JSF and close air support

In article , "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

"Harry Andreas" wrote
Peter Kemp wrote:

Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
but can't readily recall).

More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
tests outside the F-35 program.

I read recently that an AMSTE demonstration with a single RADAR sensor was
successful. That's a major milestone since the earlier algorithms required
fusing two RADAR sensors to get the resolution required. I don't think
mono-sensor demo involved a fighter sensor but I don't recall any details.

Both JDAM and SDB are planned to allow use of a terminal imager. Because the
GPS nav puts the weapon into a small error basket, the terminal seeker can
be very inexpensive, given the small field of regard. On the other hand,
JDAM accuracy has been consistently better than spec, so the users are less
interested in the terminal seeker.

Hmmm. I don't know about that. Just as interested seems to me.


I'm not sure how AMSTE plays with the terminal seeker. Moving target
engagement requires post-release updates and a data link from the launcher
to the weapon but everything to date that I've seen talks about aimpoint
updates for the GPS/INS.

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
crucial.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In article , Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Harry Andreas
wrote:

In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:

Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials
are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program,
but can't readily recall).

More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 .
I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support
tests outside the F-35 program.

Yep, it's the F-35 radar on a BAC 1-11. Here's a link to an article
about the jet.

http://www.forrelease.com/D20031021/...553.29871.html

Not necessarily. A careful reading of the article (and backdoor info)
indicates that the "sensor" is a "performance representative"
"4th gen" radar that they're using to do the fusion work.
NOT necessarily the F-35 radar which I understand they're having trouble
building because of low yields.
This is the same BAC 111 that they used for the F-22 radar work. It could
have an F-22 radar on it, or an update to the F-22, or a brassboard.
There's really no reason to have a full-up F-35 radar if your main
purpose is S/W development. As long as the target processor is the
same is doesn't matter.


I'm not sure what software it's running or how mature it is to the
final version. I was a bit surprised myself but it's a program parallel
to one of mine so I've seen the brief and discussed it with one of the
PM's.

What's your program (if it's not sensitive)?
Did your contact actually say it is an F-35 radar, or did he use weasel
words like "performance representative" ?
There's nothing wrong with using a brassboard radar for work like
this, but one shouldn't claim it's a production, or even
pre-production system unless it really is.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
crucial.

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

In article , Harry Andreas
wrote:

In article , Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Harry Andreas
wrote:

In article , Peter Kemp
wrote:



What's your program (if it's not sensitive)?
Did your contact actually say it is an F-35 radar, or did he use weasel
words like "performance representative" ?
There's nothing wrong with using a brassboard radar for work like
this, but one shouldn't claim it's a production, or even
pre-production system unless it really is.

Harry,
I sent you an e-mail (assuming that's a valid address above) if not
send me one to mine after de-spam trapping it.

Pugs

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
crucial.

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM or
its proposed seeker?

In what arena have these performance deficits been observed -- development lab?
Formal DT? What is the program/system designation?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's
within the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink
are
crucial.

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace
TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM
or
its proposed seeker?

As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
munition would require some data link.

Do you have a reading disability, Weiss, or are you actually as rude as you
come off?

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current JDAM
or its proposed seeker?

As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire to
redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
munition would require some data link.

Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM is one
significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with some
relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places back in
'90 and '91.

Further, GPS + data link + terminal seeker has worked well in the past -- in
some cases, such as SLAM, at greater than "expected levels" for the program.
SLAM-ER, advanced Tomahawk, JSOW P3I, and other programs have built on the
baselines set by SLAM and other similar programs.


Do you have a reading disability, Weiss, or are you actually as rude as you
come off?

No reading disability; nowhere near as rude as you.

OTOH, you just made a couple statements that are apparently without basis or
relevance:

The Navy has been using GPS and data link in landing systems for quite a
while, in addition to TACAN. I am not aware of any current "Navy plan to
replace TACAN with GPS/Data link."

What does LAAS have to do with weapon terminal guidance?

I simply asked for some amplification, which an engineer with your claimed
credentials should be willing and able to provide. Otherwise, if you can't
answer valid questions regarding the basis for your statements, we can all
assume you're just spewing your usual BS, and no basis exists outside your
imagination.

"John R Weiss" wrote in message ...

What does LAAS have to do with weapon terminal guidance?

It was shot down before down reaching the initial approach fix? :P

Perhaps so the weapon can land quietly on 12R, taxi on over to that
FBO everyone doesn't like, park in front of the vending machine, and
show 'em who's boss?

I simply asked for some amplification,

From a device that has a SNR == 0.



Ever been hanging out at a bar in a group socializing when someone
comes up and tries to join but all they do is jump on everyone else's
signal? You notice the group pretty much just continues on with their
conversation without skipping a beat, ignoring the plea for attention.
You'll notice that in/around here. Some threads indent till they run
out of right margin Others continue right on by it as if it's not
there. Don't make it a time sink.

Don't worry that you'll be 'labeled' a troll or whatever else the
defensive tactic tries to use. It's just another tired and cliched
attempt to self-validate. Don't make it a time sink.

Jon
--

"Boy he's really starting to rant like tarver." - Tank Fixer
"Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
design?" - Mcnicoll to Tarver
"WAAS is dead, dead, dead" - The yelping puppy himself
"L5 is canceled." - yelp, yelp yelp

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than
expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace
TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

How is a proposed GPS/Data link landing system related to the current
JDAM
or its proposed seeker?

As the rest of the thread up to this point indicates, there is a desire
to
redirect a GPS guided munition post launch. The means to reprogram the
munition would require some data link.

Actually, data link is NOT a hard requirement. There have been several
initiatives in work for many years on autonomous terminal seekers -- TLAM
is one
significant example, though it may not have used GPS. I worked with some
relevant JSOW (then AIWS) P3I proposals at TI and a couple other places
back in
'90 and '91.

Irrelevent.

GPS with FOG does all that already.

In article , "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can
update
the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within
the
CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected.
Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target.
Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are
crucial.

So far the GPS/Data link combination has performed at less than expected
levels. I havn't seen anything good about the Navy plan to replace TACAN
with GPS/Data link and FAA just killed the LAAS landing system.

The JSF GPS receiver is significantly better than anything else on the market.
We'll be delivering the first EMD in September.

Google JPALS.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur