lukosAgain, reality is that no Argentinian “Gripens” will be flying anywhere, let alone against the FI and the RN / RAF protectorate. whom else do you foresee acquiring and using the Gripen AGAINST NATO nations? and sorry, ANY Gen 4.5 aircraft armed with a superior weapons system, lets use the Meteor as example stands a decent chance of successfully engaging a Gen 5 aircraft. A pilots luck , elements and skill will have some bearing on how things develop
What if the Gen 5 aircraft has Meteor too?
There is alot of thought, even a substantial internet site that seriously outlines WHY the Gripen NG would be the substantially better choice for Canada, a very active NATO partner, given the scenario where that occured, where would that develop?..NG’s actually operating with other Nations and their F35’s, EF’s and Rafale’s….lots of capability for interaction is there not?..
I thought one of the main issues with the F-35 was that it only had one engine and that an ejection over Northern Canada in winter is a death sentence. So why would a Gripen be suitable?
lukosWho said the gripen needed to dogfight the Typhoon or the F35?
Good luck getting that through against FLAADS and all the aircraft that’ll come out to greet the launch platform.
Nobody was talking about F-35 or Falklands conflict scenarios before you arrived and started ****ting up the thread with your aforementioned butthurt.
If I remember correctly my first post was a reply, hence I didn’t introduce the topic.
lukosThat is nonsense. There are three ways of long range detection & guidance of a fighter aircraft – #1. radar, #2. IR, #3. passive detection of emissions
Stealth is only able to reduce (not eliminate) the chances regd. the option #1. Everything else stays pretty much unchanged.
3 ways of detection, only 2 of which qualify as long range, and only one of which can be reliably used for guidance at long range.
Nobody was talking about F-35 or Falklands conflict scenarios before you arrived and started ****ting up the thread with your aforementioned butthurt.
If I remember correctly my first post was a reply, hence I didn’t introduce the topic.
lukosI am as far from being a gripen fanboy as one could be.
Doesn’t really answer the question.
That’s just it — here we are having a simple discussion about Argentina’s apparent plans to recapitalise its air force with Gripen E/F, and you come in chanting God Save The Queen and raving about F-35s. It’s childish and petulant.
A bit like suggesting Gripen E was easily up to the task of wiping away F-35s. It’s strange that people who post about ‘butt hurt’ are always the ones with the sorest butts.
lukosThen, instead of discussing the necessity of your AF having the 1st day strike capabilities at the expense of compromised air defense, you get dragged into deep discussions trying to prove that the F-35’s EOTS is actually worse than the IRST Gripen-E will have (a claim which is considered as nothing short of herecy).
I might have known the fighter mafia’s love child would get a mention in there.:highly_amused:
lukosLook at this photograph. It is the aggregate information provided by your sensor (640×480 pixel resolution @ 300dpi, 1x zoom), only in visible spectrum.
Now, please, try to identify the golden-color estate car in the middle of the road. I want the type and the ID plate.
If you cannot read it, try to download and use whatever image enhancing algorithm in order to get that information.Do you think it can be done?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232689[/ATTACH]
We’re talking about detecting the presence of something, not necessarily IDing it, which, as I stated very clearly, was what the EOTS was for. The human eye may have a lot of cones but it might not necessarily be as sensitive to small changes in brightness. In the case of IR, if the sensor detects a change in brightness across a few pixels, it can then use the intensity on each pixel to determine and exact centroid of the source accurate to well beyond pixel resolution.
It just came to me that EOTS is installed just after the nose cone on the bottom half. I am wondering how this affects close encounters in relation to IRST function when the opponent is positioned on the inside of the F-35 turn ..
That would obviously be a WVR encounter, easily within the range of DAS.
lukosBut then you have to ask yourself two simple questions.
1. If narrowing FOV increases accuracy (which is correct), then how can a fixed 1x system have the same accuracy as long-range telescope system?
2. If EODAS could do the same as EOTS on the 360deg FOV, why would you need EOTS?
For accuracy at longer range of course and laser designation and better target ID in difficult situations
Of course not. Optic system is still more important than sheer number of pixels.
Take your Mk1 eyeball as an example. In visible spectrum, it’s a sensor with roughly 5 million cone receptors for color, plus around 100-120 million receptors for monochrome vision. Two eyes cover ca 120-150deg HFOV and 60-70deg VFOV, with eq. pixel size of 0.3 arc-minutes you have a ~520-580 megapixel sensor system installed in your head. Yet, even such tremendous resolution won’t help you detect a fighter aircraft at say 7 mile range – unless you buy a telescope with large magnification. That is why EODAS will never have required range for BVR, even if the present 640×480 FPA was replaced by newer type (say 1280×1024 VOx). That is why you still need EOTS..
So you’re ignoring algorithms too?
That was discussed years ago on other forums. I don’t think I can find it anymore but I am fairly sure.. You gotta consider that the EODAS/EOTS systems are early 00s designs – 640×480 FPA was a killer resolution, best that money could buy at that time.
If the Sniper pod uses a single band thermal camera (as LowObs said, may not be correct, pinch of salt:D) then clearly the EOTS system is different, see my previous post.
lukosSo EO-DAS refines its accuracy by using an algorithm developed by Chinese astronomers in 2013. In real time. Forgive me if I file this between “Not proven” and “complete bull****”.
