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?

If those targets are far enough (40-50 km) away, even if they fly fast and maneuver violently, this only means a few deg. There will be no problem. However, in an interview, a NG guy (former F 15 pilot) said that even in the dogfight, where the ennemy plane is close, so a turn means instant separation, the EODAS keeps tracking.

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

Not necessary. Go to NG site and you ‘ll see that they are offering a EODAS-based system fore ship protection. This means that they can “isolate” this software partition. As a side-note — I wonder if they would sell it for fighters 🙂 (other than the F 35)

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).

That’s why I mention that it was a three-stage rocket. However, there is a NG clip on youtube, showing how the DAS locate a couple of A-A targets, and than the EOTS identify them. Considering the capabilities of Sniper (the EOTS is based on), one can evaluate the EODAS detected the target at > 80 km and cued the EOTS for identification.

This is where the EODAS/EOTS combination is lethal. The EODAS sensors detects the target, cue the EOTS; this one will identify it. It resolve the problem that one poster mention it, that an “normal” IRTS can track (small FOV) at longer distances than it can detect (max FOV).

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?

The sensors would not “see everything in the sky”, but only IR targets. As odd it might seems, there are not too many things flying around and having a high skin temperature (like a fighter fuselage) of even a higher one (engine or AA missile)…

My unaided eyes can track Moon at 380,000 kms distance.
From the pics it looks like DDM-NG can easily track Sirius at 8 light years distance.
Guess that’s much better than EODAS 1,300 km, isn’t it?

What exactly are these figures good for except a pathetic comparison contest?

Your post shows that you do not read all the post; this discution started when LO said (and it’s not the first time) that the resolution of EODAS is less than a cellphone camera…

Spud – Try to stay current. There is no published IOC target for the Block 2B. Not even the Marines are stating a date now.

If JAS 39E remains on schedule, something that the Swedes have an annoying propensity for accomplishing, it will be in service before Block 3F.

There are no grounds for assuming that because a capability is not on the (short) public list of major items missing from 2B/3I versus 3F, that capability will be operational on 2B. So assuming that MALD or EODAS will be fully operational on 2B is not justified.

EODAS is physically constrained to about one-half the resolution of a cellphone camera. (Do the math – megapixel sensor and field-of-regard.) From what I have seen in the literature, there are some basic challenges in the way of increasing the pixel density of an IR FPA, and increasing the size of the FPA in EODAS would be difficult.

:p Not the same c**p again, please!

So, using my Iphone, I can track (not only detect, but track) a missile at 1,300 km, as EODAS did :p

No, the 673 nm IS long “loiter time”. Look at the executive summary. But be warned, it includes text and stuff and as a consequence I highly doubt you will understand it.

My bad. What I meant is that 673 nm (728nm) can be trade for a shorter distance and a couple of hours of patroll.

This is the air patrol configuration: http://www.saabgroup.com/PageFiles/29517/Saab_Gripen_INDIA%202008%20%20feb%20page%2007C%20left.jpg

This is whishfull thinking. If the NG could go 712 nm and 30 min. on station with only 2 EFTs, they would have mentioned it. More likely 3. Again, it has only 800 kg of fuel over the C/D.

No.

And those F-22 kills weren’t from Red Flag too.

In real life, an EF (w or w/o Pirate) wouldn’t survive against an F 22.

@ Moon_light ,

F-35 can take up to 18,000 lb (8,100 kg) of payload , Rafale up to 21,000 lb (9,500 kg) .
F-35 empty weight : 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Rafale empty weight : 21,500 lb (9,770 kg)

Rafale is smaller than F-35 , lighter , still it carries more payload further away than F-35 and probably faster too .
How do you explain that ? :diablo:

Cheers .

The Rafale won’t carry more payload than an F 35.

First, let me remind you that max. combat load is a theoretical number, never reached in real life — it’s like the 2M max. speed (never used in reality); OTOH, it’s true that it gives an idea about the real combat load.

About the F 35 vs. Rafale: don’t forget that Rafale holds ~ 4.9 t of fuel, F 35 ~ 8.3 tons. This means that the rafale always has EFTs (2 or 3, or even 5 according to the figure that moonlight posted). Let’s say that it goes with 2 x 2000 l. The jet fuel has a desity between 0.75 an 0.85 kg/l. Let’s consider 0.8. This means 3.2 tons of fuel to be subtracted from the 9.7 tons. This actually leave only 6.5 tons. Less than the F 35.

There is no such thing as ‘IR stealth’, certainly not for an airplane that is supersonic. For subsonic flights low emissivity coatings and means to lower the signature of the exhaust reduces signature, but it not on the level which can be called stealthy.

If your comment was for my post, you notice that I said IR “stealth”. The quotation mark (” “) was there for a pourpose. I meant measures for reduction of IR signature present on F 35.

I simply count fuel fraction. Despite having the most energy efficient engine the F35 has among the highest fuel fractions among jets.

And for the skin temperature… if you only supercruise to the CAP area and then go into subsonic loitering @ altitude the jet will cool down pretty rapidly.

You can count on it.
How many pixels do you define as an identified target (need to fill >50% of the pixel to be valid)? (FOI counts 6 pixels across as an identified object)
According to the tan and sin/cos calculations, how much does it change the distance?
Head on a clean F35 is about 50-70% larger in cross section than a lightly armed Gripen.

This is exagerated by 10-16% since the F35A struggles to have a combat radius of 584nm and the F35C doesnt go further than 615nm on internal fuel. If it is true that the F35 with external tanks (in plural) can reach 728nm it would be ~1350km radius, if we remove the lost range on internal fuel we get 1185-1243km depending on version.

So I was actually pretty generous in my assumption of the range performance and gave the F35 80-135 km extra, as I always do to avoid hurting anyones feelings.

Just to give better understanding of how Lockheed measures combat radius…

The combat radius of 600 Nmiles was for an F 35 with 2×2000 lbs JDAMs and it involves 15 minutes of combat, incl. AB usage. BTW, LM din not “strugle” with the combat radius. It is true that the range was only 584 Nmiles, but LM kept a safety margin of 5 %, so the actual radius is 613 Nmiles.

As Djcross alreday mentioned, mission profile should be considered. Check this:

Discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.

Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88277

So, only the Rafale and Superhornet outrange an F 35, but with 3 EFTs!

As for head-on IR detection, LM and USAF constantly said that the jet is “stealth” in IR too.