Luftwaffe Typhoons don’t use IRST/PIRATE, along with Austria they’re the only Typhoon operators that don’t have this capability.

so their aircraft dont have the little marble at the nose :confused:

Moon_light :

LRF on Rafale has a range of about 30km .

Cheers .

oh right , may be i saw it wrong

another possibility, the F-35 trying to accelerate to supersonic speed gets detected by rafales IRST thanks to high contrast between aircrafts heat and the cold sky behind it (air friction + afterburner at the rear end), and there’s a IR Mica going after the F-35 which is hot from in front, hot at the rear (burner), and pretty much unable to outmaneuver the incoming missile… chances are the pilot won’t think too long before breaking to try to get out or stay out of reach of the MICA… even if the MICA doesn’t hit, by forcing the F-35 to break, it will spoil its eventual lock (that is, if SPECTRA allows the lock to be kept in the first place, don’t forget that radar works two ways, eventually showing you what’s ahead, and telling, for sure, everybody correctly equipped in front that you’re there) when the F*35 will eventually be safe from the first MICA, the Rafale will already be running after it, with a nice target in the shape of the afterburning nozzle right in front of it

just as plausible (maybe even more) issue to your imaginary scenario… 😉

i take the range of FSO as 50 km due limit from laser finder range , you may be able to see longer but without information about range you can’t launch missiles
another problem of irst and EO system is range vs resolution vs cover sector

ou can very easily scan through your room with naked eyes which has a very wide field of view. IRSTs can do that too with optics of low magnification and wide field of view. However, tracking a target using IRST at ~100km — atmospherics permitting — is like looking at a flea on microscope. If you are to scan through your room with the microscope it’ll take you forever so you generally don’t do it. However, if you already know where the flea is — or in the case of the aircraft where the enemy fighter is because an AWACs told you or your passive EW receiver(s) picked up its emission, or whatever — then you can point the microscope at it and track it.

to those who wanna use IR sensor to deal with stealth aircraft, please stop daydreaming. even if FLIR can track something 60 km away(assume it has already known the target position and successfully established tracking course), but never expect that it can detect the same thing at the same distance. FLIR’s tracking range is much longer than its detection range since this is just an example of optics raising the resolving pow by sacrifice the view field. using FLIR to scan airspace is like using microscope to check over every atom in your room.

Well, a simpler way to put things into perspective is to ask oneself why, if IRST works as a long range volume search tool, AWACs don’t carry one of these instead of a rotordome radar.

The problem is that while IRST can track a target at close to 100km under ideal circumstances, it cannot find anything at more than 20~30km when employed in wide field of view volume search. Unless of course you are willing to wait 1 hour for one full scan at maximum magnification. Besides, unlike radars its performance is always hampered by atmospherics and that cannot be fixed through technological advances because it is due to the physics property of IR radiation. This is why IRST is and will always remain the secondary search, track and ID tool to complement a radar.

if this way works then any focal plane array shoud be able to offer target distance. when talking about imaging sensor like FLIR of course there is not just one unit, neither double nor triple units, but hundreds of thousands units. for instance a 640¡Á480 pixel staring focal plane array already have 307200 highly sensitive units with liquefacient nitrogen refrigeration.

using two or more viewing points and adjusting the optics to create a single perfectly overlapping image then calculating range off the angular difference between the lenses is a very old trick. Tanks and even battleship gun sights used optical range finding before there was a laser range finder. If you buy a Leica M series range finder camera it uses the same concept. The problem is that the range difference per unit angular delta is VERY large (especially at longer ranges) hence optical range finding is not very accurate. In a digital device like a CCD focal plane array this is compounded by the fact that the imager is discrete whereas the optical range finding concept is not. In addition, you will need more than one IRST aperture of the same capability covering the same field of view for any of this to be possible. With modern technology and processor power, it is not the preferred technique.

Most IRST rigs have some degree of ranging capability. They do so by measuring the size of the target as it is seen by the sensor. Basically the processor is smart enough to tell a fighter from a 747 from a tank. And it knows roughly how big these things are. The latest devices are probably smart enough to actually ID the specific model of aircraft, ship or ground vehicle based on a stored database. With the magnification of the lens and the object size on sensor known, it is possible to estimate range. It is not very accurate, but it is enough for a rough estimate. At closer ranges, the IRST simply uses an active laser to get an accurate range. With these schemes you can do it with a single aperture.

Let’s put it this way…

If a fighter is told exactly where an F-22 or F-35 is, it can and will probably be able to track it with an advanced IRST rig out to 60~100 km assuming that atmospherics is ideal and perhaps up to 1/3~1/2 of that range in adverse weather. It will have some ability to estimate range through image processing or get a laser range read at shorter ranges. High magnification tracking is also limited to a single target at any one time. The same can be said of an F-35 tracking a Typhoon at those ranges with its EOTS rig and/or firing an AMRAAM based on that passive track. The problem is finding it in the first place in the limit timespan of a typical engagement (a few minutes) because volume search at long range using IRST is a joke and VLO makes cueing by radar highly unlikely.

This is not to say that IRSTs are useless. However, they are and will remain a secondary sensor to complement but not replace the radar and passive EW for the foreseeable future. This is unlikely to change because its limitations are imposed not by technology or engineering but by the physics of IR radiation.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1181817479/1182872482/Rapt…

As has been pateintly explained several times before in response to the exact same marketing claims; all the above is what the manufacturers would like you to believe.

First look, first shot means nothing if the shot is relatively easy to defeat. It is an outstanding piece of marketing hype however.
Claims of missile nez are always difficult to rely upon; in the real world i suspect ensuring anything near good nez on the defending fighters will mean the F35’s will be well within detection range of one of the many sensors on multiple platforms that will be looking for them.

IRST and EO system are over rated too you think weather always perfect , no cloud , no smoke , ground always cold ..etc ?
or missiles always fail while cannon never jam ? never run out of ammunition ? how many bullets that the cannon on rafale have ? 😉 125 ?
how agile is the rafale while it have weapon ?
first look first shot always provide advantage
1- time to come to position for a good missiles shot ( altitude , speed )
2 – missiles come to enemy earlier => if they try to out maneuver the missiles => lost energy => easier to shot down
3 – can retreat , or avoid enemy

46/50= 92% ? You should remember AMRAAM Pk in the last conflicts (~50% against poor equiped adversary- in 1999 AiM-120C was probably most modern BVR weapons and failed several times even if launch well within NEZ.

here

29-DEC-92
F-16D
G.North
MiG-25 Foxbat E
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: 3nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
AWACS lock and track at twenty miles. F-16 AMRAAM lock tone at less than 8 miles. Launch forward quarter at approx. 3nmi, missile running time approximately 8 seconds.

Links: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi … art-0.html
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/amraamsrc.htm

17-JAN-93
F-16C
C.Stevenson
MiG-29 and MiG-23
Fired: 2 x AIM-120A Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
An F-16C Falcon downs a MiG-29 north of the 36° Parallel with 2 x AMRAAM’s.
F-16C Blk 30 (86-0262) 23rd FS “Hawks”, 52nd FW Deployed with the 7440th Composite wing at Incirlik. Aerospace Daily (1/20/93) said the target was a MiG-29 Fulcrum. 2 x AMRAAM’s were reported utilized v MiG-29 and a MiG-23 wingman and it was the MiG-23 that was reported killed in the original press releases. Normally reported as a MiG-23 kill. Actually a MiG-29.

Links: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/1993-ops.htm

18-JAN-93
F-15C
Unknown
MiG-25 Foxbat E
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: ~27nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 0
Notes:
An F-15C Eagle from the 36th Fighter Wing at Eglin, was said to have not downed a MiG-25 Foxbat E after firing 1 x AMRAAM and 1 x AIM-7 Sparrow at it. Other information says the MiG might have actually fired a missile at the F-15 and then landed. A Hughes memo (19Jan93) states that:
“Launch was at a confirmed MiG-29 from Eglin F-15 on 18Jan93. Launch range was 27 nm at shooter altitude of 35K. At 17 nm, he shot a Sparrow at the same target”. Other reports say he launched a Sidewinder AIM-9M at it in close. Hughes is sure that the AMRAAM got the kill.
AWACS was uncertain of the results. There was smoke observed and the Iraqi SAR alert was sounded. Not confirmed.

Links: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/1993-ops.htm

28-FEB-94
F-16C
B. Wright
J-21
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
The Serbian Jastrebs headed northwards, back to their base. At 6:45 a.m., the NATO fighters engaged their opponents. Captain Robert G. Wright fired an AIM-120 AMRAAM, downing the first Jastreb which was flying at 5,000 feet. J-21 destroyed.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banja_Luka_incident

14-APR-94
F-15C
E. Wickson
UH-60A
Fired: 1 x AIM-120A Range: <7nm
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
Blue on blue. Confirmed visually that the target was a Mi-24 Hind(??) before engaging and destroying the UH-60A. Wickson closed to ~7nm an determined that target was a helicopter. Repeated IFF queries drew no response. Target engaged and destroyed.

Links: Page 86 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC … AEwAw#v=on

15-JAN-99
F-15C
Unknown
MiG-25
Fired: 3 x AIM-120A 1 x AIM-7 2 x AIM-54 Range: unknown
Hits: 0 Kills: 0
Notes:
5 January 1999 — In two separate incidents, two F-15s and two F-14s fired a total of six missiles at four Iraqi MiG-25s over the southern no-fly zone. None of the missiles found its target. Missile count disputed. Other sources have stated that 3 x AIM-7 and 1 x AIM-120 were fired by the F-15s.

