• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic

Dragon029

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
766
Reaction score
117
The touch screen was always going to be a bit of gamble I feel. I wonder if the stick/throttle controls can interact with it for more basic commands?
They can; one of the hats on the throttle lets you slew around a cursor, though I don't know how that works across various portals on the display - I would assume you can't slew the cursor from one side of the screen all the way to the other, and that it wouldn't be available on every page, but that the pilot would have to use another hat to toggle something like a sensor (or portal) of interest. Maybe I'm wrong though and the cursor can be used anywhere on the display.

I may not be an F-35 pilot, but I think moving away from touch screens would be regression - instead I think they need to better leverage modern consumer and commercial touch screen tech to incorporate things like capacitive touch layers (with IR as a back-up in case chemical warfare agents or water / moisture screws with the capacitive functionality), as well as the algorithms that've been developed to produce things like palm rejection in good modern tablets / touchscreen laptops. Other things such as predictive / speculative object selection could also be trialed / investigated, where if a pilot's finger misses (eg) a virtual button, but there are indications that the touch wasn't accurate (such as the finger / cursor rapidly sliding across the screen) then an algorithm can select the button they were closest to touching. Or if the finger has a lot of erratic movement around the screen (perhaps with accelerometer data indicating turbulence), in an area where there are multiple virtual buttons or targets on a display, the algorithm can go ahead and select the one that statistically (or based on the F-35's combat ID systems and threat prioritisation algorithms) that's more important. For example, if there's a hostile and a friendly close to each other on a tactical display, there's indications of turbulence / buffeting, and the pilot's finger has hit the screen closer to the friendly track, the display might instead select the hostile track.

I know such a system would have plenty of potential for error, but if you combine it with a physical manual override switch (just use one of the ~20 hats and switches on the HOTAS with the right context, or if you really want, add a new physical switch), I think it'd be sufficiently safe. Have the software written by someone competent with a reasonable fixed-cost contract (the concept / tech isn't cutting edge in the consumer world) and I think it could surprise people with how accurate it is (a number of consumer touchscreen devices already do this; the word prediction on good phone keyboards like Swiftkey (owned by Microsoft) can do an amazing job despite the open-ended problem it faces (but which the F-35's display doesn't)).
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
630
Reaction score
267
The advantages of the large display (the pilot touches on the size and flexibility) are such that clearly unified displays are here to stay. It sounds like the interface could use some work, but it doesn't sound like even the pilot in question necessarily wanted to revert - just noted the limitation. I suspect some work can be done with predictive selections - I'm thinking the most likely choice could be highlighted allowing for a simple HOTAS click, for instance. I also wonder if menus couldn't just temporarily take up a lot more of the screen to make the touch areas physically bigger. 20" x 8" should allow for big buttons if the menu temporarily overlapped other parts of the display.
 

Jeb

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
289
Reaction score
31
Reading that post, I'm somewhat reminded of drivers who "just prefer" the feeling of a manual transmission over an automatic, even though automatics now have 8-10 gears, multiple shift modes, manual actuation paddles, and get better fuel economy. He's not wrong, necessarily...preference does play into operational efficiency, but I wonder if a nugget going into F-35s straight from UPT would long for the days of banks of buttons and a fixed HUD?
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
211
The touch screen was always going to be a bit of gamble I feel. I wonder if the stick/throttle controls can interact with it for more basic commands?
They can; one of the hats on the throttle lets you slew around a cursor, though I don't know how that works across various portals on the display - I would assume you can't slew the cursor from one side of the screen all the way to the other, and that it wouldn't be available on every page, but that the pilot would have to use another hat to toggle something like a sensor (or portal) of interest. Maybe I'm wrong though and the cursor can be used anywhere on the display.

I may not be an F-35 pilot, but I think moving away from touch screens would be regression - instead I think they need to better leverage modern consumer and commercial touch screen tech to incorporate things like capacitive touch layers (with IR as a back-up in case chemical warfare agents or water / moisture screws with the capacitive functionality), as well as the algorithms that've been developed to produce things like palm rejection in good modern tablets / touchscreen laptops. Other things such as predictive / speculative object selection could also be trialed / investigated, where if a pilot's finger misses (eg) a virtual button, but there are indications that the touch wasn't accurate (such as the finger / cursor rapidly sliding across the screen) then an algorithm can select the button they were closest to touching. Or if the finger has a lot of erratic movement around the screen (perhaps with accelerometer data indicating turbulence), in an area where there are multiple virtual buttons or targets on a display, the algorithm can go ahead and select the one that statistically (or based on the F-35's combat ID systems and threat prioritisation algorithms) that's more important. For example, if there's a hostile and a friendly close to each other on a tactical display, there's indications of turbulence / buffeting, and the pilot's finger has hit the screen closer to the friendly track, the display might instead select the hostile track.

I know such a system would have plenty of potential for error, but if you combine it with a physical manual override switch (just use one of the ~20 hats and switches on the HOTAS with the right context, or if you really want, add a new physical switch), I think it'd be sufficiently safe. Have the software written by someone competent with a reasonable fixed-cost contract (the concept / tech isn't cutting edge in the consumer world) and I think it could surprise people with how accurate it is (a number of consumer touchscreen devices already do this; the word prediction on good phone keyboards like Swiftkey (owned by Microsoft) can do an amazing job despite the open-ended problem it faces (but which the F-35's display doesn't)).
Heck, you could even program it to expand the display around the probable area that the button push was - bigger buttons. Quick tap of the one you want, or tap a revert button if there’s been a computer mess up.

(Oops! Just saw Josh made the same suggestion. Good suggestion Josh! ;) )
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
470
The advantages of the large display (the pilot touches on the size and flexibility) are such that clearly unified displays are here to stay. It sounds like the interface could use some work, but it doesn't sound like even the pilot in question necessarily wanted to revert - just noted the limitation. I suspect some work can be done with predictive selections - I'm thinking the most likely choice could be highlighted allowing for a simple HOTAS click, for instance. I also wonder if menus couldn't just temporarily take up a lot more of the screen to make the touch areas physically bigger. 20" x 8" should allow for big buttons if the menu temporarily overlapped other parts of the display.
Touchscreens and to a lesser extent voice commands are trying to solve the problem of HOTAS cursor slew rates on
large format displays; you can either slew quickly or accurately both not both.

A combination of eye tracking and head tracking for cursor slew is, in conjunction with the interfaces above,
probably the right solution but neither are at a sufficiently high level of maturity and
operationally suitability (ex: under high G) yet.

Collectively, it's all being examined under the AF's "Have Rhino" effort.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,536
Eye tracking would be difficult. Most of look down action are snap memory print to stay focused on the outside situation.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,661
Reaction score
1,708

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,661
Reaction score
1,708
The advantages of the large display (the pilot touches on the size and flexibility) are such that clearly unified displays are here to stay. It sounds like the interface could use some work, but it doesn't sound like even the pilot in question necessarily wanted to revert - just noted the limitation. I suspect some work can be done with predictive selections - I'm thinking the most likely choice could be highlighted allowing for a simple HOTAS click, for instance. I also wonder if menus couldn't just temporarily take up a lot more of the screen to make the touch areas physically bigger. 20" x 8" should allow for big buttons if the menu temporarily overlapped other parts of the display.
Touchscreens and to a lesser extent voice commands are trying to solve the problem of HOTAS cursor slew rates on
large format displays; you can either slew quickly or accurately both not both.

Give them 8000 dpi mice. ;)
 

rooster

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
222
Reaction score
80
I know this is a little off topic, but we (USA) hand out F-35's like candy but would not offer/allow the F-22 to Australia or Japan as an example when requested, remarkable.
Japan had a recent history of handing over $ecret data to not so friendly nations back then. You are talking about 25 years ago. So that boxes with denying Japan. Also there was trepidation about Japan having such a powerful airforce and pissing off china. Australia doesn't make sense... But the environment wasnt as dominated by hyper rich billionaires back then either. The 35/jsf was a international money making tool for us from what... 1994? but bringing in countries like Turkey doesn't make sense unless you look at the $$$. The 22 was bleeding edge in every way... I think its the first fighter to use fiber optics as example. The rest of the world has grown up since then.
 

Hydroman

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
10
Reaction score
10
I know this is a little off topic, but we (USA) hand out F-35's like candy but would not offer/allow the F-22 to Australia or Japan as an example when requested, remarkable.
F-35 isn't an F-22. Obviously.
Still, a very advanced jet, lots of capability and technology. Might as well let a few older B-2's go at a discounted price, with a coupon of course.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,661
Reaction score
1,708
I know this is a little off topic, but we (USA) hand out F-35's like candy but would not offer/allow the F-22 to Australia or Japan as an example when requested, remarkable.
F-35 isn't an F-22. Obviously.
Still, a very advanced jet, lots of capability and technology. Might as well let a few older B-2's go at a discounted price, with a coupon of course.
You forgot the /sarc.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,536

President Joe Biden could end those sanctions this December if he certifies to Congress that Turkey and “any person acting on its behalf” no longer owns the S-400 or a newer version, that Russian nationals or its contractors are operating or maintaining air defense systems in Turkey, and that the U.S. has received “reliable assurances” from Ankara that it will not run afoul of CAATSA again, according to the 2021 defense policy law.

Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said last year it wanted the U.S. to handle the dispute “through dialogue and diplomacy,” not sanctions.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
211
Yes, because that worked before.
Unfortunately Turkey has been pursuing an agressive foreign policy by proxy: Libya and Nagorno-Karabakh, this is as likely to be tied to those conflicts as to the S-400 purchase.
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
450
Some days ago the Cavour Aircraft Carrier, on its way to Patuxent River to take the F-35B onboard, take a break with 1 day rest in Cadiz mooring next to the Spanish Juan Carlos I Aircraft Carrier:

 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,536

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
399
Cavour carrier is finally arrived at Norfolk.

what a good looking ship. The Italians sure make beautiful naval vessels!
speaking of which, their latest ship, the Trieste? is it also planned to carry the F-35Bs?
 

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
450
Cavour carrier is finally arrived at Norfolk.

what a good looking ship. The Italians sure make beautiful naval vessels!
speaking of which, their latest ship, the Trieste? is it also planned to carry the F-35Bs?
Yes it will carry also onboard F-35B, it is already equipped with ski jump for such purpose.
The biggest issue for Italian Navy is shortage of aircrafts rather than ships....
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,536
Valkyrie is a female figure that chooses who will live or die in battle

“Valkyries epitomizes the force’s move toward more inclusivity and equally represents the fifth-generation stealth fighter’s air superiority,” incoming 495th FS Commander Lt. Col. Ian McLaughlin said in the release. “I am honored to be the first commander of the initial U.S. Air Force’s overseas-based F-35A unit. Like the Valkyries themselves, we’ll be vital to determining the fate of our adversaries in the battlespace.”
 
Last edited:

Fluff

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
455
Reaction score
241
Just buy more F-35s...
Could be interesting.

I wonder how many times an F16 providing ground support has had to go Air to Air - one hand?

Depending on where you cut your needs and wants, you could end up with some very different solutions - Scorpion? Mini A10?

Private contractor ? Deliver x bombs over x hours at x range. We could see Vulcans fly again!!
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
I know this is a little off topic, but we (USA) hand out F-35's like candy but would not offer/allow the F-22 to Australia or Japan as an example when requested, remarkable.
Japan had a recent history of handing over $ecret data to not so friendly nations back then. You are talking about 25 years ago. So that boxes with denying Japan. Also there was trepidation about Japan having such a powerful airforce and pissing off china. Australia doesn't make sense... But the environment wasnt as dominated by hyper rich billionaires back then either. The 35/jsf was a international money making tool for us from what... 1994? but bringing in countries like Turkey doesn't make sense unless you look at the $$$. The 22 was bleeding edge in every way... I think its the first fighter to use fiber optics as example. The rest of the world has grown up since then.
Also the first with IMA architecture, an outstanding technological feat.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
Just buy more F-35s...
I don't know the case for USAF but for ROKAF the F-35A was 2.2 times more expensive to operate compared to F-15K and 3 times more expensive compared to KF-16 per airframe. So its quite understandable, even though the flyaway cost for each airframe is getting closer to that of legacy fighter jets.



