Search found 134 matches: +mission +data +files

Return to advanced search

  • Author
  • Message

Re: Towed Decoys

10 Jun 2019, 09:45

Dragon029 wrote:
taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.

So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Yep. I made a big error in haste. The CHAFF & FLARES are in a mixed container: [I'll add a 26 page PDF about stuff]

RIGHT NOW & recently was a busy time for me so I still cannot see the images posted by 'taog' (but I can see them by following the URLs) that was not helpful for the conversation. Anyway this is the chaff/flare bucket DRAGON refers.

OK NOW I see the three 'taog' images - they have just appeared because I looked at them separately so now they are in my internet explorer 11 cache but I STILL do not see them in EDGE or Firefox (because I have not looked at them separately there). This gets tiresome to explain. Some websites do not allow 'hot linking' so images do not appear for others to view. ... 015_16.pdf

Re: Towed Decoys

10 Jun 2019, 08:28

taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.

So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

27 May 2019, 16:12

U.S. Navy To Adapt EA-18G To Future Of Agile Emitters [LOTS of words NOT excerpted below so best - you know]
21 May 2019 Steve Trimble
» Waveform-hopping radars drive EA-18G upgrades
» Requirements emerge for low-band receiver and machine-learning
» Navy plan does not include new aircraft production

"...the EA-18G could soon face adversary radars that have capabilities far beyond anything experienced by the EA-6B in its four-decade career. The threat is posed by a new breed of radars that can sense the presence of the EA-18G’s jammers and adapt. By shifting to different waveforms and signal-processing techniques, it may be possible to mitigate the transmission interference caused by the EA-18G’s jammers. In keeping with the cat-and-mouse game of electronic combat, the latest countermeasure swiftly inspires a response.... [then stuff about 'DASH X']

...In the final appropriations bill for fiscal 2019, lawmakers slipped in an extra $95.3 million for the EA-18G, with the directive to transition a small but critical science and technology program launched by the Office of Naval Research five years earlier into operational service. This “Cognitive Electronic Warfare capability” would be identified in the Navy’s latest budget justification documents released in March as the official “start to EA-18G [Block] II modernization.”

“It is about adaptive and distributed processing, with big computers to process and react to the threats,” Tebo says. “All of this is accomplished through software-defined radios that are enabled through a flexible and adaptable hardware architecture. That not only gives the Navy step-function capability now, it allows us to continue to evolve the capability.”

The full details of the EA-18G Block II configuration are still being defined.... But the broad outlines of the upgrades are already clear: improved sensors feeding data to new processors that are running software with machine-learning algorithms to produce adaptive techniques for the previously announced Next-Generation Jammers now in development. Underlying the upgrades specifically for the EA-18G are a host of improvements that are in development for the F/A-18E/F Block III. These include new 10 X 19-in. large area displays in cockpit stations as well as conformal fuel tanks.... [then a lot of stuff with acronyms galore - best read it all with sauce]

...Instead of the original plan to buy 90 aircraft to support the Navy’s carrier air wings alone, the Navy bought 160 to also support the land-based airborne electronic-attack mission abandoned by the Air Force.

So far, the Navy has no interest in buying any more aircraft, Tebo says. The EA-18G Block II strategy calls for retrofitting either a portion or all of the 160 aircraft that will be delivered by July. Of course, Boeing is open to selling more EA-18Gs to the Navy if the opportunity arises. “The design [of the upgrade package] is not precluding new production,” Tebo says.

As one of the Navy’s youngest fleets—the average service life remaining on 156 aircraft delivered through March 2019 was 5,886 flight hours, according to the Navy—the EA-18G is unlikely to require the service-life extension program mandated for the F/A-18E/F fleet, although an assessment is still ongoing, Tebo adds.

But it is also not clear how long the EA-18G will fit into the Navy’s fleet. An influential study released earlier this year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies called for replacing the EA-18G in the carrier air wing within 20 years. “Its reliance on stand-off effects from outside the range of enemy air defenses is likely unsustainable in the face of improving passive sensors and the increasing range of surface-to-air missiles,” the CSBA report concluded. The think tank recommended transferring the EA-18G’s mission system to a future UCAV."

