Search the archive:
Simviation Main Site
|
Site Search
|
Upload Images
Simviation Forum
›
Real World
›
Real Aviation
› JSF latest!
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
Pages:
1
2
JSF latest! (Read 587 times)
Reply #15 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:37am
C
Offline
Colonel
Earth
Posts: 13144
Nowadays the only real reason for a 2 seater is to give all the VIPs a back seat ride. Simulators can do enough nowadays - one of the Eurofighter test pilots once said in a talk that really the two seat Typhoon was potentially unnecessary, as he had that much confidence in the sim.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #16 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:42am
dcunning30
Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod
Gender:
Posts: 1612
expat wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 6:56pm:
dcunning30 wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 5:00pm:
Woodlouse2002 wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 4:49pm:
dcunning30 wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 3:44pm:
expat wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 11:55am:
Woodlouse2002 wrote
on Dec 6
th
, 2006 at 11:31am:
Which varient? The VTOL or the conventional fixed wing one?
And how late is it?
The VTOL will be years late and over budget.
Harrier = KISS. Keep it simple stupid. One butterfly valve for puffer duct bleed, 4 nozzles connected by bike chains and drive shafts and a air motor to drive it. All mechanical.
JSF, more doors to open for VTOL than an advent calender.
Matt
Based on that logic, digital fly-by-wire and redundant systems should be an abject failure. All we need is a set of cables and brute strength to operate those flying surfaces on high performance aircraft.
You can use hydraulics instead of cables if your not strong enough. Having said, just put some pulleys on the cable.
I think the point was that the JSF is over complicating the whole hovering thing.
If they were seeking to achieve the same level of performance and/or combat efficiency/survivability as Harrier, I would agree with that. But I suspect assumptions are being made to conclude that JSF is overcomplicating things.
And on that same notion, digital fly-by-wire offers tremendous advantages over a hydraulics/cable solution. There's no comparison.
You are right there is no comparison, but the problem with fly by wire is that designers start to get clever when designing these things. My point was when you look at the JSF VTOL, how complicated it is and how simple the Harrier is, that is what counts in combat. If our aircraft went to a war where the other side actually put a good defence, then the buzz word is going to be battle damage repair. In the civil sector I have spend days troubleshooting fly by wire snags. That is a luxury you will not have in war. It seems that every time a new aircraft is produced we are extolling its attack virtues and how stealthy it is, but at the end of the day it is not bullet proof and never will be. It just seems that fly by wire is only going to make BDR just that much more difficult.
Matt
Matt
Uhhhh, redundant systems? AAA can knock out a bicycle chain just as easy as it can knock out cabling carrying digital signals. And combat field maintanence is a much higher consideration for military A/C than in the civilian sector. In a previous career, I used to work for Hughes Aircraft, I worked on IR guidance systems as well as avionics for the A6. Mil-spec electronics is much more sturdy than civilian electronics. And many of the sub systems are plug and play. You just swap components out, you never fix them in the field.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #17 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:12pm
expat
Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!
Gender:
Posts: 8499
Redundant systems only work peace time when the normal system fails not when it is destroyed . They are just as likely to be damaged as the normal use system. Also during combat you have the increased risk that a cable loom will be damaged. Plug and play is all well and good, but if you have to replace a loom, splicing is not an option with todays wiring and data transfer lines. Being EX Huges, you will know for example that a wave carrier guide cannot be repaired. It is either in perfect condition or it is in the bin If a complete loom has to be replaced, then that aircraft is not going any place for a long time. With our older systems of conventional wiring, splices and a BRD an aircraft can be back up far quicker.
Matt
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals.
B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #18 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:39pm
Isak922
Offline
Colonel
Consider yourself badgered!!!
Connecticut
Gender:
Posts: 1528
dcunning30 wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:34am:
DaveSims wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:08am:
The A-10 is the measure of simplicity, and is very very hard to kill. Thats why they never even had to make a two seat trainer, just throw the pilot in and toss him the keys.
