Australian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lethe

Captain
*** Deleted flame bait, pure hyperbole, and senseless argument ***

For example, you would be able to sortie multiple CAS missions, several times over, at great distance from your shores. Even if you flew F-35s from the mainland, you may get one mission in.

And the likelihood of Australia engaging in overseas activities requiring fixed wing air support without cooperative land basing and US support (with all that entails) is virtually nil.

If the Canberras ever find themselves wishing they could call on a handful of F-35Bs, then someone has royally *** PROFANITY REMOVED *** up somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brumby

Major
As for plug-in, are you referring to plug and play? Helmets are not plug and play and have to be fully integrated, but additional software upgrades can plug-in new features like being able to see what a drone or your wingman sees.

I used the term plug-in so that it also means you can plug-out with the general idea that the helmet is a standalone independent system. I do not know the design architecture between the interface and how the system integration is meant to work and the protocol in the event of system loss. Broadly at surface level based on the demo video, the helmet is taking on digital stream off the flight system and build-in sensors and then have the ability to cue, track and target which presumably will then feed the weapons system. All these means a continuous two way digital exchange. In the event, the helmet fails to function there is potentially a digital loss within an integrated system which might affect its flight system to function as it is dependent on digital feed as part of a single integrated system. In order to preserve system integrity and prevent an overall system shut down, there should be an auto switch to back up systems. All of these is just my personal speculation without knowing the design.

In a true plug and play, all the voodoo processing goes on within the standalone system with effectively very limited two way data exchange.
 

A Bar Brother

Junior Member
I used the term plug-in so that it also means you can plug-out with the general idea that the helmet is a standalone independent system. I do not know the design architecture between the interface and how the system integration is meant to work and the protocol in the event of system loss. Broadly at surface level based on the demo video, the helmet is taking on digital stream off the flight system and build-in sensors and then have the ability to cue, track and target which presumably will then feed the weapons system. All these means a continuous two way digital exchange. In the event, the helmet fails to function there is potentially a digital loss within an integrated system which might affect its flight system to function as it is dependent on digital feed as part of a single integrated system. In order to preserve system integrity and prevent an overall system shut down, there should be an auto switch to back up systems. All of these is just my personal speculation without knowing the design.

In a true plug and play, all the voodoo processing goes on within the standalone system with effectively very limited two way data exchange.

Other aircraft which have a similar helmet also have a fixed HUD. These aircraft can switch to the backup, so there is redundancy. But when it comes to the F-35, a lot of the F-35's capabilities are integrated with the helmet, like the 360 deg vision and the HUD. Without the HUD, the pilot is going to have to fly back to base. There is a bigger problem if the helmet malfunctions. A custom made helmet would mean the pilot is grounded until the helmet is fixed.
 

Lethe

Captain
as for the question I asked (and was repeatedly mentioned above) https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/australian-military-news-and-discussion.t5727/page-41#post-329417
let me just mention:
FFBNW is code for "we don't have the money for it now" and that Australia maintains a 'pool' of Phalanx CIWS systems to be fitted to ships as necessary is simply more confirmation of how threadbare the cupboard is, and how RAN is scraping the barrel to get these ships into service -- which is all the more worrying when you consider that ongoing maintenance and operations costs of large, glorified tin cans such as these greatly outweighs the acquisition cost. A robust military would have as many Phalanx units (not to mention ESSM or similar) as necessary to be fitted simultaneously to the ships that need that require them in the roles they could be called upon to perform, not be forced to play games of musical chairs with what should be standard equipment.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Your thoughtful comments are appreciated.

