Spud – That’s an interesting but odd description of how EO-DAS works.

I’d have thought it would be rather difficult for the units to detect and track separately, given the whole point of the claims made for DAS is that it can continuously track all targets within range (and thereby, for instance, retain the position of other flight members).

So how do separate units do this when the platform is maneuvering vigorously (or as vigorously as it can) and the targets are all passing through multiple EO-DAS sensor fields of view inside a second?

In that kind of timespan, where a target is inside FOV for under a second and the background (the IR world is a noisy place) is also dynamic, how does an independent EO-DAS have time to process out false alarms and establish a track?

You would, I think, need a central EO-DAS processor, but does not that run counter to the rest of the architecture?

Aurcov – I’m not saying you can’t detect subpixel targets. And of course range depends on energy versus background (quite sensitive looking up from 30,000 feet, able to see 3000 lbs/sec of LOX and RP co-altitude at 800 mi).

Now look at it the other way: Suppose I can really see everything in the sky for 800 miles… but in a completely two-dimensional way with no range information? Can we say “clutter”, mes enfants?

No system (or combination of systems) on a Gripen can produce a 360 IIR view of the battlefield; keep track of every WVR object in the sky passively (especially in a furball); be used to not only cue a missile shot but also provide updated tracking info for the missile in flight; detect, geolocate, track, and designate targets of AAA & SAM; detect & geolocate cannon, mortar, rocket fire, etc; negate the need for NVGs, provide live BDA, etc.

To be scrupulously honest, the EO-DAS &c can’t do that yet.

Passive air-to-air tracking will be a remarkable achievement if it can be done. However, resolving ambiguities and false alarms to the degree required to perform a LOAL shot (particularly outside the pilot’s direct view and at ranges where the target is subpixel) could be a tad hairy.

And while JSF does not have NVGs, it still has the second high-rez sensor on the helmet.

meow

Ignoratron aimed at moon_light… charging… 100 per cent… ZZOT!

That’s improved the viz. Now, Spud, Spud, Spud… Are we not a tidge premature talking about Block 6, when there is no IOC for Block 3 and the only uncertainty appears to be what gets pulled out of Block 3 to meet IOC?

And may I remind you that, back in the day, you were equally confident that Porky would be in service with six internal AMRAAMs with Block 4 or 5 in 2015, IIRC (which I usually do).

As for your assertion about the superiority of SA & survivability of an externally loaded F-35… Let’s see when that happens, and where the capes of the SC4G (so-called 4gen) fighters are at when that long-distant day rolls around.

If it ever does, that is.

kirtap – that makes more sense. But 39-8 was supposed to fly late this year.

The hidden factor in the F-35’s mil-power initial cruise altitude is the relationship between net wing area (the size of the wings) and gross (area defined by the wing edges projected to the centerline). We don’t normally worry about this because the net/gross relationship is usually pretty similar across any class of aircraft, but the F-35A/B planform is an outlier, with very high wing loading based on net area.

IIRC data supplied to Norway on an optimal cruise long-range mission showed that the max altitude was 25,000 feet.

Belethor – Well someones [sic] got rather touchy on the M1 and F-16 subject

Since the “all weapon systems have been criticized this way” meme gets trotted out pretty regularly in defense of JSF, it is important to remind people that the F-16/M1 cases were very different.

– you wouldn’t happen to be one of those critics who was so dead wrong about them would you?

Nope. I was broadly on the side of those who questioned the utility of a clear-weather fighter/dumb-bomb dropper in Central Europe in the 1980s. This was entirely valid, as seen by the rapid improvements to the F-16.

And dunce cap pictures because you have adifferent point of view to the poster, very mature!

Again, nope. Different viewpoints, fine. Deliberate disregard of history and context, not fine. I have another one for you if you want it.