Graphic: "Boeing’s concept image of the EA-18G Block II pictures new conformal fuel tanks inherited from the F/A-18E/F Block III development program, but the Navy’s requirements also include a new dedicated receiver and Next-Generation Jammer pods. Credit: Boeing" ... Boeing.jpg

Source: ... e-emitters

Re: The Turkey problem

14 May 2019, 01:32

Israel makes a black box for their API and I believe their ADIRs will be manufactured especially for it (not first examples).
Two page ADIR PDF with article excerpt here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=29374&p=360880&hilit=Adir+interface#p360880

F-35i ADIR Israel Flight International 24-30 Jan 2017 pp2 .pdf (1.55Mb) download/file.php?id=24124

ALSO ADIR interface: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=30787&p=321972&hilit=Adir+interface#p321972

Original post below is here: search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=mission+data+files&fid%5B%5D=65&ch=-1
12 May 2016 JPO PR

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- The 53rd Wing activated on May 11 the F-35 Partner Support Complex, a U.S.-owned facility here that handles F-35 Lightning II testing. Robert Kraus assumed the new position as the complex’s director, making it the first civilian-led unit in the wing. Kraus, a retired lieutenant colonel, served as the 68th Electronic Warfare Squadron commander and 53rd Electronic Warfare Group deputy commander at Eglin Air Force Base prior to this new position.

The F-35 PSC is charged with providing mission data, intelligence support, lab facilities and training to the eight partner countries purchasing the fifth-generation aircraft.

"The growth of the PSC will relieve that pressure, as well as ensure our coalition partners are ready to participate in any future operations," Kraus said. The partner countries include: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Turkey. These countries provided critical design input and funding during the early stages of the F-35 program, which differs from foreign military sales customers. "The PSC will directly support the partners, who currently have no indigenous capability to create mission data for the F-35," Kraus said.

The complex will interact with mission data programmers and data analysts from the partner nations. According to Kraus, one of the key projects for the unit is to support the partners in the creation of two separate hardware in the loop testing facilities -- only one currently exists. The F-35 PSC started as a small team within the 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron at Eglin AFB, which provides F-35 mission data files to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The team staffs 24 civilian employees and contractors, with plans to grow to about 100 personnel. The new unit will report to the 53rd EWG.

While the mission of the complex has been ongoing for nearly five years, Kraus sees the formalization of the unit as a step forward. "The formal activation of the unit will give me a greater ability to support the partners in their efforts," he said. "(I can now) elevate the partner support functions to an equal level with U.S. squadrons, as opposed to a subordinate role."

Plans are in the works for two separate buildings to hold the new unit and partner nation personnel. This includes the Australia/Canada/United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory [ACURL] building and the Norway/Italy Reprogramming Laboratory building. Additional support will be provided to Denmark, the Netherlands and Turkey."

Source: (130Kb)

Re: The Turkey problem

13 May 2019, 23:50

That particular issue is not related to the "code" of the F-35. That information is stored in the "Threat Libraries" (ie Mission Data Files) that Turkey and all other Partners will maintain at US based MDF Reprogramming sites.

The other main reason to have the codes is to integrate you own weapons. The F-35 handles this by adding UAI to the Block 4 Upgrade. Even Turkey accepted this and is integrating the SOM-J via the UAI interface. Future versions of UAI and other APIs like it, will allow for pods (EW, RECCE, etc) to be integrated with little effort.

The only other API that is applicable at this time but is rarely reported on (unsurprising) is the API that allows Parters to run an "app" on the F-35's computer without having to need to know the codes. Israel is the first with this and will add their C4 app without changing any hardware on the F-35.

Re: F-35 program updates

04 Apr 2019, 03:04

Vago had a program update interview with Winter:

Major take-aways:

1. ALIS 3.0 reduced false alarms in the fleet by "up to" 70%, but there's still issues that need working through.
2. Mission Data Files and Full Mission Simulators have been updated.
3. >390 F-35s have been delivered worldwide to 18 bases and 2 ships.
4. Approx "70%" of all partner and FMS services have delcared IOC (3 US services, UK, Italy, Japan, Israel [I might be missing one or two others]).
5. 131 jets planned to be delivered in CY19, 167 planned for delivery in CY21.
6. F-35 flight operations (as per sustainment plans) are now expected to run until 2077, not 2070.
7. Winter has some concern about cost performance matching volume ramp, but isn't concerned about ramp rate being diminished, etc, especially with new FMS customers coming aboard.
8. CPFH in CY18 for an F-35A was $44K/hr, F-35B was $51K/hr, F-35C was $59K/hr (full ownership CPFH).
9. Winter believes they are on track for an F-35A (full ownership) CPFH to reach $25K/hr by 2025.
10. CPFH reduction will be driven by depot component repair times going from 190-200 days (today) to 45 days by 2025; increased reliability of later-lot F-35s; and also reduced manpower requirements due to airframe and ALIS improvements.
11. Lot 12 is being negotitated, Lot 13 will follow on its heels, Lot 14 negotiations are expected to begin in FY20 (but before the end of CY19 according to Winter).
12. Winter himself has not been involved in any USAF / USN 6th gen acquisition planning discussions, but says he has JPO engineers and ops analysts involved, and thinks F-35 DNA in the form of tech and business lessons learned will be folded into those programs.

Re: VMFA-121 Green Knights 2017

01 Apr 2019, 13:44

Good to see them flying around the SCS, showing its presence and sucking up regional ELINT and SIGINT to fine tune its mission data files.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

27 Feb 2019, 01:07

I can't say that I've followed this thread super closely... but... what is your issue?

If Korea want's to spend Korean money on a Korean fighter jet...great! Just don't expect to come up with an aircraft that rivals the F-35. And don't expect America to give, or even to sell, Korea F-35 technology. America spent a small fortune developing that technology. It's her national treasure, in a manner of speaking.

Perhaps people here dismissed the KF-X program because the initial images seemed to suggest Korea was trying to create a knock-off clone of the F-35, as the aircraft outer mold lines were compared side by side.

You have already stated that the KF-X is targeting $80M each. Almost invariably, costs grow. So that $80M each is almost sure to increase. So Korea will be potentially getting an aircraft with perhaps the performance of a Gripen, maybe a Rafale, for the cost which is higher than an F-35A, without the benefits of full sensor fusion, mission data files, phenomenal situational awareness, EW capabilities second to none, and super small VLO numbers. But if that is how Korea wants to spend her money... then by all means, have at it.

Just don't expect F-35 performance out of it. (I mean, it is theoretically possible, but the F-35 has been under development for going on 20 years, so I don't see a nation duplicating that level of industrial effort in a short time span, EVEN IF studies have been ongoing for a while now.)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

31 Jan 2019, 00:59

In answer to my own evaluation objectives, it was obvious the Rafale has earned its omnirole definition, even though I barely scratched the surface of its sensor and weapon capabilities. The aircraft has an incredible level of performance befitting a fourth-generation type, and despite flying a highly complex and demanding evaluation sortie, I felt completely at home in the aircraft and retained full situational awareness. If it could keep me safe, it would also do the same for young first-tourist pilots coping with tactical operations.

The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe's force-multiplying "war-fighter" par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale. ... le-334383/

Rarely (not witnessed at any time during our evaluations) would the pilot ever be unaware of the environment within the 360º “bubble” surrounding the aircraft.

The heart of this data fusion is the MDPU - Processing Unit Data Modules that com-prises 19 LRUs (flight-line replaceable units), each providing a processing capacity up to 50 times greater than the previous generation of fighters. Translation: The pilot has a reduced workload, which enables him to act like a real tactical decision maker, rather than a mere sensor operator.

The key point of this data fusion is to overcome the limitations of any one particular sensor. For example, if it relies on waveforms, frequency, or infrared imaging, and the angle, distance, altitude, weather conditions or even a malfunction pose a limita-tion; other components supplement the formation of the big picture, situationally. The MDPU collects consolidated data from different sources based on various technologies, complementing, organizing and providing information through symbolism refined, reliable and unified.

