So this is the cockpit of the F-35? Impressive.

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by sardion2000

How would this be better then Helmet mounted displays?

I was only explaining what you are seeing! The line about the neat cockpit was a general statement, not a specific oppinion on the the Holographic HUD. I Personally like the Helmet Mounted Dispaly(HMD).

Could they not use a HMD with a holograpic HUD as a backup?

Tim

Oh sorry I misunderstood. I guess you can at that. Reduncancies are good

Originally posted by ghost

Computers have a technical life span of about 6 months. After that, they are outdated. So, if we're going by the strict definition of outdated, the computers in both of these aircraft need to be replaced. If you have ever taken a college level computer course, you professor should had told you about this.

Age is not the best criteria for determining if a certain hardware is outdated. Rather we should look at performance.

We already have flight computers coming out that are much more powerful than anything in the F-35.

This is true. The capabilities of the F-35 computers are about on par with regular desktop computers available at Best Buy or Dell.com while the ones in the F-22 are horribly outdated.

Raytheon has publically announced that it is taking a cue from the Consumer Electronics world and developing weapons systems based on the $100 to $150 dollar CELL chip which will also appear in medical imaging hardware and, believe it or not, a video game console from Sony (who helped design the chip).

The Defense Department updates it's computer systems constantly. This is why they have the Block update program for aircraft.

Tim

Yeah. It's about time the antiquated, overpriced hardware in the F-22 was replaced. Better yet, can the F-22 and F-35 and install a proper air domination capability.

The computer hardware the aircraft is equipped with is important, but obsolecence sets in much faster with the software.

But that's the advantage to microprocessor based systems, is that they can be easily updated to counter new threats, or support better tactics. Missiles can be reprogramed for better flight profiles, sensors can be reprogramed to scan or track more efficiently, control systems can be set to communicate thier data over larger and more detailed networks. Speed and power, provided you're equipped with enough, are a distant second to reliability.

Originally posted by Travellar
The computer hardware the aircraft is equipped with is important, but obsolecence sets in much faster with the software.

But that's the advantage to microprocessor based systems, is that they can be easily updated to counter new threats, or support better tactics. Missiles can be reprogramed for better flight profiles, sensors can be reprogramed to scan or track more efficiently, control systems can be set to communicate thier data over larger and more detailed networks.

Hardware defines the limits of software capability. More capable hardware results in more capable software. For example, the reason we have high quality 3D modeling software like SolidWorks today but not in 1975 is not because it couldnt have been written 30 years ago but because the computers at the time couldnt run it.

Speed and power, provided you're equipped with enough, are a distant second to reliability.

There really isnt any such thing as "enough" speed and power but obsolescence in expensive military computing hardware becomes an obvious fact when cheap consumer products offer superior performance.

As for reliability, failure of a computing device is almost always a result of improper enclosure design or software bugs, almost never a result of poorly designed microprocessors. Widely available microprocessors from Intel, IBM, AMD, etc are not only cheap, powerful and exceptionally reliable, but also consumer very little energy and produce very little heat compared with older hardware made using older manufacturing techniques.

It's a good sign for everyone, especially tax payers, that Raytheon has turned to consumer electronics for microprocessor solutions.

Here is the F-35's custom-fit helmet/HUD/etc.

Link
Just drag your mouse across the picture for it to switch between day and night

Originally posted by orca71

This is true. The capabilities of the F-35 computers are about on par with regular desktop computers available at Best Buy or Dell.com while the ones in the F-22 are horribly outdated.

Yeah. It's about time the antiquated, overpriced hardware in the F-22 was replaced. Better yet, can the F-22 and F-35 and install a proper air domination capability.

It's not true that F-22 system is outdated. Yes original F-22 used pentium 286/386 based chips, but the whole system was built so that the computer chips could be easily replaced. Todays F-22 use much more powerfull computers and they can be replaced for some 25 000$ when necessary.

Exellent... I had no idea it would look like that... one big screen eh... Wonder why The F-35 and the F-22 both ahve the "joy-stick" on the right side... Just like in the F-16, and not in the middle...

BTW Waynos... What is that sig...

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Figher Master FIN]

Folks check out the F-35's Helmet Mounted Display system.



The HMS system has been developed by a Elbit (Israel)/ Rockwell-Collins joint venture. JSF HMDS takes this one step further over its predecessor the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), providing day or night imagery that applies to both air and ground attacks; it also features advanced head tracking capability, in order to provide a virtual heads-up display and imagery screen anywhere the pilot's head moves.

BTW : The LCA Tejas also uses an Elbit HMS system that Elbit says "will be technologically equal to or superior" to the F-35's

WOW... they sure have reached a new level... ladies and gentlemen, SKunk Works did it again...

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by orca71

This is true. The capabilities of the F-35 computers are about on par with regular desktop computers available at Best Buy or Dell.com while the ones in the F-22 are horribly outdated.

Yeah. It's about time the antiquated, overpriced hardware in the F-22 was replaced. Better yet, can the F-22 and F-35 and install a proper air domination capability.

