SpudmanWPAnd how much operational fighter experience does the Vixen 500 have?
SpudmanWP@ELP:
The hardware that is flying in in CATB is “go to war” IF there are not any serious issues found. For instance, the reported issues with the radar may (or may not) require a hardware tweak.
My point is that the avionics are not likely to lose a functionality that they have now. For example, the EOTS will not lose the ability to lase, EODAS will not lose the ability to track, and the cockpit displays will not lose the ability to display merged data.
Obviously there is a lot of testing to still do and new issues will be found (as it is with any SDD program). The true test of the program is did they budget enough room it program since the re-baseline to compensate for the new development & /tests.
@Trident:
Sorry that I did not clarify some things:
1. AESA – Besides their current projects, what history of operational fighter AESA do they have?
2. IRST/FLIR – I obviously meant FLIR including a laser designator for L-PGM usage. All the fighters you mentioned still need to add a FLIR pod (internal or external) in order to designate L-PGMs.
3. MAWS – IIRC The F-22 was the first US plane with MAWS (IR) built in. When you look at the relatively small amount of Rafales, EFs, etc that do have it, me saying that “most planes” do not have is factual. By 2020 it will still be factual.
4. HOBS shots – I was speaking of a self-designated shot as a data-linked shot still requires the target to be in “someone’s” forward sector.
SpudmanWPMost (if not all) of the avionics subsystems have been flying for years and are very stable.
While the margins are a bit thin (for my liking), what avionics (and what they do) the F-35 will have is pretty set.
SpudmanWP“It has an advanced AESA radar.”
So does everything else by the time the F35 reaches service.
The US benefits from having 2 manufactures that each have many years of multiple operational fighter AESA radars behind them. The -81 is also the only current AESA that does EA (with pulse-by-pulse cooperation with the ESM system) and high-bandwidth datalink.
“It has an advanced EO/IR targetting system.”
So does everything else.
The EOTS combines the traditional IRST and FLIR functions. Other fighters have two separate systems.
“It has an advanced 360 degree IR tracking system”
Short range defensive aid was the latest description of that.
If you consider WVR tracking of planes and AAMs/SAMs “short ranged”, ok. Most planes flying do not have a MAWS or use an active version (EF) that could give their position away. Nobody else currently offers the ability to engage a non-emitting target with a HOBS shot without a HMS.
“It uses the most capable weapons available to Western air forces.”
It does not carry meteor, mica, asraam and IRIS-T at this time, i would not describe amraam as the most capable.
Meteor and ASRAAM are in the works. When NGM (aka JDRDM) comes online, it will likely be better than anything else. Besides, mfgs can always create UAI drivers if they want to sell to F-35 customers.
“It uses fighter level performance.”
Of legacy fighters that are constantly being talked down by F35 proponents.
It’s the overall performance of 4th gen fighters that the F-35 surpasses. 4th gen maneuverability is good enough when combined with superior SA, avionics, and RCS. Remember that everything is a tradeoff. If you designed the F-35 will “airshow” quality maneuverability, then it would either have a smaller internal bay, less range, or be a lot more expensive.
“It has the ability to use high altitudes (unless you are seriously going to argue that 50k feet altitudes aren’t high).”
Yet the opposition still has an altitude advantage.
The “opposition” would have to know where the F-35 is and be able to be procured in numbers to make a difference. Both are are not likely to happen.
“It has low observability in addition to that.”
So will the oppostion.
So you think that the US, with its decades of operational VLO experience, will be matched on the “opposition’s” first time at bat?
One more item to add that John forgot: LPI & LPD datalinks – The ability to communicate and share info WITHOUT giving your position away will be invaluable.
—Disclaimer—
I am not saying that nobody will ever match US systems or make similar stuff, just that as of now this is what the F-35 has.
SpudmanWPI am not sure what you mean by “in the black” in regards to the F-35. All the partner nations are paying the SDD costs on a year to year basis and the FY buys are paid for in the year they occur. There is no money that is being “borrowed” and everyone makes a profit in each year that the F-35 is produced (this may change if something goes horribly wrong in a year they have a fixed-price contract.
SpudmanWPJohn may have been trying to say that after 10 years of development, the F-35 is much further along than either the EF or Rafale were at their 10 year mark (eg scope of avionics, number of export customers, number of SDD & LRIP airframes built, etc).
SpudmanWPI think the issue lies with excessive buffeting with the prop due to the airstream being “dirty”.
SpudmanWPNot sure of Boeing’s internal plan for the IV (especially if nobody is buying it). That would probably depend of Brazil, but I know the loss in Japan and India (where else is it the running?) most likely put it on the back burner.
SpudmanWPMaws was part of the F-18 “International Version”. Oddly enough, it can be added to a F-16 by using Terma pylons.
SpudmanWPBS & Fantasy?
Who is the supposed “expert” that did not know that EODAS info is fully integrated?
Even at 90 (pardon my quick miscalculation), it is NOWHERE near the fish-eye distortion levels of the NG’s 180. You are still forgetting that 3 EODAS units cover the same amount of sky as a single DDM-NG.
The EODAS Blk 3 software and hardware have been delivered and are in flying non-SDD jets today. That’s a lot more than can be said for DDM-DG.
btw, I noticed you did not refute any of what I said with those pesky things called “facts”. So much for just being marketing.