Among other sensors, the combination of AESA radar with FSO - Front Sector Optronics, embedded in the nose, at the factory - developed by Thales and Sagem for the Rafale - made me feel very comfortable, especially for attesting that the rules of engagement could be easily followed, in terms of friend or foe clear ID. I was al-ways confident in identifying targets to be attacked in the air, on the ground or at sea, thanks to the automatic search and tracking integrated multi-sensor suite. Besides enabling us to execute the mission accurately, Rafale also gave us the ability to document, record, and evaluate, as a Recon.
During our assessments, we performed BVR and WVR engagements with the Mirage 2000 C RDI (analyzed in more detail in Part 3 of this test), where we had the opportunity to confirm the combination of the sensibility of SPECTRA EW with the all-aspect launching and target acquisition of MICA IR. This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invad-ed, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.” Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o’clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction. ... fference-/

Among all the three NFA candidates, the Rafale was the aircraft which demonstrated the best effectiveness and suitability in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air missions, Recce and Strike missions. In addition, the Rafale made the best impression to the pilots. The strong points of the Rafale was the quality of its sensors such as the PESA radar, the Frontal Optronics and the EW suite SPECTRA. The good data fusion of all its sensors allowed to provide to the pilot a very good Situational Awareness.
(Since then, the PESA radar has been replaced by a much improved AESA; the frontal Optronics has been strongly improved, SPECTRA has been improved and enhanced, and the sensor fusion has been improved further).

Of course all this does not make the Rafale a 5. gen fighter -- however it does mean that it is a very good 4.5 fighter, and sneaking up on the Rafale will be much harder than sneaking up on a Mirage 2000, Gripen C, or a F-16 block 50/52...

The J-20 is very far from having the capabilities of a true 5. gen fighter like the F-35. It is not only the IAF that is making such statements...

Re: GAO Report on F-35 FoM (ie Block 4 and forward)

26 Dec 2018, 07:23

marauder2048 wrote:JSM has a warhead only slightly larger than SDB I and less signature reduction than JASSM.

Battlefield obscurants + dynamic threat laydowns are going to require some form of rerouting,
loitering and aimpoint refinement. Along with the moving/relocatable targets you mentioned.

Your information is incorrect.

JSM is firstly an anti-ship missile, LAM is secondary (which JSM Brochure text makes clear) and according to its developer JSM has a "500 lb class" warhead (by which they presumably refer to the effects).

Most GBU-39 SDB versions contain just 16.8 kg of explosives with one high energy version that has 62.1 kg of explosive (widely reported to approximate a 500lb GBU in energy). While JSM has a 120 kg warhead that contains 100 kg of explosive (an entire SDB weighs only 129 kg, btw) but with a light-weight but strong titanium tamper to maximize blast pressure before rupture/frag. Checkout the scale of the explosion within the JSM brochure if you doubt its energy level and effects.

Thus the JSM warhead actually has about 6 times the explosive power of a typical GBU-39 SDB

i.e. 100 kg / 16.8 kg = 5.95 times more explosives in the JSM warhead.

As you'd expect from an effective anti-ship missile with secondary land target attack capabilities (Same as NSM in that respect, but reportedly the JSM has a larger frag warhead than the NSM does).

“… Key JSM Missile Attributes Range >300 nm high, high, low profile >100 nm low, low, low profile Avionics 2-way datalink Thermal management system for F-35 internal bay conditions Propulsion Throttle modulates to achieve desired TOT > 1:1 thrust to wt in end-game Airframe Carrier suitable reqmt Lugs stow after launch Seeker Seeker stablized on horizon Dimensions Length 157 in Weight 887 lbs Fits inside F-35A/C weapons bay CVN recoverable load 13 March 2014 Page 1 …” ... ar-14.html

From Klonsberg itself though:


The JSM warhead effect is given by three main elements; warhead size, warhead fuze and target hitpoint. The JSM has selectable aim point in the target and has proven to hit the target very precisely. This capability enables selection of controlled destruction effect, ranging from maximum damage to controlled/minimum damage. Terminal accuracy has been demonstrated to less than 2 feet (distance between aim point and actual hit point).

The JSM has a 500lbs class warhead with a gross weight of 120 kg and explosive weight of 100 kg (TNT equivalent). The warhead is a combined blast (primary effect) and fragmentation (secondary effect) warhead with insensitive High Explosive (HE) charge). The warhead casing is made of titanium alloy with a steel-grid for fragmentation effect.

The picture below shows the warhead effect from a test fring against a Norwegian frigate. The fuze is programmable with customdesigned fuze programs down-loaded prior to launch.

The warhead is insensitive munition Certified.

