Jwcook“20/20” vision is not a range it is ‘picture/vision clarity’.
I remember seeling program brief demonstrating the ‘clarity’ difference vs previous systems & it is quite significant.
But does it have a bearing on the detection threshold.
And Scooter the EOTS is not 360 degrees is it?
JwcookNo doubt they will, IR seems to be quite in fashion nowadays.
Some people were speculating the DAS was a 360 deg IRST, but it seems the range is optimized for close in ground work, and not long range air to air of the Russian and european designs..
But then again it would give several seconds warning of an inbound.
Cheers
JwcookJust found this, theres quite a bit in there.
Cooperative Engagement Concept Overview
The dramatization presented at the beginning of this paper is a simplistic representation of the cooperative engagement concept. In the scenario, a manned fighter aircraft locates a target utilizing onboard radar. This data is sent to the patrolling UCAS via data link. The UCAS closes the distance to the target, while the manned fighter is still well outside its own missile employment range. Once the target is identified as ‘hostile,’ and the unmanned aircraft is within employment range of its onboard missiles, a missile is fired. Continual target data required for missile guidance is provided by the manned fighter, via datalink to the UA, and subsequently sent from the UA to the missile in flight. This continues until the missile acquires the target and guides itself to a successful intercept.
Using this cooperative engagement concept to incorporate the UCAS into a future combat plan, effectively provides them capabilities in the air-to-air arena, and could be a way of eliminating the shortfall of air-to-air capable aircraft.
Requirements
An air-to-air cooperative engagement concept utilizing UCAS strike aircraft would encompass combining several components into a single system. The first component is a system capable of locating enemy aircraft and providing accurate targeting data to support missile employment. The second component is an air-to-air missile that is capable of being employed from a non radar emitting aircraft. The third component is a UCAS with the capability to carry and employ an air-to-air missile. The final component is a network that allows data transmission between airframes.
Support Aircraft
Target Acquisition and Tracking: The Manned Support Fighter
For the purpose of this paper, it is assumed that, for the short-term at least, the UA will not have an on-board air intercept radar, nor be developed with an air-to-air mission as a primary role. Therefore, an alternate method must be utilized to acquire the target and transmit the data to the UA for weapons employment. Due to operational limitations in fielded radar and ordnance, the only viable option today is the use of a manned air-to-air capable fighter aircraft. Obviously this brings with it the advantage that the manned fighter can assist in targeting the adversaries. As with the US Navy’s CEC, ship borne air intercept radars would work in theory, however they would only be applicable in areas that are accessible by ships.This is loosely defined as target data that is accurate enough to direct a data linked missile, such as the Aim 120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM), to a position where it can acquire the target and continue an autonomous intercept. While most US fighter aircraft are capable of providing data of this accuracy, they must “lock on” to a target to obtain and maintain good target data. When the aircraft locks on to a target, a traditional mechanically scanned radar, ceases too scan and loses data on all targets beyond the one that the radar was locked on to. This limitation would dramatically limit the utility of the cooperative concept. The advent of the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, however, has dramatically changed this.
According to Jane’s Air Launched Weapons, the missile data link must originate from the launching aircraft. (29:93) The newest version, the AIM-120D, will be delivered in 2007 and is assessed to have two-way data link, potentially eliminating this shortcoming.(41:NP)
Source :- Browning.PDF
Cheers
JwcookIf you break that picture down – the bottom Typhoon has four cones overlayed emanating from its nose the top one only 2?.
Make of that what you will…
JwcookSo the JSF DAS is nearly 20/20 which means its has normal vision but may have to squint a bit… ;-).
JwcookOK here’s how I read it.
The first Typhoon acquires a target using its radar normally, the second Typhoon is not transmitting ie radar silent but can receive emissions from target or ally.
The necessary data is transmitted to the ‘silent’ Typhoon via MIDS which feeds this into the AMRAAM, which hopefully flies off in the right direction to the target.
OK so far so good. there was some similar tests done but not sure it was ever done with an Aim120. this could be the ‘unique’ bit.
