via Huffington Post.
“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”Read the entire article here.
Ironically, older jets currently in service with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps can carry the latest generation of sensor pods, which are far more advanced than the EOTS sensor carried by the F-35. The latest generation pods—the Lockheed Martin Sniper ATP-SE and Northrop Grumman LITENING-SE—display far clearer high-definition video imagery in both in the infrared and optical spectrum—and from greater distances. Further, both pods have the ability to beam those full-motion video feeds to ground troops, which provides those forces with burial intelligence information.
So the SLDInfo interviews where senior leadership talks about this revolutionizing close air support for ground troops is exactly what I thought.
Bullshit.
So what will we be getting if everything works perfectly when the airplane enters USMC in 2015?
Less capability than the US Navy has on the Super Hornet when it comes to putting steel on target.
You thought I was over the top when I said in the future Marine Ground would be requesting Navy Air instead of Marine Air for support? From what I gather from this article I wasn't expressing it strongly enough!
This program is a scandal/fraud of the highest order and people will go to jail over this.
UPDATE: Answer this one for me. What mission will the F-35 be able to do better than legacy platforms now that we've found out that its EOTS is at least two generations behind? It will plane suck donkey dick at Close Air Support. The idea of it doing deep strike is now called into question. Air Superiority missions have always been in doubt so what will this airplane do better than a F/A-18E/F or Growler or a fully upgraded AV-8B or F-16 or F-15????
"When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development....."
ReplyDeleteWe're going to be seeing more and more of this slanted reporting. Of course the F-35B can't "enter service" next year. It has no combat capability, but we will also hear "combat capable." In fact we already have, from several sources including GAO.
"The F-35 on Final Approach", December 2014, By John A. Tirpak, Air Force Magazine--
"The massive strike fighter program is less than a year from initial combat readiness."
And the implication that F-35 development has ended is also false because it isn't even scheduled to end until 2019, and the F-35 program hasn't made schedule yet. The F-35B can take off, fly for awhile, maybe get off a couple missiles in a benign environment, and land. That's about it. The F-35 mission systems haven't been tested yet, mostly because the software is years behind schedule. We're looking at 3f completion -- maybe -- a couple years from now. There is still a lot of system development left, including more development testing and then operational testing.
Of course the MC asked for all this of course when they arbitrarily selected the way-early 2015 date for IOC - initial operating capability.
DOD Dictionary: The first attainment of the capability to employ effectively a weapon, item of equipment, or system of approved specific characteristics that is manned or operated by an adequately trained, equipped, and supported military unit or force. Also called IOC.
"Employ effectively" -- we need a Robbin Laird SD interview with General Davis to 'splain that to us.
Incidentally, I've read that the MC will request air-worthiness certification from NAVAIR as an IOC requirement. Considering that there is still no engine fix mandated by the June 23 failure that might be difficult.
Not only has an outdated sensor with out the capacity to send real time images to the troops, or a laser beam, but also don't have the capacity to jamm the enemy radars and comunications, also with just a single pilot is less effective to do battle management and with a single engine is less survivable doing CAS over enemy territory, like the unluky jordan pilot that was captured in syria when his F-16 crashes. I realky hope Canada scape from this mess and buy advanced Super Hornets.
ReplyDeleteRicardo Traven sounds prophetic
ReplyDeleteRICHARDO TRAVEN F-35 VS F-18 SUPER HORNET STEALTH…
http://youtu.be/9E1sDYYgY5E
Steve Fuhr as well
ReplyDeleteJSF 35 vs F18 superhornet
http://youtu.be/IUf_hhxngK4
This was one of many criticisms of the whole F-35 approach: upgrading pods is far cheaper and easier than upgrading airplanes. Stealth and aerodynamics favor built in systems but for flexibility and rapid update cycles, you can't beat pods.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think it would be very interesting to see EW / Targeting / etc. conformal pods that retain the interchangeability and easy upgrade capability of pods but without the drag and high RCS normally associated with pods and without taking up a hardpoint.
But, but, but, but, but, but we have sensor fusion!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion a devastating article for the F-35 program. Even the most recalcitrant member of Congress would be hard pressed to defend giving our armed forces a plane that is behind the times before it even goes into battle.