SpudmanWPGeesh, Some of you need to do more research before posting… others simply have no excuse.
1. As of now, several functions of EODAS are unique:
a. SAM, Fighter, & AAA WVR tracking
b. Full 360 coverage, with NO gaps
c. Video display of imagery
d. Virtually unlimited (number of) target track ability
2. EODAS tracking of targets is automatically integrated with the rest of the avionics suite. There is no need to display the visual data in the cockpit (HMD or Tactical display) in order for the pilot to track or engage the threat. (Shame on you Horde, you should know better 😉 ).
3. The ability of EODAS to track and engage targets has nothing to do with the HMD as the pilot can choose the target from the shoot list and fire without ever having to use the HMD to cue a shot.
4. The integrated avionics allow the pilot to take a show without having to know which sensor is providing the data. He can use menu options to find out if he wants, but he does not have to. If he wants to display EODAS imagery on the display, he can choose from full, ½, ¼, or smaller screen modes.
5. The EODAS units do not have a “fish-eye” lens. 10 Seconds in a Google search will show you plenty of pics showing a nice, flat lens. EODAS only needs to see a 60-70° slice of the sky while DDM-NG has to look at 180°
6. All things being equal, the three larger sensors of EODAS combined will have much better visual quality than a single, smaller DDM-NG.
7. The only serious problem with the HMD is with the display of nighttime imagery. It’s HUD replacement functions are just fine. It is fully capable of providing cues to the pilot as to the direction of tracked objects.
8. When they talk about the EODAS providing SA, it’s not just letting the pilot see all around at night, it’s the ability of the avionics system to detect, track, and share that data (stealthily) with everyone else in the area.
9. TBM tracking is an ability that the hardware has (as shown in the vid), but is not included in Blk3 (as that software has already been delivered). Other capabilities that are being explored & tested are C-RAM as it can also track artillery and mortar shells.
10. These functions (besides #9) are already working, in operational F-35s today (not just flying testbeds). They still have some integration work, but they already have the Big 4 (Radar, EOTS, EODAS, and ESM)
On the DDM-NG front:
1. Not being able to see below or to your lower front, while not being a major factor in A2A, is a major problem for detecting any SAMs or MANPADS heading your way.
2. MBDA makes no claim, besides MLD, as to it’s current capability. They do not claim the ability to display imagery to the pilot, track anything except missiles, etc. What they do claim is:
“Thanks to the high-quality IR imagery produced by the DDM-NG sensor, many other applications can be foreseen on aircraft (Air Policing, Situational Awareness, Targeting, Assistance to navigation, Air Patrol, Anti-collision, “IR Black-Box”,…).”
In other words, more money, time, and avionics hardware will be needed in order to take advantage of what the sensor may be capable of. In the same vein, the F-22’s MLD also captures very nice raw video imagery, yet it STILL does not provide any kind of EODAS capability beyond MLD functions.
3. The DDM-IR has the rotating mirror/lens, the DDM-NG is fixed (eg “a non-moving optics design”).
4. The DDM-NG does not provide any more data (just more accurate data) to the pilot than the original DDM-IR
“To enable a straightforward upgrade from the existing DDM on Rafale, the new variant represents a form, fit and function replacement.”
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/brochure_countermeasures.pdf
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/#/news/2453
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/ddm_ng_ds.pdf
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/missilevideo.html
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2012/120112ae_f-35-program-exceeds-goals.html
SpudmanWPA couple of clarifications:
1. Nobody (with half a brain) is claiming that the EODAS’ abilities will never be replicated, just that as of now they are unique.
2. The Rafale’s DDM-IR (a MBDA product and part of the Spectra system) is a two sensor MLD that sits atop the vertical stabilizer. Because ot this limited install location, it cannot see below or to the lower front of the Rafale. It is especially dangerous for manpads and SAMs fired from the front of the Rafale.
When the DDM-NG gets installed, it will be limited in the same scope as it will still be using the same install locations and sizes. Because the NG is smaller, is a fisheye collector, and has fewer sensors than EODAS, it’s range, clarity and angular accuracy is inferior to EODAS.
3. The F-35’s EODAS and what it can or cannot track is a known factor. It’s final (For Blk3) production hardware and software have already been delivered.
“EO-DAS is the first capability of its kind, providing pilots with unprecedented full, 360-degree, situational awareness around an aircraft,” said Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman program development director for the Joint Strike Fighter radar and Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System. “This software delivery represents the final, full-performance, operational flight program-approved version, following an in-depth, eight-year product development and test phase.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=197036
SpudmanWPSo you are going to ignore what has been shown publicly and go with a very vague one-liner in a PDF?
SpudmanWPThe QLR gives no support to those assertions, only what might be changed later in SDD.
SpudmanWPELP, you seem to forget the purpose of the QLR. You are presenting it as a report on what is a problem and it’s risk of not getting fixed.
That is not what is was. Here is a quote from the first paragraph of the QLR:
Specifically, they examined currently known issues in the F-35 program and the potential for significant future design change in order to assess the risk associated with modification to aircraft being produced while the design is still being tested and changed, which is referred to in this report as concurrency risk.
Sign In
