Elbit Awarded Contract To Develop F-35 Display Replacement

[juretrn]

sauce: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-19/elbit-awarded-contract-develop-f-35-display-replacement

Quote

In early June, Elbit System of America announced a contract from Lockheed Martin to develop a panoramic cockpit display unit to replace the fighter’s current L3 Aviation Products cockpit display. During the Paris Air Show later that month, Harris Corporation said it had a contract from Lockheed Martin to improve the F-35’s data storage, display processing and throughput capabilities.

...

The new panoramic cockpit display will have the same dimensions as the [current display]—20 inches by 8 inches overall, divided electronically into two 10-by-8 inch, side-by-side screen elements, according to Lockheed Martin

Feel jealous yet? Apparently fighter pilots of the future are going to have a screen better than your PC does

20x8 inch OLED panel is going to be quite large, to say the least. 

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by TheRandomness
Fixed formatting

[DuckDodgers]

The question is, will it run FreeSync™?

[Taf the Ghost]

The more interesting stuff is the custom HUDs within the Helmets they use.

[Sakkura]

20 inches by 8 inches is actually kinda small compared to PC monitors.

[Trixanity]

Will the F35 ever be finished? Very few people have actually flown one (customers are denied test flights and for some reason they'll still buy one), things breaking and new bugs discovered all the time and they keep redesigning things both to fix all the problems and add/improve features. Total clusterfuck. Sad!

[Bananasplit_00]

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Will the F35 ever be finished? Very few people have actually flown one (customers are denied test flights and for some reason they'll still buy one), things breaking and new bugs discovered all the time and they keep redesigning things both to fix all the problems and add/improve features. Total clusterfuck. Sad!

Isn't the euro fighter also pretty bad? I remember something about that. Anyway JAS GRIPEN FOR THE WIN!

[Trixanity]

Just now, Bananasplit_00 said:

Isn't the euro fighter also pretty bad? I remember something about that. Anyway JAS GRIPEN FOR THE WIN!

I think the majority of large government projects are bad. Whether it's military, IT, infrastructure or whatever the case may be. They are always late, over budget and filled with problems. I guess most private companies fleece the government when doing the contracts. They know they can't fulfill it or might know their competitor is better so they manipulate to get the contract. They might promise a product that can't possibly be delivered in the timeframe or for that price but they say they will because they want the contract and they know when the time comes to reveal they need more time or more money that the contract will be extended because the product is needed and it would be more expensive to tear up the contract and buy from someone else and that the government has an obligation to get the most out of tax payers' money. Even if the contract doesn't make sense in the real world, they'll agree to it anyway. Because it's the best on paper.

[juretrn]

9 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

Will the F35 ever be finished? Very few people have actually flown one (customers are denied test flights and for some reason they'll still buy one), things breaking and new bugs discovered all the time and they keep redesigning things both to fix all the problems and add/improve features. Total clusterfuck. Sad!

Blah-dee-blah. 200 fly already.

Things are breaking and new bugs are being discovered; the F-35 has only been subject to the biggest, most comprehensive fight test program ever.

The vast majority of bugs have been ironed out. 

The results of recent exercises speak for themselves:

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

 

By the way, the plane is going into full rate production next year. How is that not ready?

[Trixanity]

Just now, juretrn said:

Blah-dee-blah. 200 fly already.

Things are breaking and new bugs are being discovered; the F-35 has only been subject to the biggest, most comprehensive fight test program ever.

The vast majority of bugs have been ironed out. 

The results of recent exercises speak for themselves:

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

 

By the way, the plane is going into full rate production next year. How is that not ready?

Why aren't customers allowed to test fly them then? Because they know they'd cancel if they found out how it performs?

I think the F35 might just be the largest travesty I've seen in recent years yet most Western militaries fell into the same pit trap. Grease the right pockets I suppose.

[Bananasplit_00]

6 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I think the majority of large government projects are bad. Whether it's military, IT, infrastructure or whatever the case may be. They are always late, over budget and filled with problems. I guess most private companies fleece the government when doing the contracts. They know they can't fulfill it or might know their competitor is better so they manipulate to get the contract. They might promise a product that can't possibly be delivered in the timeframe or for that price but they say they will because they want the contract and they know when the time comes to reveal they need more time or more money that the contract will be extended because the product is needed and it would be more expensive to tear up the contract and buy from someone else and that the government has an obligation to get the most out of tax payers' money. Even if the contract doesn't make sense in the real world, they'll agree to it anyway. Because it's the best on paper.

The Swedish Jas Gripen is pretty solid afaik

[juretrn]

You are talking out of your back-side.

I am not aware of any of the customers that doesn't have their planes yet. And they're most definitively allowed to fly them 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Now we know where that enormous price tag for an F-35 comes from .

[Sakkura]

17 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

The Swedish Jas Gripen is pretty solid afaik

It's cheap to operate. But it's based on somewhat older technology and has no stealth capability.

[TheUzu]

Just build like 90,000 nukes and disband all conventional forces, except for a fleet of like 200 Subs.

 

Then in order to maintain credibility you Nuke anyone who even touches your airspace.

 

Kim Jong giving you trouble? Glass 3 city's I bet over the long term it results in a less people dying and cleaning up the fallout cheaper than the status quo.

