Does this mean they have to shout "Behind you!"
and wait for the enemy to look the other way before they can target them?
F-35 targeting system laser will be 'almost impossible' to use in UK
US restrictions on the F-35 fighter jet's targeting system will make it “almost impossible” for training to be carried out in the UK, the Ministry of Defence fears – but its press office insists the constraints are normal. The F-35's electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) includes a target designator laser and a laser …
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:24 GMT Toltec
Re: Does this mean they have to shout "Behind you!"
What about persons with hearing loss or wearing iPods, plus there is the number of languages that the announcement would need to be made in.
Clearly they will need to issue laser safety glasses to anyone within range, these should be to prescription if required and full training in their use given. Deployment of the aircraft will require a 60 day notice with letters sent to all households as well as adverts on TV and in the press. A team of carers should conduct house to military target calls to ensure everyone has their safety glasses and knows how to deploy them. Special cot or pushchair screens may need to be provided and notices at travel terminals and road connections should be erected for the safety of any visitors to the area.
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Does this mean they have to shout "Behind you!"
Clearly they will need to issue laser safety glasses to anyone within range, these should be to prescription if required and full training in their use given.
With lasers, a basic mirror (or mirrored lenses) might be enough. Does that mean the US is now going to add mirrors to the list of stuff that is export restricted?
-
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:22 GMT JeffyPoooh
Wait until you see the next generation fighter...
It will cost $240 Trillion each, and thus there will only be one.
It'll be capable of shooting down up to 255 enemy aircraft at once. Which will lead directly to the following exchange...
"Incoming enemy aircraft! Scramble the F-240T !!!"
"How many enemy aircraft are inbound ?"
"Two Hundred and Fifty... ..Six."
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 23:42 GMT veti
Re: Wait until you see the next generation fighter...
You're missing the point. If you make it "cheaper", then you get less money. By definition.
Whose interest is that in? Certainly not yours. Nor yet the armed services procurement people, because their boilerplate funding proposal says "Whatever It Takes" - and the more they spend, the more important they are. Only the poor old taxpayer would gain, and they are so distracted by every other issue you can imagine that the chances of their vote being swayed by this issue are infinitesimal.
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 13:28 GMT h4rm0ny
Re: Wait until you see the next generation fighter...
>>"The next gen fighter jet wont have a meat sack inside, so it will be significantly cheaper, faster, and better."
I agree it's now time to replace pilots in military aircraft, but I don't think it will be cheaper. I mean pilots are certainly expensive but as a part of the TCO (R&D, manufacture, maintenance, profit margin), they're a small part. Where automation will make a difference is the willingness of our politicians to engage in war against non-equal parties given the reduced political fallout from lesser risk of bodybags returning home to be photographed by the media. But reduced cost...? Not unless a war with an equivalent power forces the government to lower profits for the manufacturing companies.
-
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 14:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Wait until you see the next generation fighter...
Where automation will make a difference is the willingness of our politicians to engage in war against non-equal parties given the reduced political fallout from lesser risk of bodybags returning home to be photographed by the media
.. as already demonstrated by the daily US drone sorties. Personally I think countries doing this should at least have the decency to formally bury those they kill, and provide open records on why they thought the target was worth killing, and how
much collateral damage there wasmany innocents were killed in the process (let's avoid political weasel words).
-
-
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:51 GMT Anonymous Coward
Of course, the F-35Bs delivered so far have been for the RAF, not the Navy
So are not yet cleared for seaboard operations. And then there's the way the US defines 'seaboard' as within 200 miles of the sea. And then there's the fact that it's impossible to get 200 miles from the sea in the UK. Don't worry, I'm sure someone's planned it all out. The Merlin worked out perfectly, after all...
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:53 GMT Tony S
You couldn't make it up
There was a really great film made some years ago, with Cary Elwes and Kelsey Grammer. The Pentagon Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYpRhoZqBY - if you've not seen it, take the time to watch. But get ready for the WTF moments. (The way KG tries to hide how much money they've spent and how long they took, without a single functioning device.)
Based on real events, it shows just how crazy the whole procurement system has become. What's quite sad is that all of the officers involved were promoted, apart from the one who blew the whistle; and he was dismissed the service.
-
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 03:05 GMT CanadianMacFan
Re: You couldn't make it up
If you want a crazy procurement system then take a look at Canada. Billions of dollars and a few years in and we have yet to start to cut steel on our new ships. We've badly needed to replace our fighter jets for a long time and we just put our 2nd or 3rd RFP for replacements. Etc, etc, etc.
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 13:59 GMT Tikimon
The world's first IOT aircraft? Predictable results?
Am I the first to notice this debacle of an airplane is an Internet Of (broken) Things device? Think about it... it gets updates from the Mothership, shares all the data it collects with same, automatically orders supplies, has gaping security holes, and doesn't perform its intended functions well. Sounds like classic IOT to me. Therefore, it's behaving exactly as I would expect.