After the failure of the TFX program in the 1960's I have no idea why this multi-service plane idea was ever resurrected.
It was done to save money. Ooooops - instead --
Delete2001 - $69m unit cost estimate
2005 - $82
2006 - $86
2007 - $104
2008 - $104
2009 - $104
2010 - $112
2011 - $133
2012 - $137
2014 - $185m unit procurement cost (A), and rising
(add another 80-100m for B & C)
The same applies for the futuristic HMD and DAS system that doesn't work properly vs the current HMD Aim-9XIII combo with a new IRST sensor inside the central gas tank that is plug and play and can be shared among all the airplanes of the Navy fleet, instead of having ine per plane.
ReplyDeletehttp://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/IRST_F18_118.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=625%2C417
I'm glad to see that a USAF member is finally saying what the Navy new already, that the SH/Growler are more capabke and advanced platforms than the obsolete fake stealth F-35.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/f85qHZqKwlQ
EA-18G Growler: http://youtu.be/W-IZk3_KxRQ
DeleteSO i guess when we pushed all the advancements of Pod Tech to our current fleet, no one said...hey, the F-35 will prob need this. Fucking dumb.
ReplyDeleteas a JTAC having Rover capabilities is amazing, even the Harvest hawk has that capability, granted its a KU band signal and needs a special antenna but its there. This plane is everything that's wrong with the military budget, people can blame sequestration all they want, if we didn't have this stupid plane killing the budget it wouldn't be a problem.
( i do want to point out that navy birds flying off the ship, do not have sniper or lightning pods, but have the ATFLIR, a pod made to take the beating from taking off and landing on a boat, but even that pod has been updated fairly well, just not at a Sniper 4/ Lightning 5 pod capabilities)
http://www.aviationnews.eu/10914/u-s-navy-marks-half-million-flight-hours-with-atflir/
DeleteAnd the Atflir is integrated wkth the Aesa radar. Not surprised when the Russians mentioned the Navy stryke force in Taiwan could destroy half Chinese fleet in a conflict before being destroyed.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/ONvDa0bdotA
http://youtu.be/9aVlU6GO-Ms
If the aircraft ever makes it to the target without getting shot down. Correct on SLD. They define bullshit.
ReplyDeleteMaybe big business for Israel which seem to have seen it coming and of course LM will also benefit.
ReplyDeleteI assume one problem is that none are allowed to put there own equipment in the JSF.
Incidently, the Rafael Litening is the default Indian Air Force targeting pod with it being installed on almost all our aircraft- Mig-29, Su-30, Mirage-2000 and the Prototype Tejas.
DeleteI was thinking that the F35 could be quite useful in a more stealthy AWACS role using its passive EOTS to help detect long range J20 Chinese fighters and directing F18s to intercept. I have read that the E-2 may be vulnerable. Maybe thats why the role of air refueling has been suggested for the stealthier UCLASS system.
ReplyDeleteit would be interesting to see a UCLASS refuler.
DeleteJohn! you buried the lead bro! i remember you telling me how the F-35 (when we had the old info) would actually make CAS go quicker. what does this new info do to your assessment? be interesting to get the skinny from a JTAC/Marine giving us the skinny (we forgive you for once being a doggy...you corrected yourself).
DeleteDon't confuse EOTS with DAS.
DeleteAnd neither EOTS or DAS has the resolution of the IRST going on the Super Hornet.
Deletewhat will happen to Lockmart if F35 got cancelled ?
ReplyDeletewhat will happen to USMC's plan to replace harrier then ?
Who cares?
DeleteWho cares? The shareholders, the employees, the Congressional Critters where the LM and subcontractor facilities are located, etc.
DeleteIt's a POS, but that doesn't mean it won't be purchased. The ingrained institutional corruption of the MIC is going to mean this thing is purchased unless the furor over its price and operating costs can be used by the budget hawks,
What would happen to LM? The F16 can be updated with better engines, sensors, etc. There has been enough research done by LM predecessor and NASA with it that it can be reborn and the aircraft can soldier on.
I bet you could even see a stealthy F16 if LM wasn't so tied to the F35 Brick
BTW, that's my new name for it. F35 Brick
I just don't get it, isn't someone or some entity culpable for this epic procurement failure? Shouldn't such a gross error be grounds for termination of the defense contractor, years ago, $400 Billion ago? At first, I just thought people were just naysayers on the F-35. I personally like the F-35B in particular, it seems like a good plane, not great. Well, it looks good anyway, but not at $185M a piece! At that price, I'd put that money into more F-22's.
ReplyDeleteWhy can't we make this plane work? It should be at the very least 1 generation ahead of everything else. Could this be a ploy or ruse by our military to make this plane "appear" sub-par to our enemies, when in actuality... I'd like to believe in that anyway. I just can't understand how the people in the Pentagon could let this happen, not matter how powerful these defense contractors are in Washington, we spent darn good money. It's bullsh**, our troops come first and they deserve the best.
trust me bro! i feel your pain. its a shock to the system to see such blatant deception from the last govt institution that we had faith in. for this to have gone on as long as it has indicates corruption inside the DoD that is as great as any part of the rest of govt and perhaps greater.
Deletei know you have strongly supported the program, but you have to admit. its trash.
Typical yellow journalism at it's finest. Hardly changed from the sort of stuff written about the XM1 tank, B-1 bomber, and AH-64 decades ago.
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin? First of all it's based on the Sniper XR which is still a relatively recent targeting pod with 3rd generation FLIR, hardly obsolete. The Sniper ATP-SE only entered service this year. There is no reason to believe that planned "Tech Refreshes" won't at some point include new hardware for EOTS. In many respects EOTS is a self-contained unit, AFAIK it is officially considered a line-replaceable unit (LRU).
Both an IR laser marker and "video streaming" capability were planned for notional Block 4/5 upgrades years ago. While new documentation on plans for later Blocks isn't public, I doubt any features have been cut. Considering that the F-35 can share video with other F-35's via MADL the notion that it will not be improved to transmit this to ground FACs is moronic.
A lot of unnamed sources and little else. Why didn't LM respond? Look at the date. The one unnamed source claiming there is no planning ahead, doesn't seem in touch with reality here. EOTS looks to be quite "easily upgradable" for an internal system.
To steal a quote from SMSgt Mac, "Credible sources on acquisition programs don't use the word 'dude' in discussing acquisition topics."
In order to make the F35 viable it needs to be paired with a bomb/missile truck UCAV and have 2 seats and the RIO would use the UCAV as a magazine... But I live in a fantasy world
ReplyDeleteBased on but not entirely the wonderful Sniper pod. The avionics that run EOTS, (not just a more simple plug-and-play SNIPER interface for those evil legacy aircraft LM markets against).
ReplyDeleteThe aperture the EOTS has to look through. You do want an alleged "stealth" aircraft do you not? This means there are other parts of the IR and visual spectrum that won't be available compared to the SNIPER (its advanced follow-ons and LANTIRNs) because of the low observable aperture the EOTS has to look through.
Field of view of EOTS. Maybe good enough for some interdiction missions. Not good for air-to-air (where air-to-air has those narrow spectrum issues mentioned above). Not good for CAS.
And before you say "DAS", that sensor system has less acuity compared to existing-gen NVGs. And well you cant laser-spot/mark with DAS.
Also--
ReplyDeleteData. The F-35 JPO does not decide what is export-friendly. A special board formed by the US DOD, State, Commerce etc. does.
The aircraft's joint-ness is pushed down the lowest common denominator (the worst-risk F-35 scenario), even when taking in the Delta-SDD contracts which show that while there many only be 3 variants of the F-35, there are certainly several different "configurations" tailored to a countries "needs". That "need" is both positive and negative. For example while some may want a drag-chute, others have to have a certain configuration that keeps the security MOU intact because their country is a risk (either industry or enemy espionage). That is a layered approach to security. You could probably graft on more hardware that is "advanced" for some but the design figuration path was locked down years ago to consider weight, thermal-issues and Delta SDD. As for Block 4 and above? Notional, fuzzy and blue-sky marketing since DJ Chrissy-Chris and the Funky Bunch don't have their shit sorted with Block 3. The "but-look-at-block 4,5,6") is rank bullshit to show hope vs existing failures. Confidence!. Some LRUs may be replaceable, but that doesn't account for all the fubars.
So along with data, one of the anti-tamper methods is to have the design so that recording of system data is very hard to do. Which along with data storage means that you don't get the wide variety of data storage you could do with say a closed USAF/USN-only system.
J---S---F---
The JSF Joint Operational Requirement Document (JORD) created in the 1990s and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade still assumed a post Cold War threat vs. broken down red air. They figured this JORD may hold out to about 2010. They assumed hundreds of very capable F-22s would do the heavy work against heavy threats. We all know how that turned out. The Ponzi-scheme also showed a much lighter empty weight, plenty of cheese-whiz and was sold to Congress where the most expensive model would be $37M +/- . This also included wild claims of 70-80 percent commonality between varients that has (because of 2003 (removal of quick-mate-joints) and the big 2004 SWAT)...along with other poor assumptions has turned into commonality down in the 30 percent give or take.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-35_Version_Commonality_lg.jpg
and... "cousin" is not "common".
https://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/f35partclassificationgif.gif
And as for the JORD, what if when that was being created in the 1990s, someone brought up, "Dude, what if the program goes off by 10-15 years and the CHICOMs and Ruskis have credible threat aircraft designs in parallel with our by-then outdated ORD"? How much group think would allow for that? Now you know why at the end of the Cold War, the smart engineers went off to design titanium golf clubs and have them reach full operating capability by 1995. Almost forgot: the STOVL requirement is just one of many poison pills in the JORD.
Ponzi.
Scheme.
Quoting Sgt Mac?
A great maintenance guy for sure (salute).
With a very poor understanding of air power concepts.
And something that he should know by heart from his work on other aircraft systems?
The concept of mission capability rates (MC rates).
JORD for the JSF? 3 missions per day for USAF (I forget for the Navy) and 4 for the USMC.
And not mentioned? $31k per flying hour (old NAVAIR estimate), $35k per flying hour, one USAF estimate. $45k-$55k per flying hour (recent Dutch estimate).
Red flags for everyone.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSSM works for LM on the F-35 program in some capacity - everything he expounds has to be viewed in that context first and foremost. He has his opinions and I'm sure that he's a SME with some facets of the program, but he's not an aviator nor a PE.
DeleteSgt Mac sometimes reminds me of the Black Knight from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'. All chopped up and still claiming that its only a flesh wound.
Deletethats funny. i shouldn't laugh but can't help it. but on a more serious note, i still have hope for Sgt Mac. he's smart enough to know better but for reasons that are beyond my understanding he's standing by the program. not making the accusation but wondering aloud. is he financially invested in its success? is he being paid for support?
Deletei just don't know. i do know that bloggers have to deal with drama when they change stances. i know i did when i decided that the F-35 was a drain on resources and a waste in general. perhaps he just doesn't want to deal with that? i know he doesn't blog as much as he once did so something is going on.
When the AAQ-14 was first mooted, it was supposed to do everything for you, from automatic target recognition to classification to memory storage and recall in support of Maverick and GBU-12 target servicings. All at night, under the radar, single seat and in poor weather.
ReplyDeleteLANTIRN in fact did -none- these things and was so notoriously jittery and low resolution that one Vark pilot is on record as saying his lead bismuth detectored Pave Tack was better than the MerCadTelluride sensors on 'the next generation'.
A large part of this was no doubt due to the primitive state of extant computer systems, both in design and in image processing. Still, if you couldn't toss bomb with LGB from 250ft, you weren't much use to anyone because the Wx and the Threats in NATO were just too severe for the F-117 style laydown pass, even with SEAD.
The result was that many of the systems go 'decoupled' from the program to make it back as best they could (or not) and instead of fielding in the mid-80s (I want to say 1988) the system was thrown back into development until 1991 when a -few- targeting pods were available to the F-15Es hunting SCUDs and a couple of the FFAC F-16Ds.
And they were deemed the best thing since printed paper for the simple reason that the alternative was an A-10 pilot, 'flying with one hand' (pre-LASTE) whlle he looked over the rolled cockpit sill for signs of activity 12-15,000ft below.
The real deal still had to wait a couple years after D/S and when it started arriving in squadron's it was not altogether a success because operational restrictions (no supersonics, no 'dogfighting', while carrying pods), technical flaws (very poor, jumpy point stabilization, thanks to the aircraft IMU being so far away from the felt motions of the pod head, swinging in the breeze that it often exacerbated rather than dampened out excess inertial momemts and reliability issues across the board (the early LANTIRN LDPs were broke more often than they were fixed), especially cooling in the hot desert heat of Luke and Mountain Home.
And then, around about 1996, came the AAQ-25, as a purely Navy (paid for) inventoin. And Boy what a difference a little spare cash can make!
First, the pod had it's own IMU which meant that when the pod bounced through the turbies, so did the gyro and it dampened on an 18" vs. 9ft difference in spatial orientation. A new ECU fed a new QWIP with an SFPA and this instantly improved FLIR resolution. A fact which was further improved with a X64 digital (pixel) magnification capability and some simple auto-acquire capabilities (Snowplow etc.) that really worked. Finally, the Navy got serious about two big issues that had long haunted external avionics systems: long range lasing and SEE.
A new diode pumped laser fully supported the ability (tested by AvLeak ) to designate targets between 16-25nm away. While hardened electronics using active shielding were now considerably less vulnerable to Single Event Effects as heavy particles which the thinner blanket of air at 25-30,000 feet, along with systems arcs within the electronics themselves.
The AvLeak guy, who had also flown in both a prototype F-16D back at Edwards when LANTIRN was in development and in the F-15 SMTD when the Strike Eagle was being spec'd, was all but ecstatic.
Was it a match to the ATP then on the far horizon? No. The USAF paid heavily into Sniper to make SURE all their vanilla Blk.50s would not be useless when the technology was finally available. It took a decade but it worked.
But AAQ-25 -was- as good as LITENING II. And because it was connected to the F-14D (TARPS) RC, it could send snaps shots of what it saw, in real time. Which was the basis of the later ROVER effort.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is the AAQ-30 Hawkeye on the AH-1Z. There are specific comparitive examples of the distance at which that sensor could read a business marquee on a multistory building and the range is incredible, especially in the turbulent air at low level: 10-12nm. So far away that the building itself was barely a dot on the horizon.
Comparitively the EO-TASS as it was originally known for the RAH-66 was a specialist piece of kit that was designed to work with 1980s detector technology as an linear bar scanned equipment, more like an IRLS, because SFPA systems were not available. This system could only see a fraction as far (though vastly better than the ASQ-120 TADS of the Apache), something like 6-8nm. But what it coudl do was look at a scene and treat it's near-far target placement like a layer cake using thermographic techniques to determine range from depression angle and taking mini-snapshots of all the hotspots within that scene in 2-3 seconds, storing it all in a pioneering mass video memory system with sufficient speed to allow the pilot to bob-up and down inside the reaction window of systems like the SA-15 and 19.
The CPG would then scroll through the target image list assign those which were important (tanks and ADV) tag callouts and hand them off for engagement to other assets over an evolved ATHS datalink.
The Hawkeye could do no such thing and indeed was only intended to be used as a reconnaissance tool in support of other platforms through the traditional 'Marine Fire Support System' (as of 2011, still vocomms with UHF/VHF) rather than by automation-
Marines Contemplate Switch To DIgital Comms
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=691556
Though their is interest in establishing a so-called 'Tactical Data Network' based on, of all things, a civilian open-architecture smart phone device, the reality is that this system woudl be self limiting in it's functional range unless piggy backed onto existing cell system (i.e. on the enemy comms network).
I have a feeling that the EOTS is largely intended to function more closely to the Hawkeye model than to the EOTASS, for the simple reason that the jets likely to be forward in the first few hours of a tactical campaign are all going to be stealthy to be survivable and they have a common MADL/IFDL architecture with which to talk among themselves using an LPI/LPD waveform.
It is perhaps indicative of the period 1994 program start that the aircraft are still seen in this discrete, preplanned, target matrix conditio of deep attack mode (similar to the F-117 attack on the Iraqi AFHQ which produced the famous 'bomb down HVAC ventilation shaft' imagery) when so few threat states field organized defenses of this nature and those which do will have evacuated or highly protected their fixed COGs beyond even stealth approach.
In any case, it is deceptive to think that MADL cannot 'speak' Link-16 as the MAPS and Project Missouri efforts have already shown this with the Talon Hate pods on F-15/16 and via an ADL connection to an 'external gateway' which I assume is a persistent UAS or overhead capability.
MAPS and Project Missouri = 5->4 Capability
ReplyDeletehttp://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-s-secret-project-missouri-links-f-22-f-35
http://aviationweek.com/defense/5th-4th-gen-fighter-comms-competition-eyed-fiscal-2015
What is important to note here is that even as the AAQ-40 represents an early generation Sniper equivalent capability-
AAQ-40 EOTS (to my eye, sharper imagery)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fsp1jesXT0
AAQ-35 Sniper (Still Good)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9d8bstWsE
It is as far above the level of resolution which even the Bombcat's Super-LANTIRN offered in the 1996 as the latter was over the original AAQ-14.
Forget what the narrator says in the above video and look at the images 90% of the way down this page-
Translated Optronics Sampler
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fsistemasdearmas.com.br%2Fca%2First.html
Those are all early Sniper XR pod images from 41, 35 and 21 nautical miles. The Mach point of 1.12 tells you a JDAM realeased from a reasonable height of 25-30,000ft (inside the contrail layer) will fly about 12nm to hit those admittedly large B-52 targets.
ARGUMENT:
The range of modern munitions like SDB (50nm for a surface impact, 25nm for a penetration ballistic profile) and AASM (20nm+ for a boosted variant) is such that, they are ALL going to be delivered beyond the range of a laser system to matter. So far in fact that you may be better off using radar and SAR modes to designate and capturing seeker data from an IIR/MMW seeker on the munition for fine aimpoint control. Particularly if the target is below clouds.
This is what the JSF was /functionally/ designed to do. CAS is secondary to this capability for the simple reason that the threat values are so low and the responsiveness requirement (TOF flyout) so high that it will seldom, if ever, challenge the standoff resolution of the FLIR.
Certainly not in most Taliban threat conditions (Laser AD on a technical could theoretically change this, as could hunting weapons).
What you further need to acknowledge, from the above video of the SNIPER-XR demonstration in an F-16, is that whether at 12 or 20 nautical miles the F-16's ability to use the extended range of the targeting pod is directly proportional to the level of threat reduction which has cleared a corridor to the target area. Particularly if using unboosted munitions, the best you can hope for is a short popup to altitude after your buddy has lofted the likes of a GBU-53 forward with brief lasing at low level, as the munition goes terminal.
How important is this for most interdiction missions? Zero.
If you are operating in a very high threat environment, saturated with S-300PMU-2 and S-400 hyperSAM, you are looking at cruise weapons and stealth assets, all the way.
They will likely be using SAR (indeed the F-22 has no choice) rather than EO wavelengths and they will get _THE SAME CEP IMPACT SEPARATIONS_ of around 2.65m for P-Coded JDAM in OIF, according to a Boeing spokeswoman, as if they used SALH or IIR homing.
The only difference being that the JSF and F-22 can approach high and fast enough to loft direct attack (heavy weight, GBU-31/32) munitions SDBs without impaling themselves on the threat WEZ which will _not_ always be visible as a convenient emission trace but may well be in popup SAMbush taking engagement cues from other systems.
CONCLUSION:
As much as I despise the F-35 as a system metric, we must not allow ourselves to be swayed or tricked by convenient tales. If this isn't another PRBS ploy to 'prove us wrong' it is in fact the first signs of the USN and USAF jumping ship on the JSF program rather than be pulled down by the vortex effect of so much acquisition expenditure in an ever shrinking sequester/recession environment.
At best, that is -all- this is, as convenient excuses to get out from under on a program which will provide manned aviation a future platform guarantee of existence but no flying hours to exploit it.
What was funny is that LANTIRN wasn't very salty friendly. When they put them on bombcats they would corrode real bad and fail. In someways, ATFLIR has a few lessons-learned from that.
ReplyDeleteLANTIRN was successful on the bombcat. Just that you had to have some on hand to rotate out to get refurbed from the corrosion.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note: "New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Fire Its Gun Until 2019"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html?via=newsletter&source=CSMorning