Interesting that he talks about clean sheet design, which I don't really think is going to realize. Maybe they go for something that is a compromise between a completely clean sheet design and an existing design, something based on the F-16 but with modified airframe like the F-2 or F-16XL. I mean as we've already seen how F-16 block 72 already has some compromise compared to the block 60, like its cooling capacity or engine so maybe just further upgrade the block 60?

Going full fantasy mode, there do exist one aircraft that meets the "completely clean sheet, not completely 4.5th gen but also not completely 5th gen" criteria , which LM is involved in, but then again, no one knows how expensive it would be to operate this jet. If they do think it's a viable option, they could do what LM was planning to do in T-X.

To be honest, the most reasonable thing to do is just buy more F-35 and fix its maintenance system without looking elsewhere. Then again, the estimated cost for upgrading UK's F-35Bs was like, $ 27 million per airframe? I mean it would be cheaper for F-35A I suppose but that is still very expensive.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
1,536
Mean cost per flying hours is annually published by the USAF. An extract of the most interesting variables should be found in those pages (cost per flying hours and availability).
 

BDF

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
142
Reaction score
44
This is a frustrating development. As others have pointed out its difficult to imagine a "clean sheet" 4th gen design coming in lower overall program cost than continued F-35 buy; unless its O&S is radically cheaper. Even then, we would be making production decisions based off projected costs rather than empirical data. That being said, instead of a clean sheet design why not dust off the F-16XL? Joking aside I wonder if the so-called "digital century series" can rapidly develop a 4th gen faster than a 6th gen platform. Maybe that is the attraction to a new design but still seems like a waste to me. I do like Gen Brown but not sure I'm sold on this idea.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
676
Website
beyondthesprues.com
I don't know the case for USAF but for ROKAF the F-35A was 2.2 times more expensive to operate compared to F-15K and 3 times more expensive compared to KF-16 per airframe.

Given the South Koreans have only had F-35s operating in country since April 2019 and thus are still coming up to FOC, I think it is still very early to make definitive calls re costs to operate.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
This is a frustrating development. As others have pointed out its difficult to imagine a "clean sheet" 4th gen design coming in lower overall program cost than continued F-35 buy; unless its O&S is radically cheaper. Even then, we would be making production decisions based off projected costs rather than empirical data. That being said, instead of a clean sheet design why not dust off the F-16XL? Joking aside I wonder if the so-called "digital century series" can rapidly develop a 4th gen faster than a 6th gen platform. Maybe that is the attraction to a new design but still seems like a waste to me. I do like Gen Brown but not sure I'm sold on this idea.
That's what I'm basically calling for. IIRC there were some notable changes to the structure of the block 60 vipers compared to the previous and following variants so why not just develop on top of that if they really want an advanced 4th gen?
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
I don't know the case for USAF but for ROKAF the F-35A was 2.2 times more expensive to operate compared to F-15K and 3 times more expensive compared to KF-16 per airframe.

Given the South Koreans have only had F-35s operating in country since April 2019 and thus are still coming up to FOC, I think it is still very early to make definitive calls re costs to operate.
That's the budget for the whole 2020-2023 period, based on what Lockheed and ROKAF estimated on the contractual basis. You are correct that the exact figures will eventually change as the time goes but I can't really stay assured that those figures would go down in a meaningful margin.
 

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
396
Reaction score
114
We see this argument with old aircraft being compared with new aircraft all the time. Does anyone have a chart which shows what the running costs were in the first couple of years of service for F-15's/F-16's, in todays money ? just for a comparison ---
 

Similar threads

Top