The A-10 is an aircraft built around a gun. It's role is straightforward. Fly low and slow, kill tanks and have a high survivability component. Being a high-performance air-superiority fighter is not a requirement.
Ah, but that's not the JSF's main role either. The main role for the JSF, is to do the jobs that the F-16 and F/A-18's do. Kill SAM's so that the bombers and attack aircraft can go in, Strikes, Interdiction, Etc. While it is true that the F-35 is a high-performance aircraft, it isn't being designed as an air-superiority fighter. That's what the F-22 is for
4GB DDR2 PC5300; 3.2GHz Pentium D 940, Nvidia 9800GT 1024MB DDR3, Windows XP Pro SP3
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #19 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:48pm
dcunning30
Offline
Colonel
This is me......really!!!!
The Land of Nod
Gender:
Posts: 1612
expat wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:12pm:
Redundant systems only work peace time when the normal system fails not when it is destroyed .
Although I've scaling up to much larger systems, but ever heard of an A10 coming home after losing a verticle stablizer and engine in combat? redundant systems!
Quote:
They are just as likely to be damaged as the normal use system. Also during combat you have the increased risk that a cable loom will be damaged. Plug and play is all well and good, but if you have to replace a loom, splicing is not an option with todays wiring and data transfer lines.
That's why there are connectors.
Quote:
Being EX Huges, you will know for example that a wave carrier guide cannot be repaired. It is either in perfect condition or it is in the bin If a complete loom has to be replaced, then that aircraft is not going any place for a long time. With our older systems of conventional wiring, splices and a BRD an aircraft can be back up far quicker.
Your whole argument assumes things that are not the case. First of all, for each hour of flight time, there are many more hours in maintanence. And there are spares: spare aircraft, spare parts. All of this is factored into the equation for precuring the hardware and planning the missions. This this arguement is a moot point.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE 34 RR THE WORLD WONDERS
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #20 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 3:10pm
Chris_F
Offline
Colonel
Insert message here
Posts: 1364
expat wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:12pm:
Redundant systems only work peace time when the normal system fails not when it is destroyed . They are just as likely to be damaged as the normal use system. Also during combat you have the increased risk that a cable loom will be damaged. Plug and play is all well and good, but if you have to replace a loom, splicing is not an option with todays wiring and data transfer lines. Being EX Huges, you will know for example that a wave carrier guide cannot be repaired. It is either in perfect condition or it is in the bin If a complete loom has to be replaced, then that aircraft is not going any place for a long time. With our older systems of conventional wiring, splices and a BRD an aircraft can be back up far quicker.
Matt
Wave guides? For flight controls? Exactly what kind of signal is being carried on modern flight control data lines?
Why wouldn't it be possible to replace just part of a wiring loom or repair with a splice? You may not be able to splice a wave guide or fiberoptic cable (in the field at least) but you could easily cobble together a reliable repair of a DC/digital wire with little more than a soldering gun and some shrink tubing.
A plane with part of its EW system knocked out can still fly and still fight at diminished capacity. So fixing wave guides in the field probably isn't all that necessary.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #21 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 3:15pm
Chris_F
Offline
Colonel
Insert message here
Posts: 1364
Isak922 wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:39pm:
Ah, but that's not the JSF's main role either. The main role for the JSF, is to do the jobs that the F-16 and F/A-18's do. Kill SAM's so that the bombers and attack aircraft can go in, Strikes, Interdiction, Etc. While it is true that the F-35 is a high-performance aircraft, it isn't being designed as an air-superiority fighter. That's what the F-22 is for
The F/A-18 does perform air superiority duties for the Navy. Obviously we'll never see an F22 on a carrier deck (at least not until one gets installed at the Intrepid museum) and the Navy doesn't always operate in range of US land based aircraft. So the F-35 will see air superiority duty, although nobody expects it to have the capacity of the F-22 just like the F/A18 doesn't have the capacity of the F15.
Likewise the F16 too sees air superiorty duty sometimes. There aren't an unlimited number of F15s in the inventory and there won't be an unlimited number of F22s so F16s and someday the F35 do stand in for air superiority duties, albiet not in the same threat environment that the F15/F22 would be expected to operate in.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #22 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 3:21pm
Chris_F
Offline
Colonel
Insert message here
Posts: 1364
I find the analogies to the A10 interesting. It's a fascinating aircraft I agree, but it's a one-trick pony. It'll never do some of the things that other aircraft can do. And you could never design, say an air superioity aircraft, with the same features that make the A10 appealing. An air superiority aircraft built like an A10 would be a sitting duck. A bomber built like an A10 wouldn't have enough range. And a dual role aircraft?
The A10 does one job and does it well, but that's it. And in that role it isn't the only aircraft that can fill it. THe F16 for example can kill tanks, though perhaps not as cheaply as the A10. The Apache can kill tanks too. Maybe even more versitaly than the A10. If there were a need to kill tanks in high threat environments I think the Comache would be getting funded. But there really isn't. Tank killing ain't what it used to be (when the west was preparing for a massed armored assault from the Soviets across the plains of Europe).
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #23 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 7:13pm
expat
Offline
Colonel
Deep behind enemy lines!
Gender:
Posts: 8499
Chris_F wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 3:10pm:
expat wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 1:12pm:
Redundant systems only work peace time when the normal system fails not when it is destroyed . They are just as likely to be damaged as the normal use system. Also during combat you have the increased risk that a cable loom will be damaged. Plug and play is all well and good, but if you have to replace a loom, splicing is not an option with todays wiring and data transfer lines. Being EX Huges, you will know for example that a wave carrier guide cannot be repaired. It is either in perfect condition or it is in the bin If a complete loom has to be replaced, then that aircraft is not going any place for a long time. With our older systems of conventional wiring, splices and a BRD an aircraft can be back up far quicker.
Matt
Wave guides? For flight controls? Exactly what kind of signal is being carried on modern flight control data lines?
Wave guide was an example ONLY of something that is hard or not possible to replace in field, I made no connection to flight controls. As for data transfer lines only being a DC signal, correct, but once you start to splice that sort of line, you (can) change the characteristics of that cable and then in turn have an effect on the signal sent.
Matt
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals.
B1 Boeing 737-800 and Dash8 Q-400
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #24 -
Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 7:23pm
Woodlouse2002
Offline
Colonel
I like jam.
Cornwall, England
Gender:
Posts: 12574
If an aircraft recieves enough damage to the right wiring loom then I wouldn't be suprised if it ended up as a write off.
Woodlouse2002 PITA and BAR!!!!!!!!&&&&Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King.&&&&Viva la revolution!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #25 -
Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 8:11am
Chris_F
Offline
Colonel
Insert message here
Posts: 1364
Same could be said for hydraulic lines though.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #26 -
Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 5:55pm
SkyNoz
Offline
Colonel
Project Kfir!
Gender:
Posts: 1720
Charlie wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:37am:
Nowadays the only real reason for a 2 seater is to give all the VIPs a back seat ride. Simulators can do enough nowadays - one of the Eurofighter test pilots once said in a talk that really the two seat Typhoon was potentially unnecessary, as he had that much confidence in the sim.
Well, that makes sense, although for some aircraft like the F-14(ret.) F-18D F-15D, and few other's which have rear seat's, their needs to be a back seater to control weapons, etc.
Project Kfir!&&
&&
My Gmax page
&&Aircraft modeler/Aircarft painter&&&&Aye the key!&&[GeneralEngineData]&&//0=Piston, 1=Jet, 2=None, 3=Helo-Turbine, 4=Rocket, 5=Turboprop
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #27 -
Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 6:09pm
C
Offline
Colonel
Earth
Posts: 13144
SkyNoz wrote
on Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 5:55pm:
Charlie wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:37am:
Nowadays the only real reason for a 2 seater is to give all the VIPs a back seat ride. Simulators can do enough nowadays - one of the Eurofighter test pilots once said in a talk that really the two seat Typhoon was potentially unnecessary, as he had that much confidence in the sim.
