jessmo24Its only like maws in the vaguest sense. No I doubt that I can zoom in from all directions but the system is fully integrated. DAS Can provide the direction that the threats coming and allow EOTS to point in that direction.
Also like I mentioned before I think LM gives conservative number for public consumption. you know the whole OPSEC thing!? How can you have a system designed for BM launch detection and it only works in BVR?
Another things is Maws doesn’t color code all friendlies and hostiles, doesn’t track 100 things on the ground at once and doesn’t function as my HUD.
Distributed Aperture System
In a joint effort with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems will provide key electronic sensors for the F-35, which includes spearheading the work on the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS). This system will provide pilots with a unique protective sphere around the aircraft for enhanced situational awareness, missile warning, aircraft warning, day/night pilot vision, and fire control capability. Designated the AN/AAQ-37, and comprising six electro-optical sensors, the full EO DAS will enhance the F-35’s survivability and operational effectiveness by warning the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats, providing day/night vision and supporting the navigation function of the F-35’s forward-looking infrared sensor.
Electro-Optical Targeting System
Thumbnail: Electro-Optical Targeting System Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems are jointly providing key electronic sensors for the F-35 to include the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The internally mounted EOTS will provide extended range detection and precision targeting against ground targets, plus long range detection of air-to-air threats.
The Electro-Optical Targeting System is an affordable, high-performance, lightweight, multi-functional system for precision air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting. The low-drag, stealthy EOTS is integrated into the Joint Strike Fighter’s fuselage with a durable sapphire window and is linked to the aircraft’s integrated central computer through a high-speed fiber-optic interface.
The EOTS uses a staring midwave 3rd generation FLIR that provides superior target detection and identification at greatly increased standoff ranges. EOTS also provides high-resolution imagery, automatic tracking, infrared-search-and-track, laser designation and rangefinding, and laser spot tracking. Sharing a Sniper legacy, it provides high reliability and efficient two-level maintenance.
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control is teamed with Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems to produce the JSFTM Electro-Optical Sensor System (EOSS). The EOSS consists of the EOTS, led by Lockheed Martin with BAE SYSTEMS, and the Distributed Aperture System, which provides 360-degree situational awareness, led by Northrop Grumman. A cornerstone of future defense capability for the U.S. and its allies, the EOSS supports situational awareness, target recognition, and precision weapon delivery.
jessmo24The more I think about it, the more this capability boggles the mind. Its like a swiss army knife of systems.
jessmo24Check this out.
The US Air Force has revealed plans to purchase and integrate 100 infrared search and track (IRST) pods for its Boeing F-15C/D fleet, the latest addition to a $3 billion portfolio of upgrades since 2000 for the dwindling Eagle fleet.
Lockheed Martin will supply Boeing with an upgraded version of the ANS-42 IRST pod that originally flew on the US Navy’s Grumman F-14D Tomcat, and was selected more recently for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
Unlike the F/A-18’s IRST pod, which is mounted at the front of a fuel tank, the F-15 version will feature a sleeker pod design mounted on its “Station 5” stores pylon, says Brad Jones, Boeing’s F-15 radar modernisation programme manager. A similar pod has already been supplied for South Korea’s F-15K fleet.
Although mounted on the aircraft’s belly, the long-range sensor will have the ability to look up by 5°, Jones says. As a passive sensor, the IRST pod will augment the F-15C/D fleet’s mechanically and electronically scanned radars to search for enemy aircraft and missiles at very long range, he adds.
The selection provides a glimpse into the possible future for the USAF’s core fleet of F-15C/Ds and F-15E Strike Eagles.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/09/18/332380/usaf-adds-irst-pod-for-f-15s.html
Once agian i think Lockheed is being coy about the F-35s abilities..
jessmo24That might be true but we dont really know the range of this system.
The official line is that the sensor is in BVR. But that kind of defeats the purpose of missile launch detection doesnt it? If your In BVr of S-00 at launch the odds are you wont have time to react. My hunch is that the sensors detect Plumes at medium range at the least. Also the 360 degree coverage is fully intergrated with the laser designtor, AESA, and the AIm9x.
jessmo24I think one of the things people do wrong is look at parts of the F-35 rather than put the entire package togehter. we have established so far
1. It has great passive stealth.
2. It can hit more targets clean than nearly any other aircraft ( remember 8 SDB 2 AMRAAM)
3. It will most likely be one of a few aircraft that can fire SDB and JDAm at mach 1.6 which is a huge advantage. When the enemy upgrades his future IADS longer range stand off weapons and DEWS will help out alot.
4. 1 of the 1st combat aircraft with 360 degree IRST, launch detection.
5. More than likely one of the most advanced AESA radars In history. newer than the F-22s radar.
6. DIRCm and HOBs ability for close in.
7. Brings you your drink, your slippers, irons the laundry, doesnt nagg you when your watching the game, and talks to you in a beautiful womans voice.
What more could you ask for in a fighter ?! XD
jessmo24To be honest, any aircraft that doesn’t show good planform, alignment, internal bays and embedded sensors in the concept is a non starter. The Radar and the engines will be big hurdles for the Chinese.
jessmo24I have 2 questions:
1. When the picture of the F-35 bay is shown have you noticed that there are no ejection systems No attachments no anything? could the ejection system be classfied somehow?
2. can you put weapons on the centerline hard point? Im talkin about the Gun pod hard point.
jessmo24Jessmo24 :
Wrong . Check how big the system is , then take into account the ejection system within the bay .
Cheers .
So your saying the F-35 can carry 2 2K LB bombs in the bay, + 2 AMRAAMs,
But it cant carry 8 small diameter bombs ( 4 on each side) + 2 AMRAAMs In the bays? The SDB is a 250lb weapon. 250lb x4 is only 1k pounds each side.
The A2G station on the C and A model is rated for 2k Lbs The F-22 bay is smaller than this and it carries 8, your not making sense Blue.
will you Please tell us how many SDBs that you feel can be carried in the bays?
jessmo24Cobham Mission Systems Division is working on a modified BRU-61A to put four SDBs in each bay for the A and C. I don’t know if it will fit into the B’s bay though.
Cobham Brochure
^^ This blue 4 SDB will fit in the space of 1 2k LB bomb. Thats means 8 in the bay with 2 Amraam.
jessmo24No one as adressed the question of the SDB being of a lighter weight than an amraam.
1. By its design the F-35 will need someway to push the weapon through the boundary layer.
2. The AMRAAM was the only weapon specifically mentioned.
3. I could be Mistaken but the hurdels to qualifying wepons at Mach are a. Weight and b. Aerodynamic design of the weapon c. Weither the weapon is rail launched dropped ect.
4. The JDAM and SDB have been qualified on the F-22 at Mach 1.5
5. Since the SDB has all of the characteristics and is lighter than a AMRAAM I dont see why it cannot be launched.
6. I have also heard Rumors of Aim-9x being tested on ground targets. This will also be qualified to fire from the bay in LOAL mode.
Is that fair? can we agree than if an AMRAAm can be launched its very likely that the lighter SDb can be launched?
jessmo24There was no BVR DACT between the Rafale and the F-22 during the UAE exercises. Nor were SPECTRA or APG-77 even used in the DACT that did take place. DACT was purely WVR and the F-22 only scored a single kill on the Rafale (out of 6 encounters). This is the second time I’ve had to tell you this, and the fact that you don’t seem to grasp this, despite it being very old news that has been discussed to death, either suggests that you are trolling or willfully ignorant. Please stop bringing up this strawman. To your credit, though, you finally figured out how to spell “Rafale.”
Why the insults? didn’t you just lecture me on maturity?
There are 2 different stories on the net about what happened in UAE.
The one I read says the F-22 Killed the Rafale without even using its radar.
Its odd how that’s supposed to be a straw man argument and I am supposedly willfully ignorant on the subject, but I have posted you links from credible sources with factual information and you still continue on the same line of reasoning. You cant even grasp the concept or PLURAL ( weapon types launched from the F-35) and singular ( the AMRAAM)
I apologize I am a spirited debater and don’t easily lay down in an argument.
( the always wanting to win American you stereotyped earlier)
Either way ratcheting up your rhetoric wont do do you good here.
jessmo24The point is that “weapons” means both a2a and a2g.
