あまり知られていない物、分類が難しい物など   2018/9/4更新 空対空の言及      2018/8/2追加 デザインの変遷、F135      2018/7/1追加 AIAA2018   2018/5/2更新 空対空の言及  2018/4/9追加 空対空の言及  F-35が弾道ミサイル防衛を行う構想が進む


JAST / JSF / F-35構成の進化
トレード - モデリング/シミュレーション - リスク/手頃な価格 - 分析 - テスト
JAST/JSF/F-35 Configuration Evolution
Trades - Modelling/Simulation - Risk/Affordability - Analysis - Testing





2018年7月17日ソース:FLIGHT DAILY NEWS BY:ガレット・リム・ファーボーン
FARNBOROUGH: Japan F-35 production headed to max capacity next year
“Jet engines are entirely complex. There are 10,000 different parts, clearances that are finer than a strand of hair, finishes that are finer than a mirror. We spin at 10,000 revolutions per minute. We operate at 2,000° plus – so you can’t get anything wrong,” says Bromberg.


Fast 5:Pratt&WhitneyのGatorworksの詳細
Lee Ann Shay 2018年7月6日

Fast 5: Details of Pratt & Whitney’s Gatorworks
Lee Ann Shay | Jul 06, 2018
If you look at the performance of the F135, it’s the most accomplished fighter engine ever produced. If you compare the F135 in its first 100,000 hours of service, which we just recently passed, to that of the F119 and F100, when each of those engines was at that point of service, we’re at 13 times more reliable at 100,000 hours. Over time, to clarify, we’ve improved the reliability of the F119 and F100, but it goes to show the benefits of our development cycles. What we’re wrestling with is, how do we maintain the strengths of what Pratt & Whitney has, yet be responsive to the services.


2010年8月26日 Guy Norris | AWIN First
Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification. The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb.

Pratt Raises Stakes In JSF Engine Battle
Aug 26, 2010 Guy Norris | AWIN First
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification. The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb., and follows results from the General Electric/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team earlier this month that indicate the F136 alternate engine has in excess of 15% margin against the same specification. Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Warren Boley says the F135 result proves “we have demonstrated margin” and that “we have the right core size.” Thrust growth is not a specific requirement for the Lockheed Martin F-35; however, the provision of additional margin — either for trading for longer operating life or for future growth — is considered an important bargaining chip by the contenders. Nevertheless, Boley says even though Pratt has demonstrated measured thrust with the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) engine variant well in excess of the F135’s advertised 43,000-lb.-thrust capability, the focus remains on providing a systems-level solution to the F-35 thrust requirement. “So when someone says an engine can produce more thrust, if the lift fan can’t produce more, then you can’t use that thrust,” he says. Another thrust-limiting factor is the Pratt-developed exhaust duct, Boley adds. As a result, “if someone says their thrust module can produce more thrust, it is interesting but not applicable,” he says. Overall F135 thrust margin also varies depending on engine variant and altitude. For example, tests show that the CTOL engine has around 12% excess against specification at higher Mach numbers, and the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) variant has “demonstrated much less margin” owing to configuration limitations placed by the lift fan. Although Boley outlined plans at the recent Farnborough air show to start tests of a higher-thrust F135 in January 2011, and later next year starting rig tests of a “growth” fan, he says this strategy is aimed at 5-10% thrust growth for later F-35 development “if needed.” Questions remain over what thrust will be needed, and when, because the baseline thrust assumption for the F-35 “is that it is not going to grow and grow like the F-16.” The F-16 thrust requirement, like other fourth-generation fighters such as the F-15, has grown in lockstep with heavier weapons and stores payloads. This is not the case with the F-35, Boley says, which for stealth reasons is designed to accommodate the majority of its payloads and future growth internally. “Fifth-generation fighter optimization is different from the optimization used for the fourth generation. Requirements drove the 43,000 lb. thrust to begin with, and it’s not one that is going to grow from 24,000 to 29,000 to 32,000 lb. thrust,” he says. This is one reason the GE-Rolls “great fighter engine war” argument is irrelevant, Boley asserts. Boley spoke at Pratt’s facility here, where the engine maker is closing on the final set of initial service release (ISR) tests for the F-35B Stovl engine. “We’re at the end of the development cycle,” he says. ISR clearance work is focused on accelerated mission and crosswind tests on two engines at West Palm Beach, and inlet operability tests on an engine at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tenn. With the completion of these, “we will write 3,000 verification reports to the JSF Program Office, and late in the fall the system program office will stamp off the ISR for the F-35B engine,” he adds. Actual clearance is expected around Dec. 1. The tests mark the conclusion of the F135 development phase, the CTOL engine having achieved ISR clearance in early March.




