HotshotIf the gripen gets the F414 EPE with 20% more thrust in the future it would have very good performances. It would probably beat an F/A-18C with the F404-402 easily.
HotshotConcerning Kobani, they could have found ways to attract ISIS in the city, then quikly evacuate to Turkey, then carpet bomb with bombers and artillery. It would have killed a couple thousands for sure.
HotshotThat is what I was referring to when a few posts up I mentioned that traditional IRST systems slave the seekers during track and lock phase.
From what I understand it is possible to cue the 9X’s seeker to the radar. For instance the F-22 will have what they call the Helmetless HOBS ( or maybe HHMS I don’t remember exactly ), which will enable the F-22 to lock the 9X off boresight by cueing the missile’s seeker to the radar. That will replace to some extend the use of a helmet mounted sight.
HotshotThe theory of inflationary universe is indeed fascinating.
I am not a scientist but I think would also be interesting to speculate about the idea that intelligences could create universes by provoking inflations. Guth has written a paper about that. Other scientists have also speculated how it could be done.
In an extremely large inflationary universe, even very unlikely events would happen a very large number of times. This also includes the probability that an intelligence would appear that would create universes by provoking inflations (if it is physically possible to do that). Then there could be a sort of recursive process of universes created by intelligences. Each intelligence could create a lot of universes that are so large that the probability of intelligences appearing inside of them would be high. This recursive process would be infinite in the future.
As a scientist, what do you think of that idea?
HotshotWe don’t know yet how effective the DAS is going to be to guide missiles off boresight. Personaly I believe it when I see it.
The DAS/HMD is a nice feature but I think having side bays to carry the 2 AAMs would have been much more reliable because the missile would have had its lock before launch. The rail launcher could have been capable of launching either an 9X or a 120. All the more that ejecting a missile from the internal bay might be difficult while pulling a lot of Gs.
HotshotThe bombers have to have large weapon bays to be able to carry very large bombs to destroy certain types of targets.
The bomber’s bays can still carry a lot of small munitions but the limiting factor will always be the ability to find targets. That’s why the bomber should be integrated with other smaller platforms carrying advanced sensors, like F-35s and UAVs. I think the F-35 will be significantly better than other planes at finding targets on the ground, so they could be used effectively to find targets for the bombers.
HotshotThey don’t use stato. A big missile with a high specific impulse.
Jõ presented a small design of a missile seeker (radar) with a small aesa mounted on a swivel. Given what we could see on the pictures of the design I made the hypo that it was a fast swiveling design and came to a modus of operendi for that concept.
As I have written before, time will be critical against a pair opponent at the stealth age of fighters (we still have not entered that era in A2A). The info you’ll get will be obsolete at an even faster tempo and not entierly accurate making the in-flight update at long range of a costly missile dubious in term of general efficiency.
If you plan to face a 4th+ gen force then it’s all about 80’s concept. The Meteor still makes some sense if its seeker is updated. This is why Japan looks for that “upgrade” having to face China and non strategic Russian force (The only thing Ru might do in the scenario I see is to play the nuisance role as a support for eco gains).
So otherwise who would need a Meteor to face a 4th+ gen fighter force (yes what you will read bellow is an OT digression ?
– Korea ? No. Amraam is still enough for the task and nobody want to introduce a new expensive and delicate missile that is not critical
– South America ? Perhaps. Depends of the local arm race (hence my plea for anti-nuisance force on Geopolitical level)
– Africa ? No needs but can change in 10 years
– Europe ? No. Stealth has alrdy hit the fan. The Met is obsolete in term of concept
– Indo/PAkistan ? Perhaps. But if we consider the futur of the PakFA in India, there is hence no needs
– Anti-US force ? Probably that a large airforce equipped with 4th+ gen fighters will try to play the game of attrition that way.
– SE Asia and southern Pacific ? Yes – definitively .The Meteor can be there what the 30 Mkk was: a cheap game changer.So to conclude, except on the Grip and with a “lowcost” Typhoon, I don’t see why you shld have the Meteor (the push by some in the Fr industry to add the Met to the Raf* inventory is simply ridiculous IMOHO)
*The Rafale being alrdy equipped with the MICA that shld be upgraded toward a slight increaseof range
There has been studies that showed that the F-35 would be significantly more lethal with a missile with more range than the AMRAAM.
The range of the AMRAAM depends on a lot of factors, and might be not that much is some cases. And the F-35 will be detected at some point, it would be preferable to start engaging at long range.
Besides if the missile has a longer range the fighter doesn’t have to be flying high and fast on afterburner to get the same range. A long range missile would enable the plane to not use its afterburner and attack at the same range while remaining undetected in IR.
Finally the F-35 doesn’t have a very good speed compared to its future opponents. It would be good to compensate its relative lack of speed with a missile with more boost.
HotshotIt still amazes me that some can accept that energy has simply always existed but cannot accept that an intelligent beings have simply always existed.
Well, this might well be false. According to the theory of inflation, the entire energy of the universe started from a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. There was very little energy initially.
In fact, we know from observations that the energy of the universe is very close to 0. The positive energy is counter balanced by the potential energy, which, in this case, is negative.
That’s the beauty of the theory of inflation, it is a huge free lunch. You can get a huge amount of positive and negative energy ( a universe ) from almost no energy at all. Some scientists have even wondered about the possibility of creating a universe by provoking an inflation.
Scientists take the theory of inflation more and more seriously for various reasons.
Hotshotno, that is not a fact, that is your faith/belief,
history suggests the pilot with the more training has the upper hand
If it were only a matter of training, countries wouldn’t be developping new weapons.
Training is important, but in 5th gen fighters there is a lot of automation, and the planes are very easy to fly.
For instance when they tested the avionics of the F-22 15 years ago, they saw that even rookie pilots could fare as well as experienced pilots.
HotshotExactly. IRST can be compared to a hunting scope with primary function of targeting. Navigation (real time video like EODAS) is an afterthought, achieved through larger starring arrays and increased scanning rates (more robust mounts, lower weight of the scanning mirror, better signal processing..).
SELEX-Galileo Skyward IRST of the Gripen can track up to 200 targets simultaneously and it covers 30x24deg FOV (wide-FOV, starring lens), 8×6.4deg in narrow-FOV mode. The coverage in wide-FOV is expanded to 160x60deg sector due to scanning. Interestingly, IRST systems can achieve scan rates similar to PESA/AESA radars because they don’t have the TRANSMIT and WAIT mode, only RECEIVE.
If we assume the same array used in both EODAS and Skyward (640×480 VOx), then the resolution of Skyward (or EOTS) in narrow-FOV mode is up to 20-times higher in the horizontal and 10-times higher in the vertical axis. How that translates to a corresponding range increase also depends on target identification algorithms used but if we assumed the software being of roughly similar quality and the max. detection range of Skyward being ~62 miles, then EODAS (not EOTS) can identify the same target at ~5-6 miles. Which is on the edge between WVR and BVR.
The question is about the focal arrays used in the competition systems. AN/AAQ-37 has the drawback of being closely linked to F-35, thus suffering from its longer development times. Therefore by the time it gets to service it is most likely slightly outdated (upgrade possible, but AFAIK not announced yet). At the same time, independently developed systems can capitalize on shorter development times, thus having much more advanced sensors onboard (more than 4-times larger arrays than EODAS/EOTS which is a difference of two generations).
The specification of the Skyward is impressive. The F-35 however will have the advantage that the picture of the EODAS is projected on the helmet night and day, that will be a revolutionary capability for night air combat.
From the available informations about the F-35’s avionics, it is said that several F-35s can use their sensors cooperatively automatically. Given the huge developement cost of the F-35, one can expect that it would have capabilities that the others wouldn’t have.
There might also be the following possibility… One F-35 detects the direction of a target with its DAS at like 10km, and another F-35 automatically scans that direction with its EOTS to find the target. Then the exact position is known for a missile launch. One can imagine a tactic where one F-35 stays like 50km away from the others and flies perpandicular to the planes that are fighting. Its task would be to give good 360degrees targetting to the other F-35s thanks to its EOTS.
This description is logical and most likely accurate. Except AMRAAMs cannot be guided by either EOTS or EODAS, only AIM-9X. Even if you had target lock with EOTS, the AMRAAM fired would still be in LOAL mode.
I guess the AMRAAM can be cued by the EOTS/EODAS. The advantage I think of an AMRAAM versus an AIM-9X is that the AMRAAM can search a larger volume very quickly thanks to its radar, so that might be useful if the position of the target is not known accurately. Would the AMRAAM be sufficiently maneuvrable at that kind of range, I don’t know.
I don’t think that EODAS is primarily used as A-A targeting sensor, the range is just too limited. Its qualities point at navigation and SA being the primary functions. I can’t even think of a situation where EOTS gets info-feed from EODAS as any aerial target being that close would likely have the F-35 within the NEZ of its short-range missiles. Therefore I don’t think these two systems need to cooperate closely. EOTS will likely get its data either from APG-81 or datalink (AWACS or other F-22/F-35).
Anyone with better data can correct me here.
According to the informations coming from NG, the EODAS seems to have the capability to guide a missile at 360 degrees. Would be the effectiveness with only the DAS be high, I am a bit skeptical.
The EOTS could be combined with the EODAS in case where the EODAS has detected a target but can’t identify it and get its range, say if the target is detected at the max range of the DAS, around 15km.
This might be useful in case where the F-35s are deep in enemy airspace with little support from other planes. But quite often I guess that indeed the F-35s would get their info from other radars/EOTS in the area.
HotshotSeems EOTS has IRST capability too, so presumably it would be similar or better than conventional IRST.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/F-35LightningIIEOTS.html
The EOTS definitely has an IRST capability. The EODAS however is not a true IRST. It is a wide angle sensor, it cannot point in a direction, so obviously it doesn’t have anywhere near the same range and resolution.
Also noticed:
Does that mean a single F-35 can triangulate between DAS and EOTS?
The EOTS can certainly obtain good range data.
My guess is that the EODAS will be used to detect aircraft at 360 degrees and the EOTS will automatically be cued to the DAS to get more informations on the target, like target type and range. Then the F-35 can shoot accurately its AMRAAMs. Beyond the field of view of the EOTS, the targeting informations probably won’t be that good and the probability of kill will be lower.
I also guess 2 F-35s can triangulate with only their DAS. The 2 F-35s DAS detect the target and correlate their data to say that they are looking at the same target. Then they have the range.
I am only trying to figure how these sensors would work cooperatively, I am not sure…
HotshotI don’t know if that’s necessarily true, if EODAS did have inferior range then it could theoretical be taken by surprise by a longer range IRST system. How does each DAS unit compare size-wise to other IRST systems?
I think the F-35 can be taken by surprise but at somewhat longer range, maybe 15-30 km if the enemy is using an good IRST or AESA radar with LPI modes ( depending also on the angle ), but it will be warned of enemy planes approaching in WVR.
I can be wrong on that, data on the sensors ranges are classified but that sounds logical.
What might happen also is that the EOTS can continue to track enemy planes in BVR once the F-35 has crossed them. I don’t think the DAS is necessarily needed if the EOTS knows where the enemy plane is approximately ( but continuously tracking it after the planes have crossed ).
Hotshot16000 for a SH doesn’t sound much, and the F-35 will probably be cheaper to operate in the future.
HotshotEODAS has the range equal to or better than other IRST systems and points in all directions continuously and has the further advantage of a built-in targeting pod for ID. It’s backed up by probably the 2nd best radar presently available and the most modern state-of-the-art RWR and EW suite. Everything is easily viewable and targetable via the HMDS reducing workload. The aircraft is also the least detectable aircraft ever made and has equal or better performance than an F-16 with a mission payload and longer range.
That is most probably false. The EODAS will be used in air combat probably to detect enemy planes approaching in near BVR, not more than that. The detection range will of course depend on a lot of factors like target aspect, target type, whether it is using its afterburner etc.
Besides the ability of the EODAS to estimate the range will probably be quite limited. The EOTS will probably be combined with the EOTS to provide an accurate range data, or 2 F-35s will have the ability to triangulate with their DAS.
The main advantage of the DAS is that the F-35 will be hard to take by surprise, and we know that the effect of surprise is very important in air combat. If the F-35 is almost never taken by surprise and can shoot relatively quickly, it is a big advantage.
HotshotThe price for LRIP-8 is expected to decrease again from LRIP 7 ( 2016 vs 2015 – hope I am not wrong with the years ).
Besides just the fact that the F-35 production is done with multi-year program from 2019 will lower the cost by probably close to 10%.
The F-35A costs 112M in 2015 (URF cost ), which is not that much. The huge costs that are often mentionned include expensive things required to prepare the plane to enter service.
And there is also talk that the JSF partners could set up a MYP before 2019. A 3 year MYP for 2016-18 would be great if possible. There is no alternative to the F-35 anyways so there is no way it is going to be cancelled.
It is almost certain that the cost will go down to at least 90 million by 2019. So it is very likely that the US will be able to afford way more than 600 planes. I even bet that the USN F/A-XX will never be developped by the USN itself and more F-35Cs will be built. Overall the number might be somewhat less than initially envisaged, but the reduction may not be that great, 20% or so. That will also depend on whether sequestration lasts or not. Sequestration has nothing to do with the program itself.
Sign In