I didn’t say it used the exact same one anywhere, that’s just your facetious addition. The only relevant bit to take away is this:
positioning accuracy of the method up to 0.001 pixel
Which disproves your earlier assertion. What is know (page 28 of Air Int F-35 special) is that it uses ‘advanced exploitation algorithms’ to increase range.
You also don’t appear to have a clue about the fundamentals of DIRCM. The wide-angle, physically fixed MAWS cues the NFOV tracker, which is boresighted to the laser in the steerable jam head.
Where did I say it didn’t?
When you display a lack of knowledge about things that are simple and unclassified, it’s hard to take you seriously.
You mean like you did here:
A megapixel staring IR that covers one-sixth of a sphere – you’ll find the resolution in there if you do the math
I’m pretty good at maths but I don’t know the algorithm and I doubt it’s a mental arithmetic job, unless you were suggesting… heaven forbid… that I should simply divide 60deg by 1,000 each way? Even though it’s actually 95deg not 60deg.:highly_amused:
and here:
Actually, it doesn’t have an IRST “system” at all. It has a so-called IRST function built into the EOTS, which is a single-band thermal camera like a 2000-era targeting pod. These can be used in an air-to-air mode, but that somehow has not stopped the air forces of Singapore and Korea installing IRST right above the TDP on their F-15s.
Page 27 AI F-35 Special
“The system (EOTS) is a compact optical device that uses multiple wavebands,”…
But it’s hard to take me seriously? Dude just give up.
lukosWell it was a genuine question. I wasn’t suggesting there was a problem with Gripen, just trying to more the conversation on from Typhoon and the Falklands.
Nothing has been specifically mentioned. The sensible assumption is that it will be ball-park Typhoon or Rafale RCS but with a smaller radar. With an equal pilot it might be competitive against a Typhoon or Rafale but for BVR combat its manoeuvrability is unlikely to match a Typhoon realistically. Against a 5th gen aircraft, not a chance in hell.
lukosWTF are you on about? I merely stated that the Gripen was good enough for the job of wiping the Falklands from a RAF contingent unless maybe if the RAF bases half its fleet overthere. I never said anything whether it would be right, and God forbid I chose a side in this debate, because the thought police would be all over me.
Nic
And why do you think Gripen NG will be up to the job against Typhoons and F-35s exactly (aside from blind fanboyism)?
lukosNo.. only EOTS. Not EODAS.
I’ll have to re-check that some time.
It’s you who is confusing EODAS and EOTS. You attribute the same parameters to EODAS as they are featured with EOTS (range, bearing accuracy), but that is not physically possible. You cannot have the accuracy of a large mag sniper scope and wide FOV of unaided eye at the same time. It doesn’t work in visible spectrum and neither will it work in IR.
No I didn’t confuse them I just remembered the accuracy claim as being for both of them. I have no doubt that narrowing FOV increases accuracy but the statement here is wrong. Accuracy is not solely determined by pixel number in a straight-forward calculation, as my link above proves.
This claim is inaccurate. Both EOTS and EODAS share sensors with Sniper XR… which means 0.3 MP.
I think your comprehension is off:
Some of these modules are repackaged in a targeting system designed for the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter.
Doesn’t specify what. Might not be anything to do with the sensor. Makes no mention of DAS either unless you’re also confusing that with the targeting system (EOTS).
lukosYou Spot, I Shoot: Aegis Ships Share Data To Destroy Cruise Missiles
lukos2030 is crazy. Some of ’em will be little more than 10 years old – & the USA is upgrading 30 year old F-15s to keep ’em going for more decades.
Based on the Tornado, Typhoon should run to at least 2040. I’ve never really understood the 2030 scrap date.
lukosJay Langlet:
I’ve also been to Argentina, from Patagonia to the Bolivian border.
There have been NO complete economic collapses in the past 10 years. The Argentinian economy boomed from 2003 to 2013, except for a brief hiccup in 2009. There was a massive trade surplus. China was paying top dollar for everything Argentina could grow & ship out. The country is pretty much self-sufficient in energy, with the scope to increase production considerably, can feed a few times its own population. The credit problem could be dealt with easily with rational leadership. Current reserves cover the full claim of the vulture funds a few times over.
Cristina has to step down at the end of next year. Who knows what will happen then? Maybe whoever’s elected next October (or November if there’s a run-off) will be competent.
So why did one of their military vessels get seized to cover unpaid debts?
Gripens are way good enough to attack the falklands & pave the way for an airborne assault, even against Typhoons or F35s. The main problem the argies would have to solve would be the Astutes.
Nic
Nice completely unfounded statement. As I recall the islands were first discovered uninhabited by Europeans in the 1600s, first settled by the French and British in the early 1700s and then owned by Britain for several hundred years with only a brief period of Spanish ownership in between. Why exactly do Argentina even think they have a right to it? Because it’s an island off their coast? Bit of a dangerous logical precedent to set don’t you think? By that logic Russia has a claim to Japan.
lukosFCAS main missions are defined. SEAD/DEAD, deep penetration, INformation gathering.
Secondary : Air interdiction, CAS
Air defence MAYBEI hope my memory did not betray me.
ASuW?
Sign In