How each aircraft knew where they were in relation to each other is interesting, the ‘unique’ bit could well be the aircraft “were a large distance apart”, where previous trials may have been flying side by side.
That large distance would introduce all sorts of dynamic triangulation calculations.
Now it gets complicated;), which aircraft does the Amraam’s mid course updates? I guess the transmitting one does if you wish the silent one to stay silent, whats the hand off like in that situation does the silent one have any control from launch.
Does the second ‘silent’ Typhoon get any information from the illuminator Typhoon bistatically in through its passive radar after launch? or is it a mids only link, Bistatic would be nice but its not necessary here.
The more you think about it the more complex this sort of thing looks.
Cheers
JwcookSo short range only then.. the distance is hard to judge in the first instance but the second seems to suggest that its ~2 to 5 miles. so around 7 seconds of warning
I read the f-22 maw is not dual but only single colour.
In
October 2008, Northrop’s two-color IR
sensor technology won over Lockheed’s
one-color seeker (based on the F-22’s
AN/AAR-56),
source http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/22%20-%20Eye%20on%20Electronics_MAY2009.pdf
JwcookPity they realised 187 are not enough just after they realised that the money available wasn’t enough.
JwcookPassive radar just means not transmitting, but still receiving, this can be friendly ‘linked’ radar or non cooperative radar emissions.
Cheers
JwcookSee, at the end, we all end up in the same place. Down under.
Well i’m already there….So where in Australia are you thinking of settling..
JwcookAre you sure Jacko? – Didn’t DASS start as a joint venture between GEC Marconi and an Italian company?
Then Spain came on board a few years later then much much later the Germans – I understood both had to negotiate re-entry???.
DASS (Praetorian) is an expensive bit of kit, easily double the original development cost estimate. so it cost around £500,000,000 for development..
You have to think you’d get more than auto chaff and flares from that:D and from what little has been released it seems to be good.
Cheers
JwcookIt roughly works like this:-
Any partner who wishes to add their own specialised weapons will have to pay for its integration separately.
Of course its better to team up for common capability items, i.e.the German’s decided not to have DASS installed then subsequently decided to have it and therefor paid some of the development and integration costs.
The future capability roadmap used to be planned in phases, where blocks of capability were added, this meant long lead times between updates and then they arrived all at once, causing I would imagine a training headache.
IIRC The latest idea is based on the UK’s austere AtoG capability which was a individual package pushed through by the UK in response to a user requirement,
So individual packages are pushed through rather than packages of upgrades, and aircraft are upgraded during maintenance.
Regards
John
JwcookI hardly take LM prices for the F-35 as Gospel. Nor, do I believe in the reverse like some. That the sky is falling………….Especially, the ones that claim it will be more expensive than the Raptor. Which, will be construct around 200 examples vs the thousands for the Lightning………….
As for your other comments I take little value in name calling or sarcasm….Obviously, you think you can’t win a point without them. Which, clearly reflects poorly on you than me……..with all do respect.;)
My apologies – was having a bad day,…
JwcookI hardly take LM prices for the F-35 as Gospel. Nor, do I believe in the reverse like some. That the sky is falling………….Especially, the ones that claim it will be more expensive than the Raptor. Which, will be construct around 200 examples vs the thousands for the Lightning………….
As for your other comments I take little value in name calling or sarcasm….Obviously, you think you can’t win a point without them. Which, clearly reflects poorly on you than me……..with all do respect.;)
My apologies – was having a bad day,…
JwcookSo, many holes in the article its not even funny………….;)
Yet you take LM’s cost and scheduling as gospel… astounding…:eek:
Are you for real or just trolling?:confused:
I suspect your trolling because your politics seem to be slightly to the right of Genghis Khan and that coupled with the geopolitical acumen of G.W. Bush brings to mind images of 12 fingered banjo playing redneck members of the NRA.
However if your not trolling then I salute you and crown you Generalissimo of the clueless..
Cheers
Sign In