Sure it says “supersonic launch of internal weapons.” If the statement had been left at that then there’s no discussion. However it doesn’t leave it at that, it goes on to specifically mention a2a weapons, “including maximum-speed (Mach 1.6) launch of internal air-to-air missiles”
For me that brings up the question why do that? Why specifically mention a2a but not for example the sdb, as i assume that this is the a2g weapon that will be released at supersonic speed?
Thus whilst the first part of the statement doesn’t necessarily exclude a2g, it does not necessarily include it either.
The fact that some are interpreting it to definatively mean that it includes it is my point.
“Weapons” in that context could actually just refer to a2a.At this point in time we do not know whether that is the case or not.
Once there is something out there that explicitly states that xyz a2g weapon can be released at supersonic speed then it is fact, until that time the only thing we know for sure is that a2a can be released at supersonic speed.
Actually, because of the nature of the weapons bay, wouldn’t any weapon launched from the A2G station need to be rammed through the boundary layer? Isn’t this necessary just to clear the bay? I’m almost certain weapons wont be simply gravity dropped. and I’m almost certain that if you can ram a AMRAAM through the boundary layer at Mach 1.6 a SBD shouldn’t be an issue since its weighs less. Am I using to much common sense here?
jessmo24We will see. I don’t think the F-35 will have a huge advantage over advanced versions of the Eurocanards. It will be stealthier, sure, but if you have very good datalinking, ECM and passive detection capability, this disadvantage will be mitigated I think. Can’t make generalizations though- it will probably depend on the situation, i.e. AWACS/UAV support, atmospheric conditions, the angle and altitude difference between the approaching fighters, etc… Maybe I will be right or maybe I’ll be wrong- only time will tell.
Also, IF (and this is a really big if) the Rafale does get true active cancellation, then I think it could technically be considered a 5th generation fighter- AESA radar, supercruise, stealth, passive detection and categorization, passive MAWS/MLWS. However, it’s debatable.
Saab seems to be moving ahead on 5th gen studies. So we will have to wait and see what comes out of Sweden in the next 10 years.
The UK has already bought the F-35 of course, so I don’t see them forking out money for an entirely domestic 5th generation program- really the F-35 could already be considered fairly domestic for them, as they participated heavily in its development.
Just like the F-22s advantages were mitigated in the UAE exercises right?
When the Rafale used its Aesa, supercruise, active cancellation, and spectra to counter the Raptor in BVR? Ohhh waiit….
jessmo24You have not “destroyed” anything. Grow up and stop using such emotive language. A discussion or argument is about an exchange of views for the mutual benefit of all. It seems that like many of your (presumed) countrymen for you it is all about winning…
You also seem to have not noticed that i am not pro or anti any particular platform, because i happen to be critical of one it does not automatically make me a “fan” of another. It is yourself that has introduced a direct comparison between platforms into this discussion.
For clarity my position vis a vis the F35 is purely based on the yawning chasm between the promises and claims made for it and the performance of the program to date. When for want to a better term, “fanboys” start shouting how great it is, and at times how great it is in comparison to (insert as appropriate) then as somebody who is capable of independant, critical thought i start asking a few questions.
Also I am not sure I like the underlying tone that is anti-American in this thread. When you say things about culture and wanting to win because of culture and what not. You come off as slightly America bashing.
jessmo24You have not “destroyed” anything. Grow up and stop using such emotive language. A discussion or argument is about an exchange of views for the mutual benefit of all. It seems that like many of your (presumed) countrymen for you it is all about winning…
You also seem to have not noticed that i am not pro or anti any particular platform, because i happen to be critical of one it does not automatically make me a “fan” of another. It is yourself that has introduced a direct comparison between platforms into this discussion.
For clarity my position vis a vis the F35 is purely based on the yawning chasm between the promises and claims made for it and the performance of the program to date. When for want to a better term, “fanboys” start shouting how great it is, and at times how great it is in comparison to (insert as appropriate) then as somebody who is capable of independant, critical thought i start asking a few questions.
I need to grow up? Tell who is more immature, a person who challenges your argument or a person who cant seem to admit they are wrong?
If you feel threatened by the fact that I BEAT you in an argument than maybe you need to grow up.
Sign In