Targeting Selectivity
The JSM features sophisticated target acquisition with Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR) facilitated by an imaging infrared seeker. Advanced recognition algorithms provide capability to identify targets to ship class and prevent attack of white/neutral shipping. There is a 100% confidence in separation of “white” and “red” shipping.

The JSM mission planning system incorporates a national database with a library of potential targets. A sub-set of the target library is down-loaded to the JSM prior to launch.

For each target class in the database there will be a set of recognition characteristics, a default aim point position together with a corresponding warhead fuze profle, and default missile end-game tactics.

Prior to launch, the operator may inspect and modify the end-game tactics and aim point.

Kongsberg will provide customers with a software application package and training for target library development.

Platform integration
JSM fts into the internal weapons bay of the F-35 A and C versions. JSM can also be carried on external stations on F-35, F-16, F/A-18 and F-15.

Air system Integration
JSM accommodates modern standards for integration to fast jets. The datalink design provides for interoperability with current and future network concepts. JSM being based on a fire and forget concept is robust against variations in data link connectivity.

The JSM is designed for a long operational life. An extensive blT test is easily performed at user level. The ILS concept is based on a minimum of maintenance and maximum use of standard equipment.

JSM Key Characteristics
Length : 4.00 m (157 in)
Height : 0.52 m (20.4 in)
Width : 0.48 m (18.9 in) (stowed)
Mass : 416kg (917 lbs)
Speed : High Subsonic
Agility : High

Inertial Navigation, aided by GPS and TERCOM.
Imaging Infra-Red Target Seeker” ... kemissile/ ... duced.ashx

I've seen nothing that suggests it will have lesser low-observable optimization than JASSM. That would seem to be a conjecture, and most probably incorrect, given the missile is firstly design optimized to deploy from a stealth-fighter and specifically to evade being shot down by layered missile and CIWS.

Re: Air Force Develops Threat Data Base for F-35

10 Dec 2018, 11:35

"War in the 21st century runs on data, a lot of it in the case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Mission Data Files that inform F-35 deployments and missions can take up to 18 months to compile, bringing in info on everything from enemy radar and anti-aircraft missiles to waveforms and cyber weapons. Now the Pentagon has hired a California company to shrink that compilation time to just one month, using artificial intelligence." ... er/153338/

Re: F-35 versus DEW equipped jumbo jet

07 Dec 2018, 09:56

nathan77 wrote:While the acquisition radar is mid-plane, do you know if it's a sweeping or fixed radar?

I don’t know for sure, but let assume it is an AESA on a steering platform similar to what available on E-3
nathan77 wrote:Without atmospheric conditions which can help disburse laser (i.e. cloud), I would still attack from a low altitude (make the sensors work to pick me out from the ground clutter). And I would still attack from the stern - with the laser at the top and closer to the front it still has to adjust as it can't shoot through its fuselage

What if the jumbo jet crusing at low altitude and flying in a circle pattern?
element1loop wrote:TOD?

If the F-35 pilot chooses the time to attack they can use the mission data files to have the autopilot keep the F-35 within the disk of the sun as it approaches the heavy, then pop the cockpit, flight-crew and flight controls with an AIM-9X-3, then fly away from the target, still inside the disk of the sun.

Guaranteed loss of target aircraft.

I don’t think the sun affect modern IRST the same way it affect first generation IR missile

Re: F-35 versus DEW equipped jumbo jet

07 Dec 2018, 09:17


If the F-35 pilot chooses the time to attack they can use the mission data files to have the autopilot keep the F-35 within the disk of the sun as it approaches the heavy, then pop the cockpit, flight-crew and flight controls with an AIM-9X-3, then fly away from the target, still inside the disk of the sun.

Guaranteed loss of target aircraft.

Re: EMALS & JPALS for the JSF

23 Nov 2018, 03:24

Catch and Release [LONG ARTICLE BEST READ at source]
04 Sep 2018 Jeff Newman; NAN Naval Aviation News

"...Since first launching and recovering aircraft at-sea July 28, 2017—six days after Ford’s commissioning—the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arrested Gear (AAG) have successfully executed 747 day-and-night catapult launches and arrestments of F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The initial goal was to conduct between 400 and 500 such cycles prior to the post-shakedown availability (PSA)…

...Fully installed on Ford, the four EMALS catapults and AAG, which comprises three engines powering three arresting wires, are set for initial operational capability in 2019 and 2021, respectively, prior to the ship’s first scheduled deployment. Through January, Ford had six at-sea periods, four of which included EMALS launches and AAG recoveries. Multiple times, the systems launched and recovered more than 80 Super Hornets in a single day, including one day with more than 110 cycles, and another with more than 130, Tedford [Capt. Stephen Tedford, the former program manager for the Aircraft Launch and Recovery Program Office at Naval Air Systems Command. Tedford led the program office from September 2014 until his change of command on July 12] said....

...Systems Deliver Advantages
EMALS and AAG are designed to, respectively, launch and recover a wider envelope of aircraft than the legacy steam catapult and MK 7 arresting gear. They also weigh less and require significantly less manning—AAG alone saves 65 tons and requires half the manning of the MK-7.

“The difference in performance, you can definitely feel it,” said Lt. Cmdr. James Struck, a pilot with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, who flew the first launch-and-recovery off Ford in July 2017. “With the old arresting gear, you catch the wire and have a constant deceleration until you stop. With AAG, it tries to reduce the load on the aircraft. It’s not a constant deceleration; it’s controlled by software, so you catch the wire, and you can feel the system adjusting your deceleration profile.”

Struck said launching with EMALS also feels “just a little bit different” than with steam catapults. “EMALS is also driven by software, so the acceleration profile is slightly different, a little smoother,” he said....

...Built-in diagnostics identify components in need of repair, making EMALS and AAG far more reliable and easier to maintain than the legacy systems. “Life as a maintainer is much easier working on EMALS than on steam catapults,” Rivera said [Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Launching and Recovery) Petty Officer 1st Class (ABE1) Daniel Rivera]. “When there is a problem with EMALS, the system is able to determine exactly what is wrong, so there is less manpower needed to troubleshoot.

“Once the problem is identified, EMALS is more plug-and-play than steam catapults, meaning Sailors can simply remove a failed component instead of attempting to fix it on the spot. This results in less downtime of the equipment and more availability to complete the ship’s mission of launching and recovering aircraft.”...

Test and Evaluation Phase
Having completed land-based developmental testing at its test site at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, EMALS will soon begin an integrated test and evaluation (IT&E) period, which will include system reliability testing. A key performance parameter for any new aircraft system, reliability ensures operational readiness for the fleet. Single-day shipboard operations have shown that both systems are able to meet operational requirements.

“In developmental testing, we’re trying to find problems with these systems,” Tedford said. “We then take that data and do the best we can to generate predictions of what we think our reliability will be when we get to the ship. “What we learned on CVN 78 last year was that our reliability for both systems was significantly better than our land-based data was predicting, which is a good thing.”

As for AAG, “the team has made incredible progress over the last two years,” Tedford said. The system has conducted more than 2,000 arrestments using dead-loads, weighted sleds that replicate the mass and—when pushed by a jet car—force of an aircraft. Following its year-long PSA, Ford is set to undergo flight deck certification with components of the entire air wing sometime in 2020, Tedford said...."

Entire PDF Summer 2018: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... er2018.pdf (8.1Mb)

Source: http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... d-release/

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

24 Oct 2018, 21:59

citanon wrote:According to Fox, F-35s now have mission data files in "key regions" around the world: ... data-files

The Pentagon's F-35 is conducting attacks, surveillance operations and combat missions with an updated on-board “threat library” of Mission Data Files engineered to identify enemy threats in key regions around the globe.

“The AORs (Areas of Responsibility) for current operations where our forces are -- currently have adequate Mission Data Files,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 program, told a group of reporters.

Reporter gets muddled here - does he not: "...The Air Force is already working on a 4th [software] drop to be ready by 2020 or 2021. Following this initial drop, the aircraft will incorporate new software drops in two year increments [no longer true] in order to stay ahead of the threat. The service is also working to massively quicken the pace of software upgrades [true] as a way to respond quickly to new threats...." OR has the new C2D2 method not been authorized yet?

SEE 'SWP' post: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27390&p=402976&hilit=tons#p402976 F-35 upgrade plan awaiting approval...

Return to advanced search