The real problem is that against 5th generation aircraft carrying a Meteor-like weapon, a 4th gen aircraft will be killed before it can locate the aggressor, regardless of the AAM it carries.

Thus saith The Book of Fifth Generation…

Both you and FalconDude have displayed disgraceful conduct

Awww, call the ****ing whaaaaaambulance. Or Dr Fedaykin.

Look, sunshine, just because a technique is applicable to astronomy, where I can take a year to gather data if I want, does not mean anything remotely similar can be done in real time in a situation involving lethal weapons. So demonstrate that link/possibility or henceforth hold your peace, capisc’?

And for what it’s worth, the Fighter Mafia – including Sprey, their point man in Washington, and I can tell you exactly how far you get without one of those – accomplished great things, and I’d rather lick their salt (whatever the **** that means – is English your first language?) than earn the respect of an ignoramus ITG.

And isn’t it way past your bedtime anyway?

Lukos – Please describe in detail all the steps from the raw EO data to that image. Also, explain the visible onion shape from what should be a rocket plume in near vacuum. Make sure your explanation excludes the possibility of lens flare and other artifacts.

I’m not sure what he means. As I pointed out, that’s what a lens does – modify the trajectory of each photon via diffraction so that it hits the focal plane at one defined point, and so that all the photons hit the focal plane in the same az-el relationship as their source.

Really, the Mods should eject him. f-16.net would love the guy.

FD – You have it right. Fundamentally an imaging MAWS, targeting pod and IRST work in much the same way, except that the TDP and IRST have a steerable mirror in front of the lens. The big difference is the FOV (which is inversely related to focal length – long focal length = narrow FOV).

MAWS or EODAS has a wide angle lens. The TDP is more like a telephoto, with a mirror that points and stabilizes. The IRST is a high-power telescope, but with a video-rate scanning mirror.

So EO-DAS refines its accuracy by using an algorithm developed by Chinese astronomers in 2013. In real time. Forgive me if I file this between “Not proven” and “complete bull****”.

You also don’t appear to have a clue about the fundamentals of DIRCM. The wide-angle, physically fixed MAWS cues the NFOV tracker, which is boresighted to the laser in the steerable jam head.

When you display a lack of knowledge about things that are simple and unclassified, it’s hard to take you seriously.

Integrated versus federated systems were a BFD in the 1990s. My old scanner and printer that were run from dedicated cards in my CPU were integrated because you could not put a computer and memory in the peripherals. My phone, camera, laptop, iPad, desktop and all-in-one are federated. As long as my WiFi is working…

Pave Pillar/INEWS/ICNIA were the only way in the 1980s to do automated EMCON and drive a single tactical display. That became the F-22 spec and was default for the F-35.

Today, you can process at the sensor and as long as everyone is speaking the same language, achieve fusion (which in its most basic form is tying the sensed and offboard data to single combined targets) and create the common picture with an Ethernet link.

Indeed, when you start getting into new things like cognitive EW, you may want processing right behind the aperture because the latency requirements are demanding.

Megapixel? The then-supplier (Cincinnati Electronics, now L-3) blabbed that years ago. The problem is the element size, that was constant for a long time – this is not a visual-light device. There are smaller elements (more pixels for same size) in the labs.