lukosThat is most probably false. The EODAS will be used in air combat probably to detect enemy planes approaching in near BVR, not more than that. The detection range will of course depend on a lot of factors like target aspect, target type, whether it is using its afterburner etc.
Besides the ability of the EODAS to estimate the range will probably be quite limited. The EOTS will probably be combined with the EOTS to provide an accurate range data, or 2 F-35s will have the ability to triangulate with their DAS.
The main advantage of the DAS is that the F-35 will be hard to take by surprise, and we know that the effect of surprise is very important in air combat. If the F-35 is almost never taken by surprise and can shoot relatively quickly, it is a big advantage.
I don’t know if that’s necessarily true, if EODAS did have inferior range then it could theoretical be taken by surprise by a longer range IRST system. How does each DAS unit compare size-wise to other IRST systems?
lukosOK, it was easier than I thought. Here the comparison of deflator index related to particular sectors of the civilian and defense industry. In particular, most of the increased rate compared to classic CPI can be attributed to military shipbuilding while military aircraft actually stay well below that.. The 1985-2010 cumulative index stays around 103-104%.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232648[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]232649[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]232650[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]232651[/ATTACH]
Without a breakdown of how it’s calculated it means nothing. What technologies does it cover. Has it looked at exchange rate? I imagine there are a fair number of electrical items containing silver.
Not to mention the fact you thought a stealth aircraft would cost $50m as delivered. I.e. less than an F-16.
Look at this:
I have gone through the original JSF documents from 1994. At that time, the USAF unit recurring flyaway cost objective was $28mil, with typical procurement cost of $36mil. With cumulative rate of inflation of 60.5% in 20 years, we are talking about $44.94mil flyaway and $57.78mil procurement price for an F-35A in 2014.
Seriously? $36m in 1994 money is only $58m in 2014? To anyone with a level head that’s nonsense. You’re exploiting the known falsehood of official inflation figures to make a point and that’s all there is to it. So the cost of making a military aircraft hasn’t increased at all LOL? Well I guess everyone the world over is just ripping people off then? You’re probably also making the mistake of looking at build costs rather than development costs. When you acknowledge the fact that aerospace companies pay for gas and electric too and pay wages the overheads really add up and if you’ve ever seen an hourly wage vs the cost of that employee + overheads, you’ll know just how big overheads are.
I find it increasingly difficult to find any motivation for a discussion with someone who has been clearly proven wrong. But I’ll give it a shot – show me the data about that 10% / annum.
You haven’t proven anyone wrong. You show me one major item in people’s lives that has only increased in cost by 60% between 1994 and 2014 besides Netflix and gadgets. Utility bills? Nope. Food? Nope. Gas? Nope. Accommodation costs? Nope. It’s wrong on the virtue that there’s nothing that makes it right. What you’re doing is holding up a black flag and telling people it’s white. It won’t wash.
You should finally make up your mind on this – was it me or another member?
Who knows. You’ve both made similar points, so if an poorly researched person is making the same points as you that’s probably a fairly good indicator.
Yes. The claim about the range of EODAS is completely incorrect. The rest is unproven and you’ve shown no data to support that.
Really, you can prove that? You do understand that zooming doesn’t affect the amount of infra-red light reaching it?
lukosSuch argumentation is completely lame when not underlined by some verifyable figures. If there is anything like “real lukos’s inflation” which is so much different from the official inflation rate, then you surely can provide the numbers and demonstrate their practical effect. But something tells me that I shall expect nothing from a clown except a grinse, some pathetic emoticon and a backstab-remark about drug abuse. Go on, I am ready.
Give me a break, the blatantly false official inflation figures have been a talking piece for a long time. The measure changes constantly. Using the same measurement used in the 1980s, it’s more than 10%/annum and people didn’t even think that was a particularly realistic measurement back then either. I question who actually does your shopping and pays the bills if you think they’re legitimate.
It’s always quite amusing when some nobody on the forums tells me how I do or don’t understand things I’ve devoted a large part of my life to. Thanks for opening my eyes, really..
Well people had to explain EODAS to you and either you or another member confused it with EOTS.
You sound like LM brochure and I’m getting quickly bored. We have spent the last few pages discussing mainly about budgetary and doctrinal issues connected with introduction of the F-35 (available numbers, readiness, service life cost, doctrine of particular AFs, etc.) and this childish tirade of my-radar-better-than-yours doesn’t really bring anything worthy listening to.
More dry wit. Is there anything incorrect in what I’ve said?
