reply which basically draws the same line in a same direction to what I say, I can say nothing else but that it defeats the whole point of discussing something. Its very unproductive to argue the same thing just written in a slightly different manner don't you think?



Yes, I agree. Evidently I did not think we were on the same page. My most humble apologies.


It's not a big deal as long as we can stay in peace and have a constructive discussion :wink:
My posts are quite long as well, and I acknowledge that my English skills are still lacking.
Also knowing what those Su-57, TF-X and AMCA fanboys have done, I guess the whole forum is a bit under stress regarding any kind of new aircraft development program.
spazsinbad

Re: UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

01 Mar 2019, 10:56

What'll THEY think of next: THE MUDDLE CONTINUES - OR Perhaps NOT - depends on so many rumours/misunderstandings.
MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed
01 Mar 2019 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"On 28 February, Robert Courts MP led a Parliamentary debate held in Westminster Hall to “consider carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence”. Here we look at the highlights of this constructive two and a half hour discussion held by a small cross-party group of MPs.

During the speeches, Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, a dedicated advocate for the navy, asked the Minister for reassurance that recent “rumours emanating from Treasury sources about plans to mothball or sell HMS Prince of Wales” were unfounded. Speaking at the end of the debate, the Armed Forces Minister, Mark Lancaster did not reply directly to the question, although continued to describe the ongoing delivery of the QEC carrier project on track as expected. Anne-Marie Trevelyan is well connected to Treasury officials as a member of the Commons Public Accounts Committee but there is no way to verify this story further at this stage.... [it begins - ever wonder why RAF want F-35As? Only one CVF?]

...In refreshing contrast to so much of what goes on in Westminster, this debate was conducted by participants who knew their subject and was held in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation across party lines. The MPs involved should be commended and let us hope their influence on policy can outweigh their small numbers...."

Source: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/


"Carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence" - Westminster Hall debate https://www.youtube.com/v=9KODuYVgn6Y

Re: Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize AC

24 Jan 2019, 23:40

Incredible achievement, Kudos to all involved. Should save a ton of gas and wear and tear in the process.

Re: Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize AC

24 Jan 2019, 22:32

More on JSE Joint Simulation Environment:
Joint Simulation Environment inches closer to reality
24 Jan 2018 Giancarlo Casem, 412th Test Wing Public Affairs

"EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The 412th Electronic Warfare Group is one step closer to bringing the Joint Simulation Environment to life at Edwards Air Force Base. The 412th EWG recently began work to pave the way for ultimately building a new facility to house the JSE. JSE is a scalable, expandable, high fidelity government-owned, non-proprietary modeling and simulation environment to conduct testing on fifth-plus generation aircraft and systems accreditable for test as a supplement to open-air testing.

The 72,139 square foot JSE facility planned for Edwards AFB is actually one of two, the other will be constructed at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. As part of the construction efforts, the 412th EWG is also looking to hire more than 100 new personnel between both facilities -- primarily engineers with software skillsets.

The Edwards AFB facility will focus on developmental testing while the 50,967 square foot Nellis AFB facility will focus on operational testing. However, both facilities will be built with similar hardware and software configurations so both buildings will be able to augment each other’s capabilities, said Humberto Blanco, JSE project manager. The JSE facility is also being designed with that flexibility in mind.

While construction for the JSE is still months away, the 412th EWG is already ensuring that when it comes online, “growing pains” will be as minimal as possible.

“One of the things we realized was that in order for our people to become trained and get familiar with the system, its capabilities and participate in the development; it required us to develop an in-house instantiation of what’s happening at Pax River (Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland) as well as at SIMAF (U.S. Air Force Simulation and Analysis Facility),” said Blanco. “Those two facilities have limited JSE capabilities, so we advocated for, and received funding to instantiate those capabilities here.”

Construction crews are reconfiguring simulator and computer systems inside building 1020 at Edwards AFB, to make room for a small-scale JSE system that 412th EWG engineers can utilize to ensure all systems are operational and internal issues are rectified before the actual JSE facility is finished. Having a small-scale instantiation of the larger facility also allows 412th EWG customers to concurrently utilize the facilities without service interruptions, Blanco said.

