wrightwingThere is no COTS for state of the art AESA fire control radars/stealth materials, which is available on the open market.
wrightwingGiven that the biggest advantage for the Cuda would be its size, allowing perhaps 6-8 missiles to be carried by the F-35 internally…Would mounting an IR seeker and powerful Data links be a potential solution for the Missile Defence or Anti UCAV mission? Especially considering potential Swarming tactics of a potential future enemy? You do not need the range of the Aim-120D and do not need its out and out performance either for non fighter targets….
The F-35 can carry 12 Cudas internally, which is the selling point. The idea is having a missile that has -9X WVR performance, but the ability to engage BVR targets too. This solves several problems- internal carriage of the -9X, and increased magazine capacity.
wrightwingYou know i was thinking, regarding the radar of the F-35 and US AESA radars, in general the pro F35 /pro american crowd argued at nauseaum that their radars are better and will always be better because among other things, their operational experience , APG-63V2 , APG-79 and APG-77 being fielded before any european or Russian AESA, therefore their lead is so great and will continue to be so great because they had them before anyone else blah blah blah , you get the point (although conveniently forgetting that the russians have 30 plus years experience in fighter ESA design, or that Rafale was fielded with an ESA radar about the same time as US).
Now obviously the DASS and SPECTRA are chalking close to a decade in operational service by now correct ? While EODAS and associated systems…well, who knows when it’s going to actually become operational .So would you say the the europeans have an advantage in this kind of system because of their operational experience , because they have long tested and deployed the said systems, because they have a better understanding of how such systems works on a tactical fighter airframe etc etc, while the EODAS which is suposed to do pretty much the same thing , with maybe couple of more “gizmos” added in, is not even close to being declared usable and ready given the integration problems they still have ( per the latest F-35 problems and issues report ) ? 😉
Just a couple points here, in terms of radars/other sensor technologies. The AESA for the Rafale doesn’t even outclass the F-16 Block 60, much less the others you mentioned(or the APG-81 for that matter). As far as the other systems, I’d say the experience from the F-22, and F-18E/F/G, provides plenty of operational experience, not to mention the CATBIRD platforms, flying the F-35’s systems in exercises.
wrightwingYep.
No problems with the HMD that displays EODAS data.
NO sirreeee.
The HMD isn’t required, for the DAS to still function as advertised(targets are still displayed on the cockpit displays), and I strongly suspect that the issues with the helmet will be resolved long before 2017.
wrightwingWell let me know when a Typhoon/Rafale receives these hypothetical upgrades, if we’re playing that game. The systems on the F-35 are being demonstrated, and are mature now. They are aren’t what’s holding up the process. By 2016/17, everything will be even more mature, and thoroughly tested.
wrightwingGiven an unlimited budget, and the right priorities, all manner of upgrades could be included on other aircraft. Let me know when the European air forces invest the kind of money, that has been put into the F-35’s systems(which will be available from day 1). Also, please point me to any articles where the makers of the Typhoon/Rafale systems claim parity in terms of capability. It’s one thing to have some of the functionalities of the EODAS, but quite another to combine them all. Which European system automatically tracks/IFFs all targets within its coverage? Which provides FLIR type imagery to the pilot? Collision avoidance? Etc….. They have a ways to go just to match the F-22’s systems, much less the F-35’s.
wrightwingGuys, the more pertinent point / question / discussion is let me know when the first operational F35 squadron with the kit is flying. 😀
With regard to the exact points you have made; WW the sensor system has indeed been installed and flown on the testbed, it is some way away from being installed and tested on the F35 airframe, there is also no evidence available concerning the capabilities and performance of that installation. A “detection” of a rather bright IR target by the test rig does not prove anything. If i was a proponent of the F35 i would be concerned that that is the only evidence being offered. The obvious response to that is “ah but it is super secret,” if that’s the case why mention it at all??
aurcov, that’s why i said “How it does it is not necessarily relevant”, at no point have i or TooCool_12f for that matter claimed it was IR.
I get that point about the passive detection using IR versus RF or active.
To sing the praises form on high as if nobody else can or will be able to develop and use such a capability is deluded given that systems, such as SPECTRA and i suspect DAS, exist.