AIAA(米航空宇宙学会)2018 aviationフォーラム────運用費30%削減予定、制空設計、武器30以上、最も強力なレーダー、新DAS解像度5倍など

Babione: F-35A、B、C間の部品の3分の2は共通部品です。メンテナンス費用を30%節約すると推定されています。
Babione: Some two-thirds of the parts between the F-35 A, B, and C are common parts. Estimated to save 30% in maintenance costs.


  • グローバルなサプライチェーンを構築することで、運用コストを推定約30%削減できます。(21:15)

  • F-35は最初から制空機として計画された。(23:20)
    f-35 was going to be multi-role so not only did it have to be air superiority for those countries that needed it as their frontline fighter.

  • 近い将来、30以上の武器が統合される予定です。(24:35)

  • 最も強力な戦闘機レーダー。(26:20)
    is the most powerful radar in any fighter the Northrop Grumman apg-81.

  • 新型レイセオンDASは、従来DASの5倍の解像度を有しています。{55%のコストと5倍の信頼性}(47:31)

  • F-22のアップグレード性は、過大評価されていたか、正しく行われていませんでした。;彼らはF-35で同じ問題を抱えたくはない。(54:19)

At the 20:10 mark:
-A/C share the same engine
-OFP is the same across all aircraft - it detects what version it is in
-2/3rds of LRUs are the same across all versions.
-Global parts pool saves 30% in costs
At the 23:00 mark:
-Air Superiority was planned from the beginning
At the 26:20 mark:
-Most powerful fighter radar
At the 39:30 mark:
-Final Test Program numbers
-9,200+ Test Flights
-65,000 Test Points
-183 Weapon Separation Tests
-46 Weapon Accuracy Tests
-33 Mission Effectiveness Tests
-140,000+ Flight Hours so far (Program Wide)
At the 43:10 mark:
-$80mil Flyaway by 2020
-150 F-35s in 2020
At the 47:32 mark:
-Over the next 10 years Block 4+ there are 60 new hardware & software capabilities
-New EODAS unit has 5x the resolution of Gen1 EODAS (at 55% of the cost & 5x reliability)
-Auto-GCAS coming (before 2020)

Some notes that I took watching it:
-Lockheed projects 750+ additional FMS sales from upcoming customers.
-Having a global supply chain supposedly saves ~30% on operational costs.
-30+ weapons are planned for integration in the near future.
-1600+ suppliers worldwide, 194,000+ direct / indirect jobs in the US.
-UK & Italian IOC later this year, USN IOC likely in Q2 2019.
-Jeff is confident that the F-35 won't be the last manned fighter (PCA & F/A-XX).
-F-22 upgradability was overestimated / not done correctly; they want to not have that same issue on the F-35.
-Talking to Google's CEO, Jeff was told that the hardware overspecification that they were doing (in terms of having excess processing power, etc) was only 1/10th of what Google would do.
-There's an intent to look at an OMS (Open Mission System) architecture which would allow them to do things like integrate a new sensor into the jet within just days; they've apparently demonstrated that capability in the U-2 and an associated Skunkworks project.
-The new Raytheon DAS apparently has 5x the resolution of the legacy DAS (I'm assuming he didn't get that figure mixed up with the 5x more reliable figure); this would imply that the 2x performance increase was something like detection distance. [47:30]
-Jeff honestly believes that if he were to do the F-35 program all over again from scratch, he wouldn't really change anything major in terms of concurrency, commonality, etc.

  • F-16のDSIはマッハ2に達しました。
  • スカンクワークスは1997年、風洞データからDSIが航空機全体の空力性能を低下させたことが示唆されたため、F-22で使用された「キャロット(?)」インテークを備える事を望んでおり、実際にはDSIを望んでいなかった。 しかし、F-16DSIを監督したロッキードの男は、スカンクワークスに風洞データを再びチェックするように上司を説得し、その予想された空力性能低下をDSIが持っていないことを証明しました。

  • TR2(ブロック3i)の前に、テックリフレッシュ0.5とTR1(ブロック2B)がありました。

Notes (not all info is new) from the panel:
-The weapons integration paper (designing the weapon bays for the next 50 years) coming out is apparently fascinating.
-The DSI on the F-16 reached Mach 2.
-Skunkworks back in 1997 didn't actually want the DSI, they wanted to go with the "carrot(?)" intake used on the F-22 because wind tunnel data suggested that the DSI decreased overall aircraft aerodynamic performance; the Lockheed guy that oversaw the F-16 DSI however convinced the bosses to make Skunkworks check their windtunnel data again which proved that the DSI didn't have the aerodynamic thought.
-Half the team at Pax River and Edwards is / was Lockheed, half government.
-Every night the SDD team would put out a report on tests done that day and what was planned for tomorrow, including some weekends, which was read by everyone, including the program heads in Lockheed and the Pentagon.
-5 countries are considering the F-35 and twice that have made inquiries of some sort.
-The US owns all F-35 spare parts until the moment it goes onto a partner / FMS jet; this basically allows the global supply chain to work.
-764 partner / FMS jets are planned so far.
-There was a Tech Refresh 0.5 and TR1 (Block 2B) before TR2 (Block 3i).
-The Italian F-35 assembly plant was built from absolute scratch in just a few years; scratch being that they had to scan and remove WW1 / WW2 UXO from the fields before laying the foundations.
-BAE was the first to sign up for a performance-based contract for F-35 manufacturing.
-The 400th centre fuselage was recently delivered and the 500th centre fuselage started assembly recently at Palmdale.
-The F-35 carrier suitability paper also coming out apparently shows how experience (ie back from the F-14 design days) is "never lost".

Q&A notes:
-Reasons that flight test program expanded from 5000 planned test flights in 1997 to 7700 as of the rebaseline included SWAT weightloss changing the aircraft design, the first F-35 (AA-1) becoming obsolete almost immediately, 2 flight test jets being deleted from the test program to save costs early on.
-Flight test number also expanded because while F-35A/C flight sciences went well, F-35B doors in particular had vibration issues due to complex airflow interaction, the tailhook issue required a bunch of reflights, and mission systems in particular required a ton of reflights for regression testing (seeing if a fix has broken things that were working before); Tech Refresh 2 from Block 2B to 3i in particular caught them off guard in how much regression testing was required.
-The number 1 reason that test flights were cancelled or delayed was weather problems; Pax River is apparently a terrible place for having safe flight test weather.
-Some of the late mission effectiveness testing had tests with 8 F-35s and 10 other aircraft (drones, 4th gen fighters, etc) flying; those complex tests would have to be cancelled or delayed if a drone or some ground unit or whatever wasn't in place and ready at the right time.
-There's 70 physical interfaces between the F135 and the airframe, and hundreds of functional interfaces (software, bypass air, etc).
-F135 engines had their lives extended in SDD due to the removal of the F136 engine as a competitor.
-Disclosure & security was / is an issue in the JPO, not because of leaks, etc, but because a lot of the security personnel aren't used to Italian, etc military or civilian government personnel walking around freely in a highly sensitive environment.
-All manufacturing technologies that are shared with the 1600+ suppliers require individual export licenses and scrutinisation of whether that export is needed (lots of work there).
-FMS customers have offices just outside the JPO (within walking distance).
-Industrial participation was prescribed for each country based on buy-in and expected jet orders, but a "best value" approach is still taken with suppliers having to prove why they vs someone else should be chosen to make a part.
-The Nagoya FACO (assembly plant) only does final assembly, the Cameri FACO however builds tails and wings and does final assembly; both are expected to become maintenance hub facilities later.
-Tariffs have had little impact on F-35 costs; raw materials are a small percentage of total jet cost (most is in labour / machining). Also, if (eg) Italy made something like a 15% tariff on machinery parts out of the US, then Italy's government would have to pay that 15% for Lockheed due to how the contracts are written.
-BAE (the UK side) is seeking approval to work on C2D2 work, but because a lot of it is in mission systems, it's hard for them to get any involvement; BAE Inc (the insulated US offices of the company) are unaffected by those security issues though (they made the EW systems for the F-35).
-For future programs; working out who's responsible for which component (eg, who designs engine thrust pins that connect the engine to the airframe; P&W or Lockheed?) can cause delays; need to have that worked out quickly at the beginning.
-Personal relationships between people in different companies is important; one of the head guys from P&W settled on the weight of the F135 with his Rolls Royce counterpart over a game of skittles at a pub in the UK.






ステルス戦争分析:F-35 vs ロシアPAK-FA、中国J-20
by WarriorMaven、2017年8月27日 - 編集
アリゾナ州ルークAFB安全主任、第56戦闘航空団マット・ヘイデン中佐は昨年、特別パイロットインタビューでScout Warriorに語った。

ヘイデンは、現在開発中の新型ロシアスホーイT-50 PAK FA第5世代ステルス戦闘機または中国鶻鷹J-31第5世代ステルス機に対する模擬戦闘ミッションはまだ今のところ飛行していない点を明らかにした。

入手可能な情報によれば、ロシアは空軍と海軍のために少なくとも6機のプロトタイプT-50 PAK FAを製造しているという。;中国は2012年にJ-31の初飛行を行った。


Stealth War Analysis: F-35 vs Russia PAK-FA, Chinese J-20
by WarriorMaven Aug 27, 2017 -edited
An F-35 fighter pilot says he would be confident flying the Joint Strike Fighter against any enemy in the world
by Kris Osborn
An F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be able to use its sensors, weapons and computer technology to destroy Russian and Chinese 5th-Generation Stealth fighters in a high-end combat fight, service officials said. “There is nothing that I have seen from maneuvering an F-35 in a tactical environment that leads me to assume that there is any other airplane I would rather be in. I feel completely comfortable and confident in taking that airplane into any combat environment,” Lt. Col. Matt Hayden, 56th Fighter Wing, Chief of Safety, Luke AFB, Arizona, told Scout Warrior in a special pilot interview last year. Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence. Hayden was clear to point out he has not, as of yet, flown simulated combat missions against the emerging Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA 5th-Generation stealth fighter now in development or the Chinese Shenyang J-31 5th Generation Stealth aircraft. While he said he did not personally know all of the technologies and capabilities of these Russian and Chinese aircraft, he was unambiguous in his assertion regarding confidence in the F-35. Available information says the Russians have built at least 6 prototype T-50 PAK FAs for their Air Force and Navy; the Chinese conducted a maiden test flight of its J-31 in 2012. In addition, China is in pre-production with its J-20 5th-Generation stealth fighter. This fighter, called the Chengdu J-20, made its first flight in 2011, and is expected to be operational by 2018, according to publicly available information and various news reports. While Hayden did not elaborate on aspects of the J-20, he did say he would be confident flying the F-35 against any aircraft in the world. “All those other countries (Russia and China) are trying to develop airplanes that are technologically capable as well -- from an F-35 perspective. We are no less capable than any airplane and any fighters out there,” Hayden described. In addition to leveraging the best available technologies on a fighter jet, winning a dog-fight or combat engagement would depend just as much on the air-tactics and decisions made by a pilot, Hayden explained. “I have not flown against some of those aircraft. When you fight against an airplane, it depends upon the airspeed. If I maximize the effectiveness of an F-35, I can exploit the weaknesses of any other aircraft,” he said.


MARC V. SCHANZ アジアでスタッフのチーフと共に旅行2013年8月23日
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
The Future Fight and the F-35
"When a fifth generation fighter meets a fourth generation fighter—[the latter] dies," said Welsh. "We can't just dress up a fourth generation fighter as a fifth generation fighter; we need to get away from that conversation," he said.

