Slashdot Mirror


USAF Gets F-35 Flight Simulator

cylonlover writes "Eglin Air Force Base has just taken delivery of a piece of hardware that would surely be the ultimate toy for flight sim gaming fans. The F-35 Lightning II Full Mission Simulator (FMS) system includes a high-fidelity 360-degree visual display system and a reconfigurable cockpit that can simulate all three variants of the F-35 Lightning II for US and international partner services – the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the F-35C carrier variant."

33 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, but... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it MMOG?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Top Gun by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will really help us battle the Al Qaeda Air Force.

    1. Re:Top Gun by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

      no it won't... all we need to defeat al qaeda air force (AQAF) is a couple of Cessnas and some hand grenades.

      However, it WILL help us defeat the Chinese air force, if or when they invade Taiwan and start launching their new ballistic anti-ship missiles at our carriers.

    2. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Geography didn't favor the Empire of Japan vs the United States or Germany vs the United States.

      China and the US won't go to war over Taiwan in the near-term simply because China lacks the ability to invade Taiwan. Even with high profile programs like the new Chinese stealth fighter and a Chinese aircraft carrier, the People's Republic of China lacks the ability to project power across the Straights of Taiwan conventionally, they can point missiles at Taiwan and threaten them with nuclear weapons, but that's it. They can't invade because they don't have troop transport capability.

      While China has nukes that can reach the United States, in a nuclear exchange between the PRC and US, the PRC can't destroy the US, the US certainly has the nuclear arsenal to destroy the PRC as a nation-state.

      Right now and for the near to mid-term, the only nation that has nuclear parity with the US is the Russian Federation.

    3. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Think again. Treaties get overlooked at times like that. We could not defend Taiwan from an all out Chinese attack. They could literally fight a war of attrition. In the end the last Chinese soldier would cross in a fishing boat to Taiwan, plant a PRC flag and die of radiation poisoning.

    4. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Geography never favors Japan, they have to import everything. Germany did not lose to the USA, it lost to the USSR. No male on my maternal grandmothers side lived through the war, all six of them died on the eastern front. Without the USSR in the war Germany would have lost the USA after berlin was nuked. If England did not fall first.

    5. Re:Top Gun by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Indeed getting the USSR into the war was a bad move. The USSR were not useless at all, they clogged the gears of the German war machines by throwing bodies at it.

    6. Re:Top Gun by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      Germany lost to the Allies.

      Without the United Kingdom and the United States bombing the ever living crap out of Germany day and night, the Germans would have had the fuel, aircraft, armor and super weapons to end the Soviet Union.

      The Eastern Front was a body dump for both sides while the Atlantic Wall, the North African campaign and air war in the west ground down Germany's extra man power and material, just like the western front did in WW1 for Germany.

      Example, the Atlantic Wall in France alone had a garrison of 380,000 men and 2200 armored vehicles in from March 1942 to June 1944 and defense against Overlord brought that number to 1,000,000 by August 1 1944.

      Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.

    7. Re:Top Gun by AndersOSU · · Score: 2

      You mean the one that stopped being good law during the Carter administration?

      The only thing sillier than the assertion that a dead treaty would draw us into combat with China is the idea that China has any interest whatsoever of stirring that particular pot of worms. The only thing China has been interested in for about two decades now are markets for its labor force. Sure China likes takes the opportunity to use Taiwan for some elaborate posturing, but there is no way it would risk its economy over that tiny island.

      If the Shanghai factories can't ship lawn chairs to Walmart, China falls from the inside without the US launching a single cruise missile.

    8. Re:Top Gun by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Think again. In the real world, the Chinese would fight a war of attrition and the US would kill them in mass from the air and sea. Unlike an assault, you don't need feet on the ground to defend a country because the indigenous population is fully capable of doing the shit work the US wouldn't want to do in the first place - as should be - its their nation. Which means, the US would have the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel finally being able to unleash its full military arsenal and potential.

      And contrary to popular hype, over all, the Chinese technology is many, many decades behind the US; save only for tiny groups of premiere forces. The bulk of their military is equipped with Korean era weapons; and that's the minority who are actually equipped. Literally, the US' military is specifically designed to stomp on these types of forces, over and over and over again. Which means China absolutely does not want to combat the US unless they plan on using nukes - and even then, its complete suicide for the Chinese. Which means, it would be completely insane for them to start a war they are guaranteed to lose.

      You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration. And no, I'm not talking about MOABs or nukes.

      Furthermore, you really need to understand, what the world has seen of US capabilities in recent times literally a fraction of the force they can bring to bare on its enemies. Even China would be beaten into the stone age without the use of nukes should they ever draw the ire of the US. That's not to say the US wouldn't feel some pain, but understand full well, the outcome is fully understood without the need to ever wage war.