I'll be off now to reminisce about the days when my fair country made amazing and capable warplanes. Guess we had our run...
-
Monday 1st August 2016 23:40 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: The world's first IOT aircraft? Predictable results?
...and controlled by a central, remote, server.
Lives may be at steak if the server goes down
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Tornado radar ...
Why have I just remembered being told that the "ground hugging radar" fitted to Tornadoes in the 80s/90s (and one of the reasons the US was so keen to have the UK on board for Gulf War I, as they didn't have that capability) was actually a lump of concrete, and any "gee-whizz" low flying was actually down to the pilot ?
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:36 GMT SkippyBing
Re: Tornado radar ...
Because someone was obviously confusing the two different types of Tornado. The air defence variant was initially delivered with concrete ballast rather than radars, the interdiction/strike version had a fully working terrain following radar, it's just the pilots could manually fly lower than the radar. Assuming they could see out the window.
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Tornado radar ...
According to Rumour, the USAF Pilots would not fly a zero altitude. The old 'war games' between the US and the UK were canned when the US called foul at the RAF flying so close to the ground in thei Buccaneers that they left a sandstorm behind them which clogged up vital bits of kit on the yank planes. One RN pilot I ran into during Sea Harrier trials said that he'd flown through the top of a wave more than once in a Buccaneer.
That was the whole idea. Fly in low under the Radar, drop your load and hightail it out again.
-
Tuesday 2nd August 2016 06:57 GMT MrT
Red Flag...
... Nellis AFB commander reportedly had a photo of a large curved trench in the desert floor, taken after one of the contests in which the RAF took part. When asked, he said it was left by the wingtip of a Vulcan as it manoeuvred at extreme low level. Another Vulcan landed with cable fouling the tail, snagged as the plane flew under power or telegraph lines - at the time it the snagging, the plane was going up. A further example of the RAF pilots' flying skills was when one Vulcan flew in as a cover for two Buccaneers (Operation Skyshield IIRC, simulated attacks against the US eastern seaboard) - one radar blip became three as the two smaller planes broke cover from under the Vulcan's shadow. The way the RAF flew their 4-engined plane when it first attended the contest was such that one US pilot commented that he liked the new fighter jet, but he thought it a bit big, not realising that it could haul 21,000 lbs of bombs.
-
-
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:53 GMT Rich 11
Leonardo - not incomprehensible, but an inspiration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architonnerre
Hopefully, though, the Italian boffins are thinking up something a bit more 21st century, though still ground-breaking.
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Read between the lines
Basically the Yanks don't want anyone "snooping" the laser targeting system to figure out how it can be defeated. Given the American history of blue on blue accidents there's a good chance that they have figured out how to communicate from the "target" to the aircraft with the new system to stop the flyboys killing our forces in the future.
F35 laser paints the target, target says "Friend" - laser moves on to next target.
-
Monday 1st August 2016 16:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Read between the lines
there's a good chance that they have figured out how to communicate from the "target" to the aircraft with the new system to stop the flyboys killing our forces in the future.
F35 laser paints the target, target says "Friend" - laser moves on to next target.
That's assuming the system prevents the idiot americans from actually firing anyway.
-
Monday 1st August 2016 17:53 GMT PNGuinn
Re: Read between the lines
"F35 laser paints the target, target says "Friend" - Computer says KILL."
Or in the case of the Internet of Warfare Things - someone else's computer says "KILL"
It's all to do with security see - we can't have the enemy shooting up our /sorry, your /forces.
We MUST shoot first.
-
-
Monday 1st August 2016 20:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Read between the lines
"Basically the Yanks don't want anyone "snooping" the laser targeting system to figure out how it can be defeated. "
And given how the UK is riddled with foreign agents, you'd want to be doing tests in secure areas. The secure areas will probably still be compromised with foreign agents and monitoring equipment, but it is at little easier for the cops to prove it. They are the same cops that let a Russian asylum seeker get assassinated in 2006, so the US and most of NATO doesn't expect too much from UK security forces. I'm surprised the US even installed EOTS on the UK F35s, as there is no way the UK could protect the technology.
-
Monday 1st August 2016 21:41 GMT x 7
Re: Read between the lines
"F35 laser paints the target, target says "Friend" - laser moves on to next target."
Yanks have had that technology for over 20 years, though I don't know if it was ever out into use, For obvious reasons I'm not saying how, though I expect the technology has moved on since I was made aware in the 1990's
-
Monday 1st August 2016 14:56 GMT Spudley
<quote>According to the Defence Ranges Safety Committee, the F-35 has only been cleared to use the designator laser “in the US under very tight controls”.</quote>
Blue Leader: Bogie has flown out of our airspace. Should I pursue?
Base: Uh, negative Blue Leader, you'll have to let him go; you'd get sued for export violations if you cross the border.