Once again, it’s not the ability to detect IR targets at great distance, that’s the take away here. It’s the ability to track the targets, and relay that information to shooters(I.e. THAAD, AEGIS, PAC-3, fighters carrying NCADE/PAC-3 rounds, etc…), so that they have earlier targeting solutions/reaction time. Spectra and DASS are more akin to the F-35’s
Barricuda EW/ESM suite, than the EODAS.
wrightwingIt’s true that the F-35 is not yet operational, but the EODAS/EOTS/APG-81 have all demonstrated themselves in numerous tests/exercises, so it’s a little disingenuous to say that they’re in the hypothetical phase. Let me know when the first squadron of Rafales/Typhoons with AESAs, and analogous IR systems are flying.
wrightwingAs has been pointed out numerous times now this doesn’t actually mean much. Here’s a statement with a similar level of accuracy: 1960s uncooled IR missile seekers with analogue electronics had a range of 150 million kilometres. Don’t believe me? Well, one big problem was that they kept locking onto the sun, so there you go.
There’s a big difference between a primative IR seeker basically being inundated by the sun, and an IIR system tracking a moving target. Think of the early generation seekerslike a night vision goggle, and someone shining a bright light at it, which is why the sun would blind them against the target aircraft.
wrightwingThe big question would be if it would be effective against stealth. At the time of the breakup of the USSR the US had an entire wing of F-117s tasked with the role of rolling back the Warsaw SAM barrier. That whole wing was top secret. Nobody knew of it until it was unclassified and revealed, and then used in the gulf war.
The Russians advertise that they can detect and track stealth, but at what range? Today it would be the F-22 and F-35 against the S-400, or S-300v.
Could they defend against a F-22 lofting SDBs 60 miles away?
My guess is if the Russian SAM can then there is some other plan the US has in place we don’t know about.
Stealth isn’t a monolithic term. The Russians claim a detection range of 90km versus a .01m^2 target. Against the B-2, F-22, and F-35, the detection ranges would be significantly less. In other words, the SDBs would be easier to engage, than the stealth platform dropping them. By the way, the F-22 can drop SDBs considerably further than 60nm(that range is for a subsonic launch, and at lower altitudes than the F-22 flies).
wrightwingAfter a little bit of digging on the main site this link should now work.
http://www.beyondphaseii.com/2011/presentations/Tuesday/1015_Gentry.pdf
Page 3.
“Short range EO sphereical coverage.”
Doesn’t quite sound like the thing your words are describing does it. Yet it woudl be difficult to identify anything other than the EODAS as “EO sphereical coverage” wouldn’t it.
Seems strange that nowhere in that document is the functionality you are claiming mentioned.
Thus fantasy. Not trying to be rude just describing the facts.
ps, notice that affordability has disappered from these docs nowadays…
Short ranged against what though(and how far is short, in the context of that statement?) You can’t take that statement without context, and try to use it as evidence.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/
Northrop Grumman Corporation today released a video showing the successful detection and tracking of a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) with the company’s AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS).
“The DAS could fill critical capability gaps in the area of ballistic missile defense (BMD),” said Dave Bouchard, program director for F-35 sensors at Northrop Grumman. “We have only scratched the surface on the number of functions the F-35’s DAS is capable of providing.
“The DAS software architecture already includes missile detection and tracking algorithms that can be applied to the BMD mission,” Bouchard added. “The results of the flight test were extraordinary. We found that the data gathered during this flight validated our performance predictions. In fact, we knew we could have seen the rocket at a longer distance.”
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/front-end-of-the-kill-chain/
The range at which DAS can detect targets is classified, but Northrop Grumman lauds the system for its “long range detection capability and near 20/20 visual acuity.”
wrightwingThat link isn’t working for me. As for my fantasy, the take away from the missile story, wasn’t so much the detection ranges, as the ability to track the ballistic missile at that range. That will be very useful on missions where counter TBM ISR is needed. It can give shooters advanced warning. Anothere important feature is the automatic target tracking/target discrimination capability the EODAS provides in the coverage area. I’ve yet to hear of any other analogous capability.
wrightwingAM-120D has an air to ground mode?
I was speaking to the internal warload in general terms, not specifically for a type of role.
wrightwingwhat do you define as full? how many a2g ordinances need to be cleared for a Typhoon to be considered full?
The ability to use PGMs against fixed/mobile targets/targets of opportunity, without the need for offboard designation/targeting. The Typhoon doesn’t have nearly the variety of options, ordinance wise, and is still limited in target designation.
wrightwingrelax guy, TR1 doesn’t mean anything negative and had some good points.
but on the other hand not appropriate to compare old CAPTOR to the PESA radar that will be in the PAK-FAand he’s also right, F-35 should be used where its strength is supposedly at.. a2g.. thus the F-35 will discreetly fly into enemy air space and bomb PAK-FAs and J-20’s before they can even take off. with all 2 bombs it will carry!!
Or 8 SDB I/IIs, or 2 JSOWs, or 2 JSMs, or 4 to 6 AIM120Ds, etc…
Sign In