It's not true that F-22 system is outdated. Yes original F-22 used pentium 286/386 based chips, but the whole system was built so that the computer chips could be easily replaced. Todays F-22 use much more powerfull computers and they can be replaced for some 25 000$ when necessary.

The only publically information says that rather than 286/386 based hardware, the F-22 uses 2 networked boards based on the custom Hughes built chip called the CIP, and each board can accept a large number of powerpc and i960 chips for additional processing power. In addition there is a 3rd slot for an additional CIP based board.

The first CIP boards were delivered in 1995. The performance certainly wasnt equal to 2 Cray supercomputers of 1995 and the comparison with Cray supercomputers is even more absurd today.

S2

>>
Folks check out the F-35's Helmet Mounted Display system.
>>

Twin projector channels for dual combiner overlaps. Twice the weight of the JHMCS.

A single-aperture NVD. Not on the JHMCS.

Even if the helmet were half the weight of the basic HGU-55P (which is virtually impossible given the egg-shell thinness of that system) it's going to be a pain to wear under any but optimum conditions and you can most likely /forget/ high energy maneuvering.

The fact that there is a separate spectrum as much as optics channel from the DAS also is highly suggestive as to 'exactly how much' a pilot can expect to see. Be a real shame to shift into a dead zone on 10 mile DAS I2R only have the I2 channel come up 'blank' as a 2-3 mile standin.

Elbit steals Kaiser/McDonnell tech base and then sells it to 'whomever', really great job as well.

That they claim the Tejas system will be better than the F-35 without reference to the DAS is particularly suspicious.

FACE FACTS PEOPLE.

Even if the F-35 is not /crippled by design/ as a penetrator via incomplete or lower quality LO. It's only hope for survival in tomorrows threat environment comes down to standoff attack with enhanced impulse AMRAAM and glide weapons like Quickshot/Diamondback and specifically the GBU-39.

So that it can run away when it runs out.

From a 40 mile target slant, nothing the human eye can see to resolve from an HMD level display is going to be worth a damn, even in daylight.

At the same time, nothing that the sight does to 'assure bore cue' is really all that important if you have 360` SAIRST function through the DAS and can display said 'dots on a planview' on any MFD or HUD.

Lastly, I would be willing to bet money that DAS + ASTE + Autopilot is about 20 times as skilled as any wetware reaction+spatial memory curve in terms of threat (S2A especially) defeat and optimized target steering (in ACM).

_Why Then_ does it matter what the pilots fashion-wear is?

Any moron who takes a 104 million dollar jet with all of two AMRAAM into a visual fight had better die a hero. Because I would charge him with treason, court martial him and stand his butt in front of a wall if he came home to brag about it.

You don't commit high value assets to marginal performance superiority conditions, 'by design' like this. Cope India has PROVEN the low-LER deficiency of man as a close combat animal, 2 years running, against a capable WVR threat willing to lose in numbers what he doesn't have to spare.

Most especially when you don't have the better bullet proof vest (TADIRCM) to back yourself up, nothing you do to 'shoot first' guarantees anything but a pyrhhic victory.

Put DAS on a 15-20G UCAV. Give the UCAV 2-4 missiles and an ATG based (5-10,000fps, instantaneous 20K spm ROF) gun. 'Defend' that platform with high energy lasers that dazzle if not outright burn inbound threats. Optimize said UCAV for maximum LO in all aspects.

And then saturate the area with them as 10 million dollar _mission dedicated_ platforms, whose loss doesn't directly effect the rate at which you service ground targets.

Better yet, make an air-to-air optimized MALI at 1-2 million dollars each and darken the skies with pack hunting weapons like Vees of geese 20-50 weapons for every manned fighter you DON'T buy.

DO NOT pretend that an HMDS of any kind 'makes' a fighter competitive when the A2A threat bar is driven by powered optics capable of tracking targets to 60km or more. And missiles with 20km tracking/kinematic capabilities.

JSF is such a (evolutionary anachronism) damn waste of time that the 257 BILLION dollars that it's costing U.S. is almost secondary to the flying octopus design fallacy on it's own.


KPl.

reply to post by ghost

You don't need EXTRA-MEGA FAST CPU's in aircrafts. Most important is the robustness of the system (it cannot hang etc...). The computing power of the CPU's from few years back would be well sufficient to compute CCIP solutions, FBW system reactions and so forth.

reply to post by ch1466


ch1466, what's true is that you have no clue about the true capabilities or understand the true dynamics of this aircraft. You don't understand its tech and you've never touched this aircraft. You also don't know what the HUD feels like or understand really how pilots feel concerning it.

Tell me. Why should I value your opinion over this man's?
video.aol.com...

Yeah, but does it run LINUX?

No really, does it?

Originally posted by HatTrick
Yeah, but does it run LINUX?

No really, does it?

It uses several different operating systems, including Green Hills INTEGRITY RTOS for some of the avionics packages, and LynxOS-178 RTOS for the cockpit display systems.