F-16.net

spazsinbad wrote::roll: Just when you thought it was safe to suck OBOGS ....

....sorry to upset the parade! I just discovered that Boeing can solve "ALL" of the OBOGS problems for just $2mil per a/c, with QF-16s 9G drones plus $500 for each pilot's Barcalounger.

maus92 wrote:

ricnunes wrote:

maus92 wrote:The center fuel tank can be jettisoned, whether or not an IRST is installed. But that tank is never jettisoned except in an emergency.

And guess what?? Just like any other external fuel tank! Or do you believe that any external fuel tank is jettisoned "lightly"?
ANY and EVERY external fuel tank is ONLY jettisoned in emergency situations (It doesn't matter if it has IRSTs attached or not)! External fuel tanks - even the ones that only carry fuel - still costs money (and are relatively expensive) and as such they are always available in limited numbers.

So, the point still remains:
Are you going to jettison an expensive and above all, "sensitive" piece of equipment (IRST) even in an emergency situation just because it is attached to an external fuel tank?
Even if the answer is a yes - That's PLAIN STUPID nonetheless!

maus92 wrote:The tank can also be swapped with / to other Super Hornets as deployments dictate, as it was with the TCS on the F-14As.

And?? Does this make this arrangement less stupid?

I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

Precisely and probably for the first time I actually agree with you!

There are (SH) fanboys out there (such as YOU) who thinks that the Super Hornet is much less expensive than the F-35 despite being proven over and over again that the Super Hornet is just as expensive as a F-35 while the F-35 is far more effective. Yes for some reason these some fanboys (such as YOU) are so fanatic that don't understand the concept of "cost effectiveness" - The F-35 being far more effective but costing almost the same what does it makes it? The answer is: "more cost effective" - It seems that the "cost effectiveness" concept is completely ALIEN to some fanboys (such as YOU).

Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe...

So it seems that it's you who does not doesn't understand the "stupid" concept of "cost effectiveness" neither the concept of "effectiveness in general".

P.S. - It's funny that YOU come here accusing others of being fanboys - You don't have mirrors at home, right??
Look, I said this to you in the past and I'll repeat it not: I used (and I still am) a Super Hornet fan - But trying to compare the Super Hornet to the F-35 in terms of cost effectiveness and effectiveness as a whole is just plain pathetic!!
I learned my lessons in the past when I believed that the Super Hornet had a fighting against for example the F-22. But I learned how wrong I was - You should do the same!
And so, why on Earth are you here if you're not willing to learn?? I guess that this alone not only makes you a (Super Hornet) fanboy but a troll as well

quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:
At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...

Oh boy, you are gonna do good on this forum. Have fun, enjoy it while it lasts.

quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:

Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..

At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...

The Block I IRST for the Super Hornet is already outdated at IOC which is why the Navy
is skipping full-rate production of Block I and proceeding directly to Block II.

The LRIP Block I IRST systems are supposed to be retrofitted to the Block II configuration
when Block II arrives in April of 2020.

quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:

Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..

At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...

The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source??

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems

ricnunes wrote:

quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:

Moreover, those same fanboys (such as YOU) seem to believe that hanging an IRST in the tip of an external fuel tank is a effective way (not only cost effective but effective as a whole) compared to embedding it internally on the aircraft's airframe..

At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...

The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source??

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems

He is referring to the fact EOTS is over 10 years old.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us ... older-jets

The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.

“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”

Of course, the issue is vastly overstated, and a new EOTS is looking to land in Block 4.2.

maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST into the drink is "cost effective". Perhaps you could explain?

playloud wrote:

ricnunes wrote:

quoderatdmonstrandum wrote:At least it is an effective way not to have an already outdated IRST at IOC...

The F-35 IRST outdated, LOL
Care to share a source??

Anyway, another troll strikes back it seems

He is referring to the fact EOTS is over 10 years old.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us ... older-jets

The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.

“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”

Of course, the issue is vastly overstated, and a new EOTS is looking to land in Block 4.2.

Yes, I know and understand where his "rambling" is based on.
However the fact that the EOTS will eventually be replaced by a newer version doesn't make the current EOTS "outdated", specially and above all the IRST function.
If I'm not mistaken the improved EOTS will bring improvements into imagery (FLIR/EO targeting part) but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.
That's what I would like to see him addressing

sferrin wrote:

maus92 wrote:I guess cost effectiveness is stupid to fanboys.

It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST into the drink is "cost effective". Perhaps you could explain?

Even worse:
It escapes me how jettisoning an IRST above and into enemy territory is "cost effective". Perhaps he could also explain this as well

The complaints about EOTS are not related to search and track capability
but target-id and lead-laser capability. Advanced pods still have trouble with the
former and the latter is a complete non-issue for practically
any laser guided weapon built in the last decade.

The point for this conversation is that EOTS at present is superior to ATFLIR
which is the Navy's primary podded solution; the separate IRST Block I
pods in LRIP are pretty much only useful for training.

Lets revisit this in 2020 when the Navy may:

1. Have Sniper-ATP on the deck
2. Have IRST Block II on the deck

ricnunes wrote:but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.

Of course it will since better sensors & a larger aperture will allow for better detection and quicker ID of a target.

SpudmanWP wrote:

ricnunes wrote:but it's unknown if the IRST function will be improved at all in the new improved EOTS. Remember that he was talking about EOTS.

Of course it will since better sensors & a larger aperture will allow for better detection and quicker ID of a target.

Sure ok and I stand corrected (what you say makes sense). However this doesn't mean that the current EOTS is outdated, does it?

ricnunes wrote:However this doesn't mean that the current EOTS is outdated, does it?

I would never and have never said that.


Some people seem to be under the impression that just because something "can" be better means that it's "outdated" or "obsolete". They are of course, wrong.

Four page PDF about PE matters attached :

Navy Leaders Describe Efforts to Resolve Physiological Episodes
Naval Aviation News - Fall 2017

Slam Stick Success
"Integration of a Slam Stick data logger is one initiative in the Naval Aviation Enterprise’s collect-and-analyze-data effort to address physiological episodes (PEs). Designed to measure and record vibrations, temperature and air
pressure, the Navy is using the device to measure cabin pressure changes over time in F/A-18A-D Hornet, F/A-18E-F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft. The small, lightweight sensor can be placed virtually anywhere in an aircraft. Its rugged enclosure and wide temperature operating range allow its use in tough environments. U.S. Navy photo by Fred Flerlage" Photo: SLAM STICK USN OXY PE TEST Device

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... 17_web.pdf (7.6Mb)

Oh how I long for the day when all these Hornets/SH's/Super Duper Hornets get converted to.... QF-18 Target Hornets(tm)!!!

At which point I will revel in watching them blasted to smitherines by AIM-9x, AIM-120 and gun kills. I'd further propose giving the A-10 drivers some GAU-8 30mm time with them, firing those lovely depleted uranium rounds..