SpudmanWPSpudman :
MBDA DDM-NG has promissed to do that :
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm_ng_ds.pdf
I bet that Rafale will have it by 2018 .
Cheers .
I’ve never said that the F-35 will have a permanent monopoly on these types of systems, only it’s to be the first.
btw, DDM-NG is not true 360 (the plane’s body blocks the lower FOV) and only has two sensors to the F-35’s six.
SpudmanWP@Tu22m:
1. My bad, I said ’80s and you were referencing ’90s. What I said stall applies due to MADL flying today and will likely go IOC with a year or two (Blk 2B on the F-35B). BTW, OT&E units will be getting their first MADL equipped F-35s later this month, so yes, the F-35 will have it. :rolleyes:
2. No. Tracking by IRST, which is limited to tracking either the missile or the target, cannot do both and is limited in it’s FOV. An IRST cannot track 360.
3. No other jet can track planes, missiles, AAA, etc in a 360 sphere around the fighter passively using IIR.
4. An RwR tells you that you are “a” target. It does not tell you which missile is headed towards you, where it came from, where the missile is, or where a missile is going. Same goes for AAA.
5. All current pilots rely on NVGs for nighttime navigation. EODAS brings this up a notch by providing an IIR based view that is 360 and has a wide FOV in the helmet.
SpudmanWP@Tu22m:
Please show me where :
1. 1980’s use of beamed LPI datalinks (think AESA for a datalink).
2. Anyone else claims the ability to fire an AAM based of MAWS tracking of a target, tracking of airborne and ground targets via MAWS data, etc as EODAS does.
3. Ability to direct and provide updates to AAMs via MAWS.
4. Determine the intended target of an rising SAM or AAA fire.
5. Use MAWS for navigation
SpudmanWPThe most likely explanation is (since that paragraph is not a quote) that the reporter heard it wrong.
Considering the 2nd half of the sentence talks about 2018 buys (LL Items in 2017 & airframes in 2018 for delivery in 2020 likely MYB) it is not LRIP5.
The LRIP5 reference likely has to do with cost reduction trends.
There is also the issue of not knowing what Baseline Year the dollars are in.
The last sentence of the paragraph states that LRIP5 prices are half LRIP1 prices. Given this dichotomy (two different prices given for LRIP5) within one paragraph that is not a direct quote you choose to attack the speaker instead of the reporter?
Hate much? 😉
SpudmanWPNorthrop Grumman AAQ-37 Sensor System Demonstrates Hostile Fire Detection Capability
BALTIMORE, Feb. 11, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS), developed for the F-35 Lightning II, has added hostile ground fire detection to its capabilities by successfully detecting and locating tanks that were firing live rounds during preparations for a military exercise.
A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZO0T5mDYUWhile being flown on Northrop Grumman’s BAC 1-11 test aircraft, the DAS detected and located tank fire from an operationally significant distance. In addition to artillery, the system is able to simultaneously detect and pinpoint the location of rockets and anti-aircraft artillery fired in a wide area.
The AN/AAQ-37 DAS provides passive spherical awareness for the F-35, detecting and tracking aircraft and missiles in every direction simultaneously, providing visual imagery for day or night navigation and targeting purposes.
“The DAS continues to show its ability to gather and analyze data for a wide range of missions not initially contemplated for this sensor system. These flight test results are just the latest example of the situational awareness capability of this revolutionary technology in action,” said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman’s DAS business area director.
Although hostile fire detection is not an F-35 requirement for the DAS, the system design makes it ideal for this mission. This inherent capability enables DAS to harvest, process and deliver key battlespace information to ground forces and other aircraft autonomously, without the need for cueing or increasing pilot workload. The ability to gather this live fire data expands the mission possibilities of the sensor to include close air support and ground fire targeting.
Northrop Grumman is a leading global security company providing innovative systems, products and solutions in unmanned systems, cybersecurity, C4ISR, and logistics and modernization to government and commercial customers worldwide. Please visit http://www.northropgrumman.com for more information.
Just to be clear, this is not a Blk3 capability, but a follow-on development.
With that being said, the EODAS clarity s amazing!
SpudmanWP“Cooperative EW”, ie the multiship shared & synced EW is not due till Blk5. Details about what this covers has never been released.
That being said, the -81 is connected directly (via fiber optics) to the -239 and work as one on a “pulse-by-pulse” basis.
SpudmanWPHow does the F-35 do in an environment where BVR shots are limited due to rules of engagement?
The F-35 pays a great deal of attention, time, money, resources, etc to the function of ID’ing a target.
Besides the obvious IRST, the F-35 will use a myriad of radar & ESM modes & functions to ID a target.
This little gem popped up in last year’s Australian testimony.
Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have {F-35 has} up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.
Before anyone says it, I’m sure the “4th Gen” reference is to baseline 4th gen, not the latest Rafales, Eurofighter, etc.
SpudmanWPTry apples to apples and then get back to me.
In all likelihood, the F-35 (no matter how it is loaded) will have better SA, be more survivable, and will be able to prosecute it’s mission better than a similarly armed 4th gen fighter.. period.
SpudmanWPI don’t disagree with it compromising the F-35’s stealth being external. Any way you slice it, an AARGM on an F-35 will be more effective than an AARGM on a F-16/18.
Actually the F-35 can carry 4 external AARGM and eight Spear3. Come in NOE and launch them from over the horizon. Then popup, sneak in, and launch a few Spears…
Don’t forget that the AARGM has a 180lb warhead and a Spear has what, maybe a 20lb one.
The key to successful military planning is proper planning and understanding that any one weapon combo is not going to meat all you needs.
SpudmanWPWhere are you getting your info about AARGM??
It’s a VERY good SEAD/DEAD weapon.
Brimstore is short-ranged (10nm max-ish) and Spear3 & Brimstore are active seekers, no passive homing and both suffer from smallish warheads.
SpudmanWPWhen I see an official document that says:
Program Covers A, B, & C for X number of years.
The total cost (Including offsets, monies paid to Primary Supplier, & monies paid to local suppliers) in CY$ baseline dollars are:
Boeing = $AA
Eurofighter = $BB
Lockheed = $CC
Until that happens, in the same document, I won’t believe any prices that are inferred to in newspaper articles sourced from “leaks”, “Someone close to the program told me so”, etc.
SpudmanWPSure:
–A2G/CAS
@Blk3 will be primarily SDB1 with 500lb paveways and up to 2k JDAMs internal.
@Blk4 will bring UAI with all it’s goodness and a bunch of non-UAI weapons. @Blk4 also includes a host of avionics upgrades (modes, functions, etc)
–SEAD (Too many per-Bock upgrades to list them all)
@Blk3 will be mainly SDB against fixed targets with JSOW as an option.
@Blk4 brings moving target SEAD with SDB2
@Blk5 plans for “Cooperative EW”
@Blk6 brings AARGM
Not sure of the Spear3 timeline, but it should be an effective SEAD tool.
As far as NGM, who knows.
btw, the primary purpose of the gun in A2G, not A2A. Laser guided 25mm rounds should make this a very nasty CAS tool (5-10 years down the road).
SpudmanWPAgain on this: Alenia Aeronautica Adds State of the Art Anechoic Chamber to Turin Test Facilities
Go read the link. That chamber is more for measuring “leaky electronics” than RCS (if at all).
SpudmanWPHere are the avionics involved.
SpudmanWPAsk any pilot or military planner whether he wants capability overkill or “just good enough”.
Sign In