Links:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/tran … riptid=852

24-MAR-99
F-16AM
Tankink
J-21
Fired: 1 x AIM-120 Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
The MiG-29 flown by Maj. Dragan Ili? was damaged by an AIM-120 fired from a Dutch F-16AM fighter. He landed with one engine out and the aircraft was later expended as a decoy. Possibly SA-6 red-on-red

Links:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article4505.html

24-MAR-99
F-15C
C. Rodriguez
MiG-29
Fired: 1 x AIM-120C Range: 30-20nmi
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:

Links: Page 80 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC … AEwAw#v=on

14-APR-94
F-15C
M. Shower
MiG-29
Fired: 3 x AIM-120C Range: ~6nmi
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:
Capt. Showers fires two AIM-120C across the nose of F-117A neither of which creates a fireball as a result of striking the MiG-29. Concerned that the MiG was still active and that there was a stealthy F-117A nearby which may be under threat, Shower pressed the attack and fired a third AIM-120C from approximately 6nm that hit and destroyed the MiG-29. Follow the link to AWFC Public Affairs story and Shower’s description of the engagement. After the above engagement, Capt. Showers got a lock and id on a second MiG-29 and fired from ~5nm. No Fireball.

Links: Page 79 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC … AEwAw#v=on

http://www.f-117a.com/AFMissions.html

26-MAR-99
F-15C
J. Hwang
2 x MiG-29
Fired: 3 x AIM-120C Range: ~17nmi
Hits: 2 Kills: 2
Notes:
Hwang was second shooter of a pair of F-15C’s. His wingman “Boomer” McMurray fired one AIM-120C at ~18nm which missed. Hwang fired two AIM-120C from ~17nm which both hit destroying both target aircraft. Follow the link to Hwang’s account of the engagement.

Links:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/ar … 17178.html

Page 81 of
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UEC … AEwAw#v=on

04-MAY-99
F-16C
H. Geczy
MiG-29
Fired: 1 x AIM-120C Range: Unknown
Hits: 1 Kills: 1
Notes:

Links:

Generally accepted that up to 2008 there have been 10 AMRAAM kills.
Totals:
17 fired for 10 hits – Pk 0.59
3 definite WVR shots for 3 kills gives Pk(WVR) 1.0
14 likely BVR shots for 7 kills gives Pk(BVR) 0.5

or, if you believe the other sources regarding missile types fired on 15/01/99
15 for 10 – Pk 0.66
12 likely BVR shots for 7 kills gives Pk(BVR) 0.58

yes the range was quite short but remember most of the missiles was Aim-120A rather than Aim-120C ,and the missiles that F-35 use in future will be Meteor and Aim-120D have better seeker , improve kinematic , more agile improved PK a lot , not to meantion if the PK of each missiles is 0.66 then 4 missiles on f-35 together will almost 100 % achieve a kill

Imagine what will happen against well equiped adversary with modern EW…)
AMRAAM has ~ 38g limit, when fighter turn tightly (9g) missile need to persist 5 times more gs (~45g) so it is still very possible to out maneuver missile within NEZ ( I’am not talking about failure.) We should also add some EW, MLD, towed decoy and Pk decrease even more…
In marketing spot AMRAAM has 90% Pk, but in real life much smaller. So if You believe that more than 70% will be BVR because LM said that, your Battelfield is very far away from reality ( History just proves that).

the missiles dont turn exactly the course that fighter fly ( they dont follow the aircraft ) but they intercept so the maneuver that missiles need to make is much easier , not to mention not many fighter can have sustain 9 G at all altitude when carry weapon ,they can evade 1 missiles but have problem with the others
Towed decoy have problem if the fighter use data link to guide missiles to very close

I am just saying that using pilot operated airplanes for ground attack missions has a very high probability of being obsolete in 10 years.

Just look at the US UCAV fleet 2001-2013. Its a revolution. Consider for a second, if planes are so good at the task, why are drones used more and more for this role? Because they are better. The US in 2001 had a token force of maybe 50 or so, now they have over 600.

If the US decided to attack a country next year, you can be fairly sure that the first wave will be all cruise missiles and all drones.

may be u right but pilot operated airplanes still have advantages like not suffer much from communication jamming ,i mean doesn’t that what happened to rq-170 :confused:
and drone have advantage of staying on air for quite long compared to normal aircraft

A funny thing will happen when Lo Drones can fill the attack role better in the future. The f-35 will be obsolete. It will be interesting to see what happens when some nations are stuck with this aircraft for the next 35 years.

Try selling an 2nd hand aircraft that has to have specially designed “smaller” bombs and missiles to be effective.

Older aircraft will also be obsolete due to their very big RCS make them the target where ever they fly