When you can slice a second into a billion steps it’s not too much time. And you’re thinking visible colors. There is much more complexity to light than that.

look careful at the picture

the reason why it take significant time for the method you describe is because there must be a significant change in bearing over time for it to work ,Slice a second into a billion steps will not help anything at all because there no change in bearing. For the method to work you may have to fly perpendicular to enemy for significant amount of time , and the method wouldn’t work at all if the enemy moving at speed unknow to you or if suddenly they decide to change directions , altitude or speed.
also as i said before frequency shift change only occur if light travel significant distance like a hundreds light years that why it only used in astronomy to determine distance

Zig zag is the words you meant. I think he meant to describe tracking a target over time and determining range by the change in the view. Subtle angle changes,

like the picture below ? , take ways too much time and not good for weapon targeting

frequency shifts in color, and other anomalies will give fairly accurate guesses, with guesses becoming more accurate linearly with time.

using frequency shifts in color to determine range only work if the target is like a hundreds light year away , moving at astronomical speed and as bright as a star

i dont want to hear it… the range issuing means you wouldnt know if the launch is from Afghanistan or Pakistan,
you’re claiming an IR sensor on EF cant geolocate an F-35 or an amraam launch at 20 miles,
yet the IR sensor on F-35 minus the focal lens can do it at 800 miles.

illiteracy

you know a ballistic missile is a lot lot bigger , faster , hotter than an Aim-120 right ?:p

Spud

1. The EF’s IRST determines range based on a laser range finder which is limited to ~20nm (only good against air targets, not AAMs)

Er, no. IRST can use passive ranging (basically, lock on and wiggle the airplane) or multiship ranging. I believe that EF already has the former, at least.

if by wiggle you mean fly in zick zac pattern then that wouldnt work at all , the same method being used by ESM system again stationary target on ground to determine range but it have 2 big disadvantage :
1-take significant time
2-not accurate enough for weapon target
again moving air target that would be useless

2. The EF’s IRST would have to be looking at the F-35’s AAM launch when it happened to even get an idea of where it launched from.

Well, yes. On the other hand, the motor would have to complete its initial burn in less time than the IRST takes for a scan to have any chance of evading detection, and that is unlikely.

1-burn time of aim-120 is like 4-5 seconds

Of course not. Optic system is still more important than sheer number of pixels.

Take your Mk1 eyeball as an example. In visible spectrum, it’s a sensor with roughly 5 million cone receptors for color, plus around 100-120 million receptors for monochrome vision. Two eyes cover ca 120-150deg HFOV and 60-70deg VFOV, with eq. pixel size of 0.3 arc-minutes you have a ~520-580 megapixel sensor system installed in your head. Yet, even such tremendous resolution won’t help you detect a fighter aircraft at say 7 mile range – unless you buy a telescope with large magnification. That is why EODAS will never have required range for BVR, even if the present 640×480 FPA was replaced by newer type (say 1280×1024 VOx). That is why you still need EOTS..

.

megapixel is not really the same as detection range
ex: http://www.cnet.com/news/camera-megapixels-why-more-isnt-always-better-smartphones-unlocked/
also IR radiation is absorbed by air less than visual light

yes they do, as for the rest of your junk, take MSphere word for it,

oh really ? link me a source that actually state that

IRST systems can achieve scan rates similar to PESA/AESA radars

and the chipped Meteor is also not better,
it has smaller fins

1-the meteor iam mentioning here have AESA radar seeker instead of normal seeker
2-smaller fin = less drag = faster (just like from AIM-120A to AIM-120C )

Interestingly, IRST systems can achieve scan rates similar to PESA/AESA radars because they don’t have the TRANSMIT and WAIT mode, only RECEIVE.

no they dont

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.

Skyward is the same as EOTS i dont think you can compared those with EODAS
also resolution (aka megapixel ) # gain of the sensor so your range estimate is wrong

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).

what???

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.

wrong
as long as you know coordinate of target , you can guide missile there no matter where the info of the coordinate come from

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.

in WVR obviously

If EO-DAS is that good, why do you need EOTS at all, let alone advertise an IRST function? Why do actual missile-tracking tests use wide-aperture infrared turrets? Could it be that one data point (and, by the way, having detected the rocket at launch the algorithm would have a pretty good idea of its track, and was then looking upwards at a very cold background) does not an operational capability make?

DAS dont have laser to provide range , and it only IIR while EOTS have TV as well
EOTS more sensitive but have narrower FOV , EOTS is some what similar to FSO on rafale

And that ground based AESA will have a range and as RCS reduces, it’s effective range also reduces. Furthermore, hiding a small RCS with jamming techniques is easier than hiding a large one.

Oh really. I’d never have guessed. [sarc]

[/QUOTE]
the point is , it actually significantly easier , even with only 50 % reduce in RCS , the effect is huge in jamming