*** Removed personal accusations, assertions and responses to them ***


FFBNW is code for "we don't have the money for it now" and that Australia maintains a 'pool' of Phalanx CIWS systems to be fitted to ships as necessary is simply more confirmation of how threadbare the cupboard is, and how RAN is scraping the barrel to get these ships into service -- which is all the more worrying when you consider that ongoing maintenance and operations costs of large, glorified tin cans such as these greatly outweighs the acquisition cost. A robust military would have as many Phalanx units (not to mention ESSM or similar) as necessary to be fitted simultaneously to the ships that need that require them in the roles they could be called upon to perform, not be forced to play games of musical chairs with what should be standard equipment.

*** Removed political/ideological comments in response to assertions and other responses ***

Now back on topic, the US and our Partners have worked very hard to stand firm for peace and the mutual defense that stands in opposition to those who would and will take those things by force??? The JSF is a tool not only for that physical defense, but also for the idea that we are in this together! (lets all join hands and sing Kumbai Ya!) While this sounds corny to some, I would point out that it is a core belief of our founders, and the JSF is part and parcel of our mutual partnership to share an aircraft, that each of our partner nations will help design, build, and fly.

As to the efficacy of this aircraft, I have NO doubt that it will prove quite capable, if we do our part? I hope you will give this some thought? I have been cranky at times??? (yes, I will be again?), but only by maintaining these strategic partnerships with our respective nations will we be able to maintain this fragile peace through the strength of our mutual defense.

The JSF is a reflection of our commitment to do our part Mr. Lethe, not only LockMart, but the US military, and those US citizens who understand the Global challenge facing each of our respective nations. We face enemies internal and external, but face them we must! I have come to see just how important this aircraft is for each of us, and it is a very fine aircraft, irrespective of the ideals I have tried to "illuminate"..It represents a commitment on our part to provide our partners with the means to defend themselves, and a commitment to "back them up" if need be, through this joint venture to build an aircraft that will no doubt be as good, as it is expensive, but you get what you pay for.

JSF is, and will remain the single most common, and important tool in the arsenal of our mutual defence. BRAT
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zool

Junior Member
Guys, argue about acquisition plans, capabilities and the economics of it all but leave out the personal BS and court room dialogue ;)

On the topic of Australian modernization and procurement of F-35, new SSK's and other Naval platforms I have a question: Is there a local recruitment drive under way for the ADF? My understanding is that the services have been undermanned for a while now and it has contributed to problems with availability (the Collins subs being the best example of this).

Operating costs generally make up 2/3 of a platforms total life-time cost. So is Australia planning 1 for 1 replacement of existing systems with these acquisitions (the Fighters & Subs) or an overall expansion of total assets?

Cheers
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Guys, argue about acquisition plans, capabilities and the economics of it all but leave out the personal BS and court room dialogue ;)

On the topic of Australian modernization and procurement of F-35, new SSK's and other Naval platforms I have a question: Is there a local recruitment drive under way for the ADF? My understanding is that the services have been undermanned for a while now and it has contributed to problems with availability (the Collins subs being the best example of this).

Operating costs generally make up 2/3 of a platforms total life-time cost. So is Australia planning 1 for 1 replacement of existing systems with these acquisitions (the Fighters & Subs) or an overall expansion of total assets?

Cheers

Well they are most certainly expanding capabilities in both venues.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
On the topic of Australian modernization and procurement of F-35, new SSK's and other Naval platforms I have a question: Is there a local recruitment drive under way for the ADF? My understanding is that the services have been undermanned for a while now and it has contributed to problems with availability (the Collins subs being the best example of this).

Operating costs generally make up 2/3 of a platforms total life-time cost. So is Australia planning 1 for 1 replacement of existing systems with these acquisitions (the Fighters & Subs) or an overall expansion of total assets?

Cheers

I don't know any details but I do not believe Australia has enough slots to provide new recruits out of sub school on site training on their subs which probably is the biggest problem with only one boat at sea at any given time.Another point is they still do not need that many personnel for at least another 5 years.
I do not know about other navies but for JMSDF you need to serve at least three years on a surface ship and obtain a written recommendation for two commanding officers to qualify as a successful applicant for sub school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top