Julian Kerr, シドニー -- IHS Jane's Defence Weekly 2016年2月23日
Programme head claims F-35 has no rivals in the air
Julian Kerr, Sydney - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly 23 February 2016
No aircraft in the world today could take on the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and survive, the head of the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) said on 24 February. In a robust defence of the F-35's capabilities at a media briefing in Canberra, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan said critics of the programme "have no data to base their opinions on". "I have the data," he said. "I have the pilots who are flying the airplane. Here is what I will tell you: there is not an airplane in the world today anywhere that, if put up against an F-35 in an air-to-air environment, we would not see them first, shoot them first, and kill them first."

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.投稿Breaking Defense 公開2018 04 18

J-20はそれ自身によってF-35を見ることは決して無い。 それは、いくつかの集団が低軌道周回衛星でF-35と接続したところを見るだろう。 それは、ISR(諜報、監視、偵察)、スタンドオフISR、スマート・ウェポン・テクノロジー、軽機動旅団、イージス巡洋艦、同盟国やパートナーが浸透するために繋がっていく所を見るだろう。」
‘A Computer that Happens to Fly’: USAF, RAF Chiefs On Multi-Domain Future
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., Contributor, Breaking Defense Public Release – 2018 04 18
“I grew up flying fighters,” says Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force Chief of Staff, “and I will tell you, when I see the F-35, I don’t see a fighter. I see a computer that happens to fly.” It’s not just the F-35, Goldfein told a Mitchell Institute audience this morning: “You also have to think about an Aegis cruiser in a different way. You’ve got to think about a Brigade Combat Team in a different way.” “I’m so adamant that, if we start thinking about these systems as not the planes or ships or what have you but as computers we need to connect….it gives you new insight,” Goldfein elaborated to reporters after his public remarks. So think in terms of computers that float or submerge; that crawl on tracks or roll on wheels; that fly with rotors or on wings. The platforms we have today — ships, subs, tanks, trucks planes, helicopters, etc. — will mostly still be around in 20 to 30 years, “so the fundamental question then becomes is, how do we connect them,” Goldfein says. “That connective tissue is something all the chiefs are talking about, all moving forward under this concept of multi-domain operations.” But what in heaven and earth is a multi-domain operation? Goldfein argues it’s the United States’ decisive “asymmetric advantage.” When people ask him how the F-35 would fare against China’s new J-20 stealth fighter, for example, he tells them “that’s a 20th century discussion,” Goldfein said. “A J-20 is never going to see an F-35 by itself. It’s going to see an F-35 connected to low earth orbiting satellites in several constellations. It’s going to see it connected to penetrating ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), stand-off ISR, to smart weapons technology, to a light maneuver brigade, to an Aegis cruiser, to our allies and partners.”







F-35のジェネレーター発電量は、双発のF-22よりも大きい──F-16=51kW F-15E=76kW F/A-18EFG=55kW F-22=130kw F-35=160kW

F-16 = 34~51kW
F-16 40/60KVAメイン・ジェネレーター(発電機)
F-16 40/60 KVA Main Generator

F-15E = 76.5kW(90kVA)
電力はLucas Aerospaceジェネレーティング(発電)システムによって供給され、60/75/90kVA定格の定速駆動装置をメインとしている。
The F-15 uses both Aircraft Alternating Current (AC) and Direct Current (DC) electrical power. Electrical power is provided by a Lucas Aerospace generating system featuring constant-speed drive units rated at 60/75/90 kVA.

F/A-18EF(EA-18G) = 55kW(65kva)
EA-18G(ALQ-99三個装備時) = 75.4kW(機体55kw+6.8kw×3)   五個装備時 = 89kW
The F/A-18E/F uses 65 kilovolt-ampere (kva) generators in place of the current 40 kva generators to provide sufficient electrical power for the increased loading.
  • AN/ALQ-99 - 入ってくる無線送信を傍受、処理、妨害する。
• AN/ALQ-99 – Intercepts, processes, and jams incoming radio transmissions. Frequency Bands coverage: VHF to Ku Output Power (newer version): 6.8 kW

F-22 = 130kW (65kW×2)
The F-22 uses a Smiths Industries 270 volt, direct current (DC) electrical system. It uses two 65 kilowatt generators.

F-35 = 160kW
The main F-35 generator supplies 160 kW of 270 Vdc (volts direct current) power, equivalent to the energy used by a total of 50 homes.