    9. Re:Top Gun by icebike · · Score: 2

      >

      Had those men and vehicles been at Stalingrad, the initial strength could have gone from 270,000 to 470,000 men and 500 tanks to 2500 tanks.

      The German supply lines would have been just that much more critical and inadequate.

      Russia did not defeat the Germans as much as they simply slowed them down enough to let the weather defeat them.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Top Gun by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      China has manufacturing capabilities that could do this in two months. It would take the world over a month to figure out they were even doing so.

      Luckily, half the landing craft that were manufactured would sink as soon as they were launched, and the other half would kill the soldiers on them with lead and arsenic poisoning before they got 20 miles off the coast.

      This is assuming that most of their divisions didn't expire from black lung before they managed to get through the industrial area to the port.

    11. Re:Top Gun by Kelbear · · Score: 2

      The US would not respond to an invasion of Taiwan. The cold reality is that the US has nothing to gain by fighting for Taiwan's independence.

      However, China does not want to look like the bad guy taking Taiwan by force. So they let Taiwan be...for now.

      And really, there's no need to invade Taiwan. Economic warfare is far more effective. China won both the war in Iraq and Afganistan by buying up resources and snagging reconstruction contracts, and without spending any money or political capital on military force.

      Most likely, a large tsunami or earthquake will hit Taiwan one day. China will come in to offer humanitarian aid to what it calls it's province, and then stay, and no one will object since they will need the aid more than they need independence after a disaster. China will deny all other political entities from offering aid, claiming sovereignty.

    12. Re:Top Gun by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Without the United Kingdom and the United States bombing the ever living crap out of Germany day and night, the Germans would have had the fuel, aircraft, armor and super weapons to end the Soviet Union."

      Not really. The impact of firebombing is somewhat overestimated.

      "The Eastern Front was a body dump for both sides while the Atlantic Wall, the North African campaign and air war in the west ground down Germany's extra man power and material, just like the western front did in WW1 for Germany."

      North Africa? LOL! It was minuscule by the scales of the battles on the Eastern Front. In the end the USSR was responsible for the 80% of German casualties in manpower and equipment.

      Read and weep: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

    13. Re:Top Gun by Nick+Ives · · Score: 2

      I know you're being facetious, but it's fairly obvious China could build large numbers of landing craft. They manufacture sophisticated electronics and all sorts of other products that require high skilled or high tech manufacturing.

      In that way you could say China today is similar to the USA before WW2. It has a large yet technologically second class military and a massive industrial base. If they were to be provoked, it's clear they could turn that capacity over to military production and stand a real chance of "winning" - insofar as it would be possible to win such an inevitably brutal conflict - a sustained conflict with the USA.

      --
      Nick
    14. Re:Top Gun by AndersOSU · · Score: 2

      National currency is overrated, you just have to have a good bond rating. With a good bond rating it doesn't matter whether you fire up the printing presses because that Sword of Damocles means you wont. Without a good bond rating it doesn't matter whether you can print your own money or not, no one will lend to you in your own currency without collateral.

      For that matter, nukes are overrated too, you just need a friend that has one.

      Germany is doing pretty good without either, Pakistan, not so much with both.

  3. Great more money wasted by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On a project that is already behind and overbudget. Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.

    And WTF do we need the F35 for exactly? Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? The Russians aren't building any new birds, the best they have is the Mg31 and those are rare, most of their is the MG 27 and SU27 which are 70s era tech. The Chinese? From the looks of their "stealth bird" it will be primitive as far as stealth and looks to be more for a national pride thing than a serious build up.

    The rest of the world consists of threats of irregulars with ex Soviet hardware, most of it out of date and falling apart. hell the Brits are so desperate for targets in Libya just to give them an excuse to keep the Typhoon (their personal money hole) that they are blowing up abandoned tanks that the Libyans left rotting for lack of parts years ago just to have some footage to show the public.

    This is stupid, its pointless, and it is nothing but more handouts to the top 1%ers in the MIC at a time when we can't afford it. We could have 10s of thousands of top o the line drones for less than this stupid ass plane, they would be cheaper, wouldn't risk multimillion dollar pilots, and are simple to replace. The age of fighter jocks is at an end, it is time for the government to face it and quit pissing money down a rathole.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    1. Re:Great more money wasted by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that I think the F-35 is a good decision, but the ability of the United States to project power has been based on their military technology (especially air-force) having a FAR better then "even match" ratio.

    2. Re:Great more money wasted by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Who the hell are we gonna fight that a well trained pilot in the F18 or even the F15-F16 won't be at the very least an even match? "
      Do you know what the prize is for second place in air combat? A tombstone.

