Mercurius :

I have been told by someone familiar with the programme that the F-22 is in the same RCS class as the F-117.

—>

The radar cross-section of the F-117 has been estimated at between 10cm² and 100cm².

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f117/
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blF_117A_Nighthawk.htm

So , from 0.1 to 1m² , which is about the RCS of a gliding Golden eagle (the bird) , depending on the aspect .

My opinion : F-22 RCS = 0.05m²

Cheers .

EE :

I don’t see how a Typhoon with IR Mica would be any better than a Typhoon with a deicated onboard PIRATE/IRST system, HEA, ASRAAM, Meteor and Captor-E. *Save me the explanation please.*

You don ‘t need explanation as you already know why an IR Mica would do good with the Typhoon .

Cheers .

djcross :

213 km seems too long. Maybe is the the distance using cued search instead of volume search

I agree .

Picard :

So, 41 kilometer.

The numbers I heard of are in the 40-60km range for Captor-E vs F-35 …
Let ‘s keep those numbers for a moment and for the sake of the discussion , ok ?
In this case , it means that the EM seekers of missiles like R-77 , Amraam , Mica and Meteor (using mostly monopulse doppler radars in I-J bands) can only lock a F-35 by themselves at 5km , or less . Now , if we add F-35 ‘s ECMs into the equation , the poor EM missles will simply miss .
On the other hand , IR missiles like AIM-9X , Iris-T , Mica IR or Asraam will lock a F-35 in LOBL (from the rail) at around 20-25km .

Conclusion : EM missile vs stealth : no-no . IR missiles vs stealth : yes-yes .

If a Typhoon can track a F-35 at 40-60km , it is the very max range of the Asraam . If its using Iris-T , it will have to wait to be at 25km to fire . (The best would be a Typhoon with IR Mica) .

It is the reason why I would like to see an IR Meteor because after 2020 , we will be able to fire at stealth aicraft with a good pk from longer range , maybe beyond 60km . We ‘re still in IR Mica ‘s territory until 80km , but further than that and it ‘s game over . An IR Meteor would do good and add to the fear factor .

Cheers .

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2010/07/f-35-an-aaq-37-distributed.html
Excellent !
I ‘ve never said that they wouldn ‘t make it . Good job .

Cheers .

From LO :

When the system detects a missile or aircraft, DAS provides the detection information to the F-35’s sophisticated suite of mission systems, known collectively as its integrated core processor (ICP). As Dave Bouchard explains, the ICP or what he refers to as the F-35’s “fusion engine,” then fuses the information.

Ok , now we know . 🙂
The EODAS doesn ‘t have its own crunching number power , no dedicated processor(s) .
In some situations , the ICP must sweat its a** off ! 😮
We should meditate on this with regard to EODAS tracking capabilities …

Cheers .

Mercurius :

I know from the Armada International article that some three years ago early-model APG-81 hardware could discriminate between tracked and wheeled vehicles.

I know from the Brimstone missile programme that mid-1980s algorithms and throw-away processor hardware were capable of this class of discrimination when fed with high-resolution imagery from a millimetric-wave seeker.

I know that the APG-81’s high-resolution modes are based on synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) technology.

I know from the unclassified published literature that SAR radar modes can provide at least decimetric resolution.

I know that the APG-81 has far more processing power than a Brimstone seeker, so can use much more sophisticated target-classification algorithms to analyse that decametric-or-better imagery.

So based on that knowledge (which is based on facts rather than beliefs and opinions) I now had to decide the relative likelihood that:

1 Despite quarter of a century of technological development in both hardware and software, the APG-81’s target-classification capabilities were no better than those achieved by a 1980s missile seeker.

2 The APG-81’s target-classification algorithms will be significantly better than those of a 1980s missile seeker.

Even before I throw into the balance my existing knowledge of target-classification technology, the second option looks far more likely.

Ok , fine . I also agree that the second option is the correct one . 🙂

I have in the past found DJCross to be a reliable source of information, so for the moment will take his claim that “In just a few seconds, the test suite correctly identified the vehicles by type/model and foe/friend/neutral” as a probable fact.

Don ‘t , just don ‘t . It ‘s not a fact , not even a gossip . It ‘s hot air .
If the resolution is good enough , the Pilot decides if he ‘s looking at a US Abrams MBT or at a Chinese T-98 MBT , not the system .
Btw , a long range TV is more appropriate to do that than any radar SAR picture .

Cheers .

Ok Spud , duely noted .

Cheers .

Spudman :

OK, I get it. ELINT systems do not exist and nobody has any idea what their potential adversaries will do.

Oh , C ‘Mon , don ‘t give me that ! 🙂
Of course we know a good bit about the adverse systems but when the sh*t hit the fan because you didn ‘t know that this radar can do “that” , you loose fighters .
Example : when the combo M2000-5 RDY radar/Mica was used for the first time in NATO training (long ago) , the M2000s scored an astonishing 54-0 ! Nobody in NATO saw it coming 😉
They simply didn ‘t know (at the time) than a simple “flash” from the RDY and not a lock was enough to get a firing solution until too late . They underestimated the system .

It happens all of the time …

Cheers .