F-35 gun INOP until 2019

[cantaz]

It's really not, they'll just add it into the existing HUD flight information anchor.

Why is this such a hard concept for people?

[spazsinbad]

Over the page here: viewtopic.php?f=54&t=26775&p=283934&hilit=individually#p283934 'Vilters' said:

"...Head moving in all directions. Head and helm moving (sometimes individually) under "G" load, now that's what I call a challenge. With twist, side-side and individual bend loads?..."

Here are some technical details (which will only be repeats from the HMDS thread in another section of this forum but - whatever... GO HERE for most of it: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=274480&hilit=Busbee#p274480 ).

Rockwell Collins horizons The Perfect Fit F-35 Gen III HMDS
Annette Busbee Vol 19 Issue Two 2014

"...“We have to fit a helmet to an asymmetrical human head so the optics package on the display visor is within two millimeters of exact center of each of the pupils,” he explained.

The process takes approximately four hours per helmet and involves two contact days with each pilot . On the first contact day, precise measurements are taken of the pilot’s head, including a 3D head scan and the use of a pupilometer to measure the distance between the pupils.

Once Kalsow and Breuer have the measurements and the helmet components – most of which are produced at our company’s facility in Wilsonville, Oregon – they begin assembling the helmet. This process includes custom-milling each helmet liner so the helmet fits the individual’s head comfortably and maintains its stability under high gravity (G) maneuvers.

“Our helmet liner must stand up to the pressure of high G manuevers so the optics package remains aligned with the pilot’s field of view,” Kalsow noted.

When the helmet is assembled, the pilot comes in for a fitting during the second contact day. It’s at this time that the optics package is aligned to the pilot’s pupils and the display visor is custom contoured – a process that must be done precisely so the pilot has a single focused image at infinity...."

Source: http://issuu.com/rockwellcollinshorizon ... l19issue2# (PDF 3.9Mb)

[arrow-nautics]

Who's working Bernie's puppet strings there?

Good question

[hornetfinn]

I love how the media thinks this is come kind of "battle" or "fight" . The F-35 is built to win on the battlefield, not the internet or media. I'm sure this will blow over soon until the next ZOMG emergency that will be forgotten about in a month.

Very true. I think F-35 program is too professional for most people and especially for media. The program follows quite strict schedule and plans to achieve huge amount of capabilities at certain dates. Often this is dull and people want to see circus acts. For example F-35 high-AOA videos seem rather dull to average people because the maneuvers are not flashy but have been designed and executed by professional people for professional purposes. I see the same with the gun issue. The program wants to test the design and software thoroughly before releasing it to service. Many people seem to think that such a simple device as gun should be easy to make work. They don't understand how complex the gun system actually is and how many complex systems it affects or can affect.

[KamenRiderBlade]

I love how the media thinks this is come kind of "battle" or "fight" . The F-35 is built to win on the battlefield, not the internet or media. I'm sure this will blow over soon until the next ZOMG emergency that will be forgotten about in a month.

Very true. I think F-35 program is too professional for most people and especially for media. The program follows quite strict schedule and plans to achieve huge amount of capabilities at certain dates. Often this is dull and people want to see circus acts. For example F-35 high-AOA videos seem rather dull to average people because the maneuvers are not flashy but have been designed and executed by professional people for professional purposes. I see the same with the gun issue. The program wants to test the design and software thoroughly before releasing it to service. Many people seem to think that such a simple device as gun should be easy to make work. They don't understand how complex the gun system actually is and how many complex systems it affects or can affect.

Many of us here have dealt with programs / projects that require a lot of detail, so we can understand complex problems.

Most normal people don't deal with complex stuff, so things like schedules, details, and testing are beyond them. Most people are very simple and only deal with flashy stuff that Hollywood / Airshows have shown them.

Look at all the Anti-JSF people, they can only think in simple terms, they have zero experience in complex issues.
What kind of complicated projects with lots of details, very long timelines have somebody like Bill Sweetman done? Probably not much other than meet a short weekly or monthly deadline with shoddy journalism.

[geogen]

As many critics have been critical on point for many years now, it's very possible that a podded gun might not be deployed operationally until even later than 2019! Perhaps not even until block 4! Crazy (very unfortunate way)... God speed.

[KamenRiderBlade]

As many critics have been critical on point for many years now, it's very possible that a podded gun might not be deployed operationally until even later than 2019! Perhaps not even until block 4! Crazy (very unfortunate way)... God speed.

So because of many "WHAT IF's" you are going to cry that it's the "END OF THE WORLD" and how horrible the JSF program is because they have a predefined schedule that "MAY" break in a worse case scenario where the gun doesn't work as expected and "DELAYS" the program for the roll out of the gun.

Have you ever thought about how hard all the folks at the F-35/JSF program are working to make sure everything works correctly and is properly tested with using all modern scientific / engineering practices with EVERY piece of experience gained from previous aircraft acquisition program?

You look at all the previous programs and noticed how many incidents / issues there were with losses in aircraft / dead test pilots or crew; compared to those programs, the F-35 looks pretty amazing in retrospect.

The F-14 lost their first prototype plane early on.
The F-16 has had many teething issues early on.
The F-22 lost it's prototype early on as well
The V-22 has lost ALOT of people and aircraft, yet look at where it is now and all the amazing things it can do.
The new technology that the V-22 pushes ahead and will unlock newer aircraft using similar technology.
All of flight history and the numerous military acquisition/test programs is littered with accidents/incidents, yet it pushes on ahead with many gains.

Your expectation for a perfect aircraft that passes without issues and is on time is rare and happens once in a blue moon. Very few programs have accomplished this (F-5 being the only case that I can think of). Most programs have had far more issues.

Again, you are being critical on a project that has done incredibly well in-spite of all the BS and tripe you throw at it.
The US and it's international partners are pushing Aircraft technology forward, they have made incredible progress despite all the BS you geogen and all other F-35 haters keep bringing up with old outdated info to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

If the DoD listened to people like you geogen, technology would never progress, or it would go at such a slow pace that Russia / China would catch up and surpass us in no time. Then when war does happen, it'll end up being like WWII or worse where the US and it's allies end up with far more losses then necessary instead of a Gulf War I situation where we completely overpower our enemies. Geogen, your trend of thought is reckless, short sighted, and very selfish. It seems like your agenda is to take the money away from the DoD and use it on programs that only YOU deem worthy instead of trusting the proven history, experience, and vision of the DoD and the goals of the JSF program.

[sferrin]

As many critics have been critical on point for many years now, it's very possible that a podded gun might not be deployed operationally until even later than 2019! Perhaps not even until block 4! Crazy (very unfortunate way)... God speed.

OMG the horror! Tell me, how many years did the Tomcat fly with it's "interim" engine? I presume you think it was a POS as well?

[XanderCrews]

As many critics have been critical on point for many years now, it's very possible that a podded gun might not be deployed operationally until even later than 2019! Perhaps not even until block 4! Crazy (very unfortunate way)... God speed.

so?

[SpudmanWP]

As many critics have been critical on point for many years now, it's very possible that a podded gun might not be deployed operationally until even later than 2019! Perhaps not even until block 4! Crazy (very unfortunate way)... God speed.

Do try to keep up with the latest news and official reporting instead of conjecture and BS.

[sferrin]

Yeah but if he stuck to facts what would he have to whine about?

[luke_sandoz]

Meanwhile, the F-35 is well armed

[blindpilot]

The other thing folks with no experience in project development miss is that a well laid out schedule covering all points does not preempt responses to real world needs, should they arise. JSTARS as a system, and several munitions (ie. bunker buster, even gun pods etc.) come to mind. These were rescheduled on short notice and capabilities brought to the battlefield where needed in months, years ahead of schedule. There was some cleanup on the back side, but if it was needed it showed up.

Schedules do not mean the sky is falling and the system cannot do something. Quite the opposite. They mean a system will work as designed, and deliver what is promised.

Add to this the distortion of 'what if'' schedule reading, and frankly I tire of idiots. Let someone else teach them what they should have learned in kindergarten. I'm getting too old for suffering fools.

BP

[lookieloo]

Looks like Dave's now down to writing top-(whatever-number) fluff.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-u ... -now-12055

Wow, just read... could he possibly be any more of a dilettante f#cktard?

[count_to_10]

Looks like Dave's now down to writing top-(whatever-number) fluff.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-u ... -now-12055

Wow, just read... could he possibly be any more of a dilettante f#cktard?

He want's to retire the AMRAAM? Seriously? Because of jamming?
Has he never heard of upgrades?