Well, that makes sense, although for some aircraft like the F-14(ret.) F-18D F-15D, and few other's which have rear seat's, their needs to be a back seater to control weapons, etc.
Indeed, as they're designed to be flown with two crew, along with aircraft such as the Tornado, and the ground attack variant of the Flanker family amongst others. However, you'll notice that the Angle/Italian/Spanish/German Typhoon has a two seat trainer variant. Don't see many two seater F-22s and F-35s (or we won't see too many!) around... Was it (the two seat Typhoon) entirely necessary, if you see my point?
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #28 -
Dec 9
th
, 2006 at 12:04am
Isak922
Offline
Colonel
Consider yourself badgered!!!
Connecticut
Gender:
Posts: 1528
Charlie wrote
on Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 6:09pm:
Don't see many two seater F-22s and F-35s (or we won't see too many!) around... Was it (the two seat Typhoon) entirely necessary, if you see my point?
As far as I know, There won't be any two seater F-22's or F-35's, shame as it is. I wanna get a joyride in one
4GB DDR2 PC5300; 3.2GHz Pentium D 940, Nvidia 9800GT 1024MB DDR3, Windows XP Pro SP3
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #29 -
Dec 9
th
, 2006 at 9:25am
Chris_F
Offline
Colonel
Insert message here
Posts: 1364
SkyNoz wrote
on Dec 8
th
, 2006 at 5:55pm:
Charlie wrote
on Dec 7
th
, 2006 at 11:37am:
Nowadays the only real reason for a 2 seater is to give all the VIPs a back seat ride. Simulators can do enough nowadays - one of the Eurofighter test pilots once said in a talk that really the two seat Typhoon was potentially unnecessary, as he had that much confidence in the sim.
Well, that makes sense, although for some aircraft like the F-14(ret.) F-18D F-15D, and few other's which have rear seat's, their needs to be a back seater to control weapons, etc.
The latest round of aircraft are being designed for reduced pilot work load to allow the single pilot to do all the things the larger crews of these aircraft do. I think that's what Charlie is referring to.
Back to top
IP Logged
Pages:
1
2
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
« Home
‹ Board
Top of this page
Forum Jump »
Home
» 10 most recent Posts
» 10 most recent Topics
Current Flight Simulator Series
- Flight Simulator X
- FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
- Adding Aircraft Traffic (AI) & Gates
- Flight School
- Flightgear
- MS Flight
Graphic Gallery
- Simviation Screenshots Showcase
- Screenshot Contest
- Edited Screenshots
- Photos & Cameras
- Payware Screenshot Showcase
- Studio V Screenshot Workshop
- Video
- The Cage
Design Forums
- Aircraft & 3D Design
- Scenery & Panel Design
- Aircraft Repainting
- Designer Feedback
General
- General Discussion
- Humour
- Music, Arts & Entertainment
- Sport
Computer Hardware & Software Forum
- Hardware
- Tweaking & Overclocking
- Computer Games & Software
- HomeBuild Cockpits
Addons Most Wanted
- Aircraft Wanted
- Other Add-ons Wanted
Real World
- Real Aviation ««
- Specific Aircraft Types
- Autos
- History
On-line Interactive Flying
- Virtual Airlines Events & Messages
- Multiplayer
Simviation Site
- Simviation News & Info
- Suggestions for these forums
- Site Questions & Feedback
- Site Problems & Broken Links
Combat Flight Simulators
- Combat Flight Simulator 3
- Combat Flight Simulator 2
- Combat Flight Simulator
- CFS Development
- IL-2 Sturmovik
Other Websites
- Your Site
- Other Sites
Payware
- Payware
Old Flight Simulator Series
- FS 2002
- FS 2000
- Flight Simulator 98
Simviation Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.5 AE
!
YaBB Forum Software
© 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.
Pages: 