 

The only thing stopping us is morals, and human decency.

[Trixanity]

33 minutes ago, juretrn said:

You are talking out of your back-side.

I am not aware of any of the customers that doesn't have their planes yet. And they're most definitively allowed to fly them 

Interesting. Because most countries seem to be receiving theirs in the 2020s. And I just double checked. Pilots have been denied physical access so they've had to rely on simulators for testing and training.

 

What is your relation to the F35 program since you're overwhelmingly positive? You could argue the opposite for me but most have a negative impression of the plane (I should say planes in general - very few people in Europe are interested in spending billions on fighters instead of healthcare or useful infrastructure) except politicians who are directly involved with buying the planes, the military and other personnel dealing with the program.

[juretrn]

Let's see:

USAF, USN, USMC, UK, Israel. Norway, Netherlands, Italy, Japan,Australia have had one or more delivered already. They've been flying them for a while now.

 

Why am I positive? Well, I can tell you I have nothing to do with the program itself. either directly or indirectly. I am just completely fed up with the BS coming out of F-35 critics and blind Russian propaganda and I think most of it is wrong. And why is your impression negative? I can't really blame anyone for that; the media hates any kind of military procurement and F-35 is easily the most obvious example of that. Plus, reporting doom and gloom is more profitable.

 

I could talk about the program much more, but if you want to, then take it to PM. This discussion doesn't have much to do with fancy new OLEDs for the F-35 anymore.

In the meantime, an easily digestible video summary of F-35 controversies.

 

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Will the F35 ever be finished? Very few people have actually flown one (customers are denied test flights and for some reason they'll still buy one), things breaking and new bugs discovered all the time and they keep redesigning things both to fix all the problems and add/improve features. Total clusterfuck. Sad!

Can you point them to a compact, stealthed, vertical takeoff fighter with 360° infrared scanners that is better than the F35?

[DededeKirby]

3 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I think the majority of large government projects are bad. Whether it's military, IT, infrastructure or whatever the case may be. They are always late, over budget and filled with problems. I guess most private companies fleece the government when doing the contracts. They know they can't fulfill it or might know their competitor is better so they manipulate to get the contract. They might promise a product that can't possibly be delivered in the timeframe or for that price but they say they will because they want the contract and they know when the time comes to reveal they need more time or more money that the contract will be extended because the product is needed and it would be more expensive to tear up the contract and buy from someone else and that the government has an obligation to get the most out of tax payers' money. Even if the contract doesn't make sense in the real world, they'll agree to it anyway. Because it's the best on paper.

But when war comes it's quite the opposite frankly 

[Curufinwe_wins]

16 minutes ago, DededeKirby said:

But when war comes it's quite the opposite frankly 

That's because "cost-plus" contracts are a thing instead of fixed cost. 

 

The rational behind "cost-plus" being then that the government basically gets full transparency and control over the entire design process. The primary negatives being that it disincentives on time on budget deliveries.

 

 

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

That is one beautiful machine.

[Zodiark1593]

5 hours ago, Sakkura said:

20 inches by 8 inches is actually kinda small compared to PC monitors.

Yeah, a 21.5 inch display is pretty dinky. I wonder what sort of GPU is in the jet? 

[juretrn]

2 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Yeah, a 21.5 inch display is pretty dinky. I wonder what sort of GPU is in the jet? 

For a fighter it's pretty dope; but it's OLED

 

GPU:

http://www2.l-3com.com/displays/pdfs/redesign/ICP(2011)_LR.pdf

for more google "integrated core processor"

[Okjoek]

F-35 is a dumb idea. We should be adopting drones for most military hardware.

 

 

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Can you point them to a compact, stealthed, vertical takeoff fighter with 360° infrared scanners that is better than the F35?

There is no vertical takeoff F-35. The first and most common version is the F-35A that uses completely conventional takeoff and landing, while the F-35B is STOVL ie. it needs a short takeoff distance but can land vertically.

 

The F-35C is still in development for catapult launch from carriers.

 

Still, the F-35A looks like a pretty good fighter. Just kinda overpriced, considering it's supposed to be the cheaper workhorse behind the top of the line air superiority fighter, the F-22.

[Hiitchy]

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I think the majority of large government projects are bad. Whether it's military, IT, infrastructure or whatever the case may be. They are always late, over budget and filled with problems. I guess most private companies fleece the government when doing the contracts. They know they can't fulfill it or might know their competitor is better so they manipulate to get the contract. They might promise a product that can't possibly be delivered in the timeframe or for that price but they say they will because they want the contract and they know when the time comes to reveal they need more time or more money that the contract will be extended because the product is needed and it would be more expensive to tear up the contract and buy from someone else and that the government has an obligation to get the most out of tax payers' money. Even if the contract doesn't make sense in the real world, they'll agree to it anyway. Because it's the best on paper.

I don't mean to derail this topic but I absolutely agree with you on the over budget part. Over here, someone wanted to build stairs because people kept falling down a walkway since it was a hill. They spent $550-$850 or so to do it, and the city said they were going to tear it down because there's so much wrong with it.

 

The city wanted to spent $65,000-$150,000 to build 5-6 steps.