      I love strong opinion with weak knowledge. You go on about how the Russians planes are all 70s tech. Well they are not and lets just go through the list of current US aircraft shall we?
      F-15 first flight 1972 entered service 1976. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle.
      F-16 first flight 1974 entered service 1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16
      F-18 first flight 1978 entered service 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18
      F-18E first flight 1995 entered service 1999 I will give the Super Hornet second timeline since it really is a massive update to the Hornet and really isn't the same aircraft even if it derived from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

      So all of your examples are all based on 70s tech. Some of it early 70s tech. Yes they have been upgraded over the years but the basic airframes are all from the 1970s except for the F-18E/F which is sort of from the 90s.
      And the F-15 was considered way to expensive when new. The thing is that we will be flying the F-22 and probably the F-35 for the next 30 plus years. You do not build a new fighter for the threats of today but for the threats 20 years from now. And the Mig-31 isn't really a fighter it is an interceptor The real current threats from from the SU-3x line of fighters but I am guessing that you are not really into military aviation that much. Nice to see that you lack of knowledge didn't stop you from voice such a long and loud opinion.
      BTW the problem with drones is now and will be for a while is bandwidth. It takes a lot of bandwidth to uplink all the sensor data that a modern combat aircraft can gather and then you have the problem of time of signal for control. Until the drones are autonomous and pick pick their own targets "Wow how about that for a really bad idea?" and can handle air to air combat on their own they will be server limits to what they can do vs a manned aircraft.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Great more money wasted by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You 02c has been determined to be worthless.
      Second sentence.

      Wonderful, especially while the reps are trying to cripple aid to the poor and handicapped.

      Anyone who believes that the Republicans are Worse than the Democrats or the other way around has no opinion of merit.
      Neither gives a shit about you. They both only want more power for the government.
      They only differ in what they tell you is the reason for grabbing more power.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Great more money wasted by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      The issue is somewhat more complicated than you make it out to be. In no particular order ... The F-35 and F-22 will outperform the older fighters but are they so superior as to make up for the fewer numbers we can buy? We had similar arguments in the '80s about whether it was better to have 4 F-15s or 40 MIG-21s in a combat situation -- luckily we never had to find out. And many of the improvements in the new aircraft are to radars and other avionics which can be integrated into new builds of the older airframes. Aerodynamically, the F-16 and F-18 are currently limited by the pilot's abilities to stay conscious during the maneuvers in some (not all) regimes anyway. Given a choice between a few F-22/F-35s and twice or three times as many F-18Es, considering that with the cheaper aircraft you can afford to fly more, train more, and afford to lose one every once in a while I don't know that it is a clear choice. The F-22/F-35 are probably the last generation of manned fighters, maybe we could have gotten away with F-18Es and upgraded F-15s as the last, as the drones come in and take on more of the actual combat. I will admit that stealth is the big attribute which the new fighters have which can't be built into the old airframes. It might make the new ones worth it.

  4. What I don't get by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2

    What I don't understand about this is how you build a simulator for a craft that only a handful of people have flown, is in limited production and for which there is no combat data in existence. I know that test pilots take their jobs pretty seriously but can they really have tried all of the stupid things that ALL of the multinational end-users are going to try?

    1. Re:What I don't get by Noughmad · · Score: 2
      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:What I don't get by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      In general, mission simulators are just that - simulators for the mission. Its to train the pilots on the systems in the cockpit, get them to know where things are and what to press to make stuff happen - these simulators are not meant to train pilots in the finer points of the actual aircraft handling, they will get that when they go to an Operational Conversion Unit (or the equivilent of). Basically its so when they get into the cockpit for the first time (since there won't be any two seater F-35s), they know how to handle emergencies and situations, they know what light means what and which button to press - they will have some familiarity with the aircraft before they fly it for the first time, and that familiarity will help them if they have an emergency on that first few flights.

  5. Re:Ugh the F-35... by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

    I haven't seen any reports that puts them anywhere near the cost of an F-22.

    You have to think of it this way: MOST of the time we're not fighting the Chinas or Russias of the world. We're fighting small countries with air forces that might have a few dozen surplused 50 year old fighters. We simply don't need state of the art for those battles, so why waste the money on it.

    Bulk up the fleet with a cheaper plane that can do 99% of what our air forces need to do, and then keep a smaller number of F-22's ready for if we really do end up going to war with another superpower.

    Think of them like an Atom processor - "good enough" for most tasks, and more efficient and cost effective. You only splurge for a more limited number if i7's for the things that really need it :D.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  6. Re:Ugh the F-35... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The F-35 was supposed to be the replacement aircraft for the F/A-18, AV-8B Harrier and the F-16 - basically the mid-range strike fighter aircraft for the next 35 years for the USAF, USMC and the USN. It was also supposed to be a comparable replacement cost wise, with a lower cost per unit than the F-22 Raptor and lower maintenance than any of the aircraft it was replacing.

    The problem is, today its over budget, late and is still suffering from drastic design and development problems - the VSTOL variant is almost dead in the water, with the word around the industry that Lockheed needs to do a radical redesign of both the airframe and the lift system for the F-35B, with the result that the USMC has switched part of its order to the carrier borne variant instead.

    The lower maintenance cost requirement is going to be missed horrifically as well, with current estimates putting the aircraft to be more than 35% more expensive to maintain during its life than any of the aircraft it will be replacing.

    With over 1,600 airframes intended to be sold during its life, it was supposed to be the cheap next generation aircraft that would become the mainstay of the US air capability for the next quarter of a century, but instead its turned into a seriously overpriced, under performing white elephant.

    The F-35 was supposed to be second in the air only next to the F-22, it was supposed to be able to fight its way into a first world air defence zone, strike a ground target, and deal with any air threat whilst doing so - it was supposed to best anything the Russians or the Chinese could put in the sky.

    Currently, its just a big waste of time and money.

  7. Re:Too realistic? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2

    Private Pilot flies the SR-71 simulator: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srsim~1.htm

    Private Pilots fly the Mig-29 (with a Russian Pilot in the 2nd seat) http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/ken/mig.html

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  8. Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

    This reprint of a reprinted Lockheed Martin press release is simply awesome and it has convinced me to enlist in the Air Force. I have also decided to call all my elected representatives and ask for more funding for Lockhe... the military. You should all do the same! And by the way, I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products... because they are so awesome, I don't need to! Now lets go blow up some brown people.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Who cares, I'm enlisting NOW! by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Funny

      I totally do not work for Lockheed Martin and have no interest in promoting their excellent products...

      Obviously. Now put away that squeegee - I already told you my windshield is fine.

  9. The B-2 is mission incapable? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    How so? The thing has flown many missions including both Iraq wars, Kosovo, and most recently Libya. It does what it is advertised to do: Flys in a lot of bombs without being detected.

    It is an exceedingly expensive bomber, but it does its job well.

  10. Learn history, dude! by Cyberax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your knowledge of history is abysmal.

    First, USSR proposed creation of anti-Hitler coalition in 1938 and actually was ready to move against Germany.

    And yes, you read it correctly - in 1938. England basically said: "Fuck you, USSR! Hitler is a pig and a nationalist, but he's a CAPITALISTIC pig and a nationalist. So go rot in hell." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement ).

    The USSR parsed this reply correctly as: "You're on your own" and decided to make the best of the situation by securing access to Leningrad (Winter War), annexing some former provinces of the Russian Empire and stalling for time (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). And after the WWII began it became inevitable that USSR would have to intervene at some point.

    Hitler then badly underestimated the Soviet army (which he called the "Colossus with feet of clay") partly because of the disastrous (for the USSR) Winter War. And that was what has caused the downfall of Nazi Germany. The USSR army was the main reason behind the Hitler's defeat.

    1. Re:Learn history, dude! by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "First: Russia would have never held Moscow without massive western aid."

      WTF?!?!?! Lend-lease help has just started coming in significant quantities by the time the Battle of Moscow was winding down (the First Protocol has been signed on the day of the German's offensive operation). Also, the total amount of lend-lease shipments was completely dwarfed by the native USSR production.

      "Second: Nazi Germany was, in name and actions, a socialist state."

      Dude, read about fascism. That's definitely NOT a socialistic state, it's an uber-capitalistic one. That's why Hitler loathed USSR.

      "Third: Russia's army had been decapitated by Stalin's paranoid purges prior to WWII. They started the war dis-functional."

      That is also not true. While Stalin did purge a lot of capable officers, the Red Army was far from being "decapitated".

  11. Re:Ugh the F-35... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the past few wars, by far the most effective air craft have been the B-52 and the A-10. Most of the combat sorties have been air to ground. Problem is there really isn't anything to replace the A-10 in terms of being able to fly low, slow, take a lot of hits, and dish it out. An A-10 can loiter around a kill box for a couple hours for on call close air support. I believe the loiter time for an F-16 is about 30 minutes before they have to go tank up again with fuel.

    Drones are starting to fufill this role, but they can't carry the sheer amount of bombs, rockets, missiles, and the 30mm anti-tank gun the A-10's could.

    Thing is about the A-10 is the generals never wanted it because it ain't a sleek sexy fighter jet.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.