通常の発電量はESG二基の160kwだが、それとは別にIPP電力80kVA(68kw)も使用できる───合計228kW(= ESG:160kW+IPP:68kW)

IPP(integrated power package)は緊急電力として使用でき、80kVAの電力を提供する
The F-35 is a "more electric" airplane. (We'll get into the background of that choice later.) The entire flight control system is electrically powered with no hydraulic backup.
それは160kWを提供する。──Cirrus SR20航空機のエンジンを上回る。
The ESG is geared to the engine shaft. It starts the engine in motor mode (rather than an air turbine from a start cart or APU, which is the usual method) as well as generating volts when the engine's running. It provides 160 kW - more than the engine of a Cirrus SR20 aircraft.
最近の事件でAESG(代替ESG=Alternate ESG=再設計された新ESG)が停止した時、IPPシャフトに取り付けられた発電機は計画通りに起動し、最大80kVAの電力を供給した。
In normal flight, the IPP is running on engine bleed air as an ACM, providing cooling to a fluid loop that in turn cools the avionics and other systems. It also has a combustor and runs in "bleed and burn" mode for engine starting, or as an EPU if the engine fails, giving the pilot time to attempt a restart. When the AESG went out in the latest incident, the generator attached to the IPP shaft kicked in as planned, providing up to 80 kVA of power.

At the heart of the IPP is a small gas-turbine engine "turbomachine" that provides power to the engine-mounted starter/generator, bringing the engine to its threshold starting speed. The engine then increases to idle speed and the electrical system, which includes the engine-mounted starter/generator (ES/G) transitions from operating as a motor to operating as a generator. The IPP is also available for in-flight emergency power.

ESG(Engine Starter Generator)80kW×2
The existing Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) 270 Volt Direct Current (DC), 80 Kilowatt (KW) generator has been selected as the configuration baseline for this effort. Approaches should be capable of meeting JSF power quality standards, while producing a minimum of 80 Kilowatts, in an envelop not to exceed 2900 cubic inches and weighing less than 125 pounds.

A similar architecture has been also implemented on the Lockheed Martin F-35 (i.e. single engine combat aircraft), that was launched in 2015. For redundancy purposes, an 80kW double channel SR generator is adopted.






オーラルエビデンス:キャリアストライクの提供、HC 394



Public Accounts Committee
Oral evidence: Delivering Carrier Strike, HC 394
Wednesday 11 October 2017
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 11 October 2017.
Watch the meeting
Members present: Meg Hillier (Chair); Bim Afolami; Martyn Day; Chris Evans;
Caroline Flint; Luke Graham; Nigel Mills; Bridget Phillipson; Gareth Snell.
Luke Graham: I appreciate that there are lots of different types of data, and they will have different levels of resilience, but if I understand correctly, you are quite comfortable that existing budgets will be able to give you the capacity to evolve security and capability over the life of the assets.
On the interoperability that we are trying to have with the United States, will we have sufficient funding to ensure that interoperability, with the advancements that they have, and in the light of their significantly higher military spending than ours?
Stephen Lovegrove: Existing budgets go up to 2026, and we are confident that we can do everything that we can realistically foresee between now and 2026 within that cost envelope. The platforms will have a much longer life than that.
I do not know what the capabilities of the technology available in 2026 will be. That is 10 years out, and I simply don’t know; nobody knows.
We will have to take a view as to what needs to happen at that point, but within the cost envelope that exists to 2026, we are pretty comfortable.
Some misconceptions, particularly about the F-35, have been in the press recently—for instance, that it has less memory than the iPhone, and things like that.
These are wildly inaccurate—I mean, 10 gigabytes. On an F-35, depending on the model, there are somewhere between 500 and 1000 separate processors on one single aircraft. Most of them have got memory associated with them, and two of those bits of memory I know are 96 gigabytes.
Among 500 to 1000 processors there is an enormous amount of capability, redundancy and so on that is built in already.
What it’s going to be like in 2026, I don’t know, but for the moment we are comfortable.





MIP (モールド・イン・プレイス=Mold-In-Place)THOR











  • 最終更新:2018-09-04 22:47:31