We already discussed cost and it isn’t significantly higher than the newer 4th/4.5th gen fighters, so the old ‘I could have 3 times as many fighters’ ruse doesn’t hold any weight. You also have to consider the political acceptability of sending pilots out to die in inferior jets just because they’re more affordable, combined with grievance payments and the costs of replacement pilot training and aircraft. As an example, if we sent people out in T-55s rather than Challenger IIs, many tank crews would be dead by now, as it stands only 1 crew was killed in a friendly fire incident.
lukosYou do realise the Gripen is a single engined jet, right?
But Gripen is special, it’s a 6th gen engine and Saab is the only company still designing 4th gen aircraft in the mid-2010s, no doubt with Abba playing in the background.
stop spamming nonsense lukos
Please elaborate on what you think is nonsense and I’ll prove you wrong.
lukos… hmm, you start to sound pretty desperate…
D- Must try harder.
I’m sorry but when you start basing things on official inflation figures and a cumulative inflation rate of 34% between 2001 and 2014, you’re completely out of touch with reality, not to mention the fact that MSphere fails to consider exchange rate and commodities costs (raw materials etc.). Official inflation figures are a running joke. You try going to your supermarket or utilities suppliers and asking if you can tie your bills to official inflation figures.
You’ve demonstrated a very poor understanding of the F-35’s systems, showing that you’ve initiated your critique minus any research, hence why your points deserve to be cursorily dismissed.
Fighter aircraft design is an evolution. It started with faster and higher in the ’50s and ’60s, then in the ’70s they started considering manoeuvrability. In the ’80s they started focusing on weapons guidance and jamming. From then on the main focus because stealth and SA. At every major point they realised that there was something else more important to consider. At present you are roughly in 1974, so come back in 40 years time and we can continue this conversation.
EODAS has the range equal to or better than other IRST systems and points in all directions continuously and has the further advantage of a built-in targeting pod for ID. It’s backed up by probably the 2nd best radar presently available and the most modern state-of-the-art RWR and EW suite. Everything is easily viewable and targetable via the HMDS reducing workload. The aircraft is also the least detectable aircraft ever made and has equal or better performance than an F-16 with a mission payload and longer range. Sorry it can’t be cheaper than an F-16 too but this is the real world sadly.
lukosThe inflation rate would have to be over 5.6% annually. In reality, $50mil in 2001 money is exactly $67.19mil in FY2014 dollars
Only with really powerful drugs.:highly_amused:
, with cumulative rate of inflation being 34.4%. Blame your poor knowledge and general ignorance, not the banks.
Cumulative rate of inflation being 34%(?)… only if you own slaves who do all your shopping and you’re on crack.
I have gone through the original JSF documents from 1994. At that time, the USAF unit recurring flyaway cost objective was $28mil, with typical procurement cost of $36mil. With cumulative rate of inflation of 60.5% in 20 years, we are talking about $44.94mil flyaway and $57.78mil procurement price for an F-35A in 2014.
So you expect it to cost less than an F-16?
These were the numbers to which the JSF program partners have subscribed. And I don’t blame them, I would have subscribed, too. Now, the real F-35 performs less and costs almost triple as much.
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Oh, they are very correct, by all means.
An official inflation rate calculator? Seriously? That’s the same duke box that kicks out official inflation figures (which are always BS). If you even think they’re near correct, you’re wrong, and everything you post is wrong.
lukosNope. The distance of EODAS (not EOTS, though) remains unimpressive as it’s a classic trade-off between magnification and field of view. As said, the 800nm figure is unimportant as the system can detect even objects at distances of light years provided they’re being bright enough like stars.[
Very silly comment.
FOV is as good as one can get (360 deg), used sensor is 640×480 VOx FPA which you can find in every better pocket imager. The difference between this system and eyeball Mk1 is in digital processing, not resolution where the human eye remains unmatched by all means.
The drugs have overpowered you.
You are concentrating on wrong parameter. The question is not whether IR sensor+corresponding image processing can beat human eye (which it obviously can, otherwise noone would need thermal imagers in the first place). The question is whether EODAS can detect targets at longer ranges than any other 640×480 starring sensor found on competitive aircraft. The answer is no, quite on the contrary, ther detection range is shorter (provided the competition IRST systems work with optical mag). What EODAS does better is FOV which is by all means impressive and pretty much unique until the 101KS complex gets operational on T-50.
Who says ‘the answer is no’? You are quoting imaginary BS here