“It will allow us to bring JSE simulators online and begin to experiment and to learn,” Blanco said.

The reconfiguring inside building 1020 will afford software engineers the time to be familiar with the incoming systems, which will benefit customers, said Gerald Lockwood, Modeling and Simulation flight chief.

“The coders have to really touch and see how to integrate these systems. We’re building products for it so we can develop, compile, test and get feedback on issues,” Lockwood said. “There’s so many components. It’s going to be a large battlespace in an interactive environment.”

The overall goal of the JSE is to allow the testers and engineers the capability to test multiple platforms during the developmental and operational testing phases of a platform.

“We’ve been asked to develop a high-fidelity modeling and simulation environment for initially the F-35 (Lightning II) and F-22 (Raptor) that will allow us to test aircraft in ways that we’re currently unable to test,” Blanco said. “So the environment will encompass things like weather, terrain, multiple other platforms and air and ground threats.”

“The JSE is one of my favorite projects because in terms of initial pay off, it’s just a few short years down the road,” said Brig. Gen. Christopher Azzano, Air Force Test Center commander. “We’re going to use the F-35 as the threshold platform to help prove the concept, but the long term potential of JSE is huge when you consider you can integrate virtual and constructive elements with live and open-air capability in a way that creates an environment that we can no longer build or replicate strictly with open-air resources.” [LVC LIVE VIRTUAL CONSTRUCTIVE]

Azzano said that he foresees the JSE becoming a step in the testing and developing of Air Force platforms in the future and that, in just a short time, AFTC customers will see its value.

“It’s really exciting because we can replicate the environment that our systems and warfighters might see in a dense threat environment somewhere around the globe. And we can replicate that for verification and validation that goes along with test and evaluation, and we can do it for training too,” Azzano said. “I really think we’re just barely scratching the surface on the pay off and the potential of JSE, and with the right vision I think we’ll get there, it’s going to take some time and a lot of investment, but it is a hugely important program.”

While the groundbreaking for both facilities is not scheduled until May 2020, Blanco said that when the buildings do come online, his team will be ready.

“Instead of waiting until the buildings are finished, we are developing these lab integrations here, so when the buildings are finished, we can hit the ground running,” Blanco said. “It’s very exciting times for the Air Force and the modeling and simulations community. I tell people on the outside that this is going to be the best video game ever.”"

Graphic: "An artist's rendering showcases the planned 72,139 square foot Joint Simulation Environment facility. JSE is a scalable, expandable high-fidelity, government-owned, non-proprietary modeling and simulation environment to conduct testing on fifth generation aircraft and systems accreditable for test as supplement to open-air testing. (U.S. Air Force graphic illustration courtesy of 412th Electronic Warfare Group)" https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/15/2 ... 3-1002.JPG (150Kb)


Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... o-reality/

Re: Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

24 Jan 2019, 20:49

mixelflick wrote:If we're talking about a paradigm shift to primarily BVR air to air combat, how is that served by flying Alpha jets, KFIR's, F-5's and A-4's? Further, can any of these aircraft come close to simulating the BVR capabilities of an SU-35, J-10 or a J-20? Because those are the worst case scenario confronting our pilots, and it would make sense to train for worst case - in jiu jitsu to air to air combat....

'ricnunes' has provided a good reply whilst not mentioning LVC which was not mentioned in the 6 page PDF above because the article was about ADAIR. LVC is LIVE VIRTUAL CONSTRUCTIVE which now 'ricnunes' has explained in his own way. There are threads in this forum about LVC so search is your friend however one may find that difficult with only three letters. So using LVC* does not get many hits one may use 'constructive' or combinations of words for a lot more. This is one example:
"...The LVC demonstration included:
A live Aero L-29 jet trainer with the JSAS equipment onboard, emulating a 5th-Gen F-35 fighter, operated by the University of Iowa Operator Performance Lab (OPL) in Iowa

• A virtual F/A-18 4th-Gen aircraft simulator, operating as the wingman for the Aero L-29 pilot, at the Rockwell Collins Advanced Technology Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa..." viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15611&p=291473&hilit=LVC%2A#p291473

A thread in this sub-forum about LVC: Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize ACM
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021&start=60&hilit=LVC%2A

Recent upgrade to SECURE LVC - SLATE: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19021&p=408480&hilit=unobtanium#p408480

436 CONSTRUCTIVE word hits: search.php?keywords=constructive&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=65&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=-1&t=0&submit=Search

Why this one here I dunno (brit requirement I guess but still applicable in a broad sense) youse use SEARCH at your own peril: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=398121&hilit=constructive#p398121

Re: Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and St

07 Jan 2019, 15:10

[quote="garrya"]Btw where did you got the number for this table:
Capture.PNG


That table is certainly one of the places where I am looking for and welcome proof of corrections. What I did was develop a formula to taking AESA antenna size and technological sophistication and calibrate that against claims of the F-22s radar performance. Antenna sizes were either module counts from images or estimates from hornetfinn. Between hornetfinn's posts and your blog I gathered that the features that allow a radar to get the most range for a given size/power are some of the same features that improve resistance to ECM. The only numbers in that table that have an actual reference are the F-22 and the Su-35S.

About your excellent constructive criticism on jamming effects, I will PM you so that the thread is not bogged down by a one-on-one.

Re: Live Virtual Constructive technology to revolutionize AC

04 Jan 2019, 02:08

Services Declare Breakthrough in LVC Training
02 Jan 2019 Stew Magnuson

"ORLANDO, Fla. — Air Force and Navy officials are declaring success for a joint technology demonstration that tied jet fighters in the air with pilots operating simulators on the ground, who could all fly against computer-generated adversaries. A final report on the Secure LVC (live-virtual-constructive) Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) demonstration was due at the end of December, but organizers a month earlier said that the exercise went better than expected.

“We’re not supposed to say that it was a very successful technology demonstration — that’s supposed to come from our senior leaders — but it was a very successful technology demonstration,” said Wink Bennett, SLATE research lead at the Air Force Research Laboratory. “It was beyond our wildest hopes,” he added.

A team lead by the Air Force’s 711th Human Performance Wing of the Airman Systems Directorate, Warfighter Readiness Research Division took more than four years to set up the exercise. The demonstration then took place over an eight-month period at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. This was created out of “unobtanium.” It had never been done before, said David Noah, AFRL’s program lead for the demonstration.

To make live-virtual-constructive training a reality, the team had to develop several key technologies.

One was the fifth-generation advanced training waveform (5G-ATW) developed by the MIT Lincoln Laboratory to serve as the datalink. In addition to the new waveform, the training system was served by Link-16 and UHF/VHF voice communications.

The second hurdle was ensuring that all three links were cyber secure and encrypted. The aircraft also carried a SLATE pod that contained the necessary software and allowed for “untethered” operations.

“Tethered” training used the 5G-ATW to connect to a ground station, where pilots could operate simulators and take part in the exercise virtually. That also allowed for more robust scenarios with an almost unlimited number of enemy aircraft or surface-to-air missile sites. [BEST TO READ IT ALL because 'tethered' / 'untethered' (lost in space) explained]…

...“There is an incredible capability that we demonstrated in untethered ops during SLATE,” Noah said. A pilot could start out operating as an F-15 Eagle, then switch over to be part of the red team and fly as a member of an enemy formation: “You can change it literally on the fly: it was gorgeous.”

The exercise used F-15s, F-16s and Navy F/A-18s. Next will be creating links for fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. That will be challenging, but doable, the organizers said.

“That is yet to be solved, and it is a horse of a different color, but we have a plan to go fix that,” Bennett said.

The underlying technology is platform agnostic, Noah said. It could work on other types of aircraft, ships or space systems."

JPG: Photo: Air Force http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... AAF7E005D7

Source: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... c-training
Next

Return to advanced search