A few points. This is just a normal phase of the test program to get good data on captive carry flight performance. Not a big deal.
(click image to make larger)
Or is it?
At this time there is no way to weaponeer stores. The avionics along with the helmet system are faulty. Once they figure that out ( I am voting for a HUD ), then we may have a less galactically stupid way forward with this failed program.
When they get to stores release it should be fun and full of discovery.
I love the temporary fix for not cooking the horizontal stabs when using sustained after-burner.
(click image to make larger)
Stealthy.
9 comments:
Hi you are doing a great job. I was looking for this information. I found it on your page its really amazing.I am sure that these are your own views. I hear exactly what you’re saying and I’m so happy that I came across your blog. You really know what you’re talking about, and you made me feel like I should learn more about this. Thanks for sharing useful information; I’m officially a huge fan of your blog.
A few points,
To 'weaponeer' is to match a weapon against a target. To 'cue' is to pass a targets position to the weapons guidance system.
AIM-9X can be cued by the radar. There is also no available information stating it cannot be cued by the HMD. The HMD being used so far has proved to have enough bandwidth for timely passing of information in the flight test regime including being the primary flight display for shipborne trials. I think we're stretching the love to suggest its not capable of passing the azimuth and elevation information of the pilots head position to the AIM-9X seeker in a timely fashion.
To avoid potential confusion, to 'weaponeer' is to match a weapons effects to a target (effects being the key word). Ie, to weaponeer a bunker would be to determine the type of weapon required to destroy it.
That will be an interesting magic trick given that the software is nowhere near done and testers have already stated that the helmet does not work with all of the buffet.
Which bits of software have been completed is not publicly releasable, so we can only speculate to the validity of 'magic'. In any case, the code is being written and the code to cue a weapon will certainly have been written by IOC!
What does it mean that 'the helmet does not work with buffet'? Does the helmet have issues fixing its position when the aircraft buffets? What is the magnitude of the errors? How large are they compared to the field of regard for the seeker-head? The mature JHMCS is proof the problem has a solution.
LF-
re:"...the code is being written and the code to cue a weapon will certainly have been written by IOC!"
I'm sure it will. When is IOC again?
As for helmet/ buffet issues, if you have glasses, grab the stem and shake them around while you try to read something. Can you do it? That probably only gives a rough idea of the problem.
-mike j
I see that LM failed to meet JSF development goals, and will forfeit millions in awards.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSTRE81L08020120222
And Japan is threatening to cancel if costs continue to rise. The Japanese Defense Ministry lists a unit cost (with spares, no less) of only be $112M, which seems pretty damned optimistic to me...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/lockheed-fighter-japan-idUSL4E8DM0XW20120222
Forgot to sign off on previous post...
JRL
Awfully close together these racks!
Post a Comment