
Jump to: Board index » F-35 Lightning II » F-35 milestones
Elite 5K
LM F-35 GM Weekly Update
27 Apr 2017 Jeff Babione
"Navy Completes TOPGUN Tactics Development
F-35Cs from VFA-101 and VX-9 Detachment Edwards recently deployed to NAS Fallon, in support of joint fourth-to-fifth and fifth-to-fifth generation tactics development with the Naval Air Warfighting Development Center. Eight F-35Cs, four F-22s, and Eight H12-equipped Super Hornets took part in the exercise against the latest simulated threat adversary platforms and weapons available.
The highly successful two-week event led by the Navy’s TOPGUN is the first of several to be held over the coming months to develop tactics, techniques and procedures specific to integration of the new F-35C into the Fleet. These detachments are of utmost importance in order to properly leverage the advantages the F-35C brings, while maximizing the effectiveness and increasing survivability of existing fourth generation platforms.
In other TOPGUN news, Mary Ruttum became the sixth female pilot to complete the elite TOPGUN training. Mary is also the first female Navy pilot to fly the F-35. Congratulations to Mary on her amazing accomplishments."
Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _27_17.pdf (1.1Mb)
steve2267 wrote:What is "H-12"?
maus92 wrote:ricnunes wrote:[
Of course the F-35's Software and specially its Software Architecture is far more advanced than anything one the Super Hornet but that's another story...
Keep thinking that...
maus92 wrote:ricnunes wrote:[
Of course the F-35's Software and specially its Software Architecture is far more advanced than anything one the Super Hornet but that's another story...
Keep thinking that...
maus92 wrote:ricnunes wrote:[
Of course the F-35's Software and specially its Software Architecture is far more advanced than anything one the Super Hornet but that's another story...
Keep thinking that...
ricnunes wrote:Keep dreaming like that...
EDIT: OH and I almost forgot! The Super Hornet's hardware and software combo/package are "so advanced" that the latest H-12 Super Hornet software can only be fitted to Block II Super Hornets onwards - Or resuming Block I Super Hornet cannot be fitted with such and latest software.![]()
Now with the "less advanced" (according to yourself) F-35, ALL and EVERY F-35 can be fitted with the most advanced Software (Block 3F and beyond) - This even includes prototypes F-35s - How's that for the F-35 being "less advanced"??
neurotech wrote:I'll let you in one a secret about the Super Hornet. The avionics is as advanced as the budget allows. Part of the reason Block I doesn't have the updates (both hardware & software) is that the Block I jets are mainly used for training and test squadrons, and It's likely they won't have the fatigue life of the later Block II jets, without a more significant SLEP. It makes sense the Navy is prioritizing the hardware upgrades on jets that will be deployed into combat. The cost of the AMC-4 mission computer boards is less than $1m in hardware (about $400k as I recall) per aircraft.
During early Super Hornet testing at Pax. River, a couple of F/A-18Ds were upgraded with the Block I & later Block II avionics. Do fleet F/A-18Ds have latest AMC & APG-79 radar? Not to my knowledge, and it isn't a physical limitation of the airframe. It's a budget based decision.
neurotech wrote:Another secret, certain upgrades to the mission avionics to provide EW features on the Growlers (& optionally Super Hornets) are "far more advanced" than what is currently available on the F-35. This is mainly a software/test schedule/budget limit for the F-35.
No matter what airframe is involved, these days the software development and test program is schedule and budget constrained. The physical cockpit and mission avionics in a F/A-18E/F is relatively cheap. Getting software updates to the fleet is what can become expensive.
maus92 wrote:ricnunes wrote:[
Of course the F-35's Software and specially its Software Architecture is far more advanced than anything one the Super Hornet but that's another story...
Keep thinking that...
Although capability enhancements in SCS H10 resulted in incremental changes in the ability of the Super Hornet to complete missions, DOT&E did not expect this software release to add significant mission capability. The F/A-18E/F remains operationally effective in some threat environments and ineffective in particular air warfare environments noted in classified reports. Though SCS H10 has begun to address some of those long-standing deficiencies in air warfare, the Super Hornet requires further improvements. Software false alarms in SCS H10 impose a maintenance burden on unit personnel.
• SCS H10 testing showed improved AESA reliability, and while it demonstrated the highest reliability to date since introduction of the AESA in 2006, it fell short of its reliability requirement. Although the AESA provides improved performance compared to the legacy mechanically-steered radar, DOT&E has assessed the radar as not operationally suitable since the 2006 IOT&E because of poor software stability and BIT performance. Fault identification and isolation functionality have improved, but the AESA false alarm rate remains high. Additionally, the F/A-18 has demonstrated interoperability deficiencies with on- and off-board sensor inputs.
ricnunes wrote:neurotech wrote:I'll let you in one a secret about the Super Hornet. The avionics is as advanced as the budget allows. Part of the reason Block I doesn't have the updates (both hardware & software) is that the Block I jets are mainly used for training and test squadrons, and It's likely they won't have the fatigue life of the later Block II jets, without a more significant SLEP. It makes sense the Navy is prioritizing the hardware upgrades on jets that will be deployed into combat. The cost of the AMC-4 mission computer boards is less than $1m in hardware (about $400k as I recall) per aircraft.
During early Super Hornet testing at Pax. River, a couple of F/A-18Ds were upgraded with the Block I & later Block II avionics. Do fleet F/A-18Ds have latest AMC & APG-79 radar? Not to my knowledge, and it isn't a physical limitation of the airframe. It's a budget based decision.
I believe there is more to the reason why Block I Super Hornets aren't updated to Block II than budget and flight hours as you say. For example it's well known that Block I Super Hornets cannot be retrofitted with the APG-79 AESA radar (they can only use the APG-73). Actually one of the modifications of the Block II in comparison with Block I was the nose section which was completely redesigned to accommodate the APG-79. For this reason alone I'm pretty sure that the F/A-18D cannot be fitted with the APG-79 - Unless some "mini-version" of the APG-79 is developed (which requires a considerable budget for what would be likely a "minor gain").
Specifically designed for the Hornet upgrade market, Raytheon's APG-79(V)X AESA radar slips easily into the F/A-18 C/D nose cone. The simple, non-disruptive retrofit can be performed in the field and takes less than an hour to complete.
ricnunes wrote:Of course this is Hardware that we're talking about (Radar) but I wouldn't be surprised that Block II Super Hornet are equipped with newer computers in order to run newer versions of Software such as H12, this compared to Block I Super Hornets.
ricnunes wrote:Nevertheless and whatever the reason it seems clear that Block I Super Hornets are incompatible with the newer Software version (again such as H12) which clearly means one thing: The Super Hornet Hardware/Software combo is far more limited than the one from the F-35. Again any F-35 can be equipped with any (and newer) version of the Software, the Super Hornet cannot. This is clearly an indication of a SUPERIOR F-35 Software and Hardware.
ricnunes wrote:neurotech wrote:Another secret, certain upgrades to the mission avionics to provide EW features on the Growlers (& optionally Super Hornets) are "far more advanced" than what is currently available on the F-35. This is mainly a software/test schedule/budget limit for the F-35.
No matter what airframe is involved, these days the software development and test program is schedule and budget constrained. The physical cockpit and mission avionics in a F/A-18E/F is relatively cheap. Getting software updates to the fleet is what can become expensive.
The problem with this latest "secret" of yours is that the Growler is in fact a different aircraft, despite using the same basic airframe as the F/A-18F Super Hornet. For example the back seater avionics are completely different from those of the F/A-18F. The Growler is a specialized aircraft (Electronic Warfare) so saying that the Growler has features that are "more advanced" (however I disagree with the part "far") than the F-35 is like saying that an AWACS (like the E-3 Sentry) has "more advanced" features than the F-35 and in the end this is an "apples with oranges" comparison.
However mentioning the Growler or more precisely EW and the fact that the F-35 will be equipped (in the future - Block 4 if I'm not mistaken) with expanded EW capabilities that will rival with the Growler ones and this will be done almost thru Software updates alone is more than evidence that clearly shows how much more advanced the F-35 software is when compared with the Super Hornet and Growler Software.
SpudmanWP wrote:maus92 wrote:ricnunes wrote:[
Of course the F-35's Software and specially its Software Architecture is far more advanced than anything one the Super Hornet but that's another story...
Keep thinking that...
lol
F-35 has VMs, middleware, Fiber Optics connecting everything, fully fused avionics, etc.
Compared to what's on the F-18... (from the latesed IOT&E Report)
neurotech wrote:For Block II testing in the F/A-18D, they did do something non-standard for the radar but I don't recall the details. I know the Raytheon were trying to adapt the AESA radar for multiple aircraft, including the F-16 (APG-84 RACR) & F-15 (APG-82). There is a difference between using a prototype to support a test program and production hardware. Also, The capability difference provided by the AESA radar upgrade is significant, even if the F/A-18D AESA dish size is reduced.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/pr ... a18airdom/Specifically designed for the Hornet upgrade market, Raytheon's APG-79(V)X AESA radar slips easily into the F/A-18 C/D nose cone. The simple, non-disruptive retrofit can be performed in the field and takes less than an hour to complete.
neurotech wrote:Type 2 AMC in the F/A-18C/D and LRIP Super Hornets. The Type 3 AMC came in later for Block I & early Block II. Later Lots have Type 4 AMC.
neurotech wrote:Upgrading to Type 4 AMC hardware, which may be required for H12, is not a difficult upgrade.
neurotech wrote:Also, the F-35 ICP (Integrated Core Processor/Mission computer) hardware as been upgraded between LRIP lots, and will likely be upgraded as part of depot maintenance for earlier jets.
neurotech wrote:The "Secret" part was me being humorous, as it's publicly known and in some cases the subject of a press release. I didn't go into specifics that are not publicly known.
neurotech wrote:The "H" in H12 refers to "High Level language" which is C++ just like the F-35.
neurotech wrote:The Growler has extra avionics boxes and wiring that most Super Hornets do not have. The RAAF ordered a couple of jets with the wiring added, but then changed their mind and ordered EA-18Gs new from the factory. Some Growler features can be back-fitted to the F/A-18F if the customer require limited ELINT capability. EA capability is provided by the ALQ-99 pods on the wings, which require the full Growler package to support.
neurotech wrote:The F-35 is not the first fighter jet to receive significant software updates throughout its service life, although it won't allways be a "software only" update. There is hardware upgrades scheduled for the F-35 (I believe Block 4), and likely will be required before EA capability is added to the ICP & APG-81 radar. Physically upgrading avionics is not usually difficult, especially when done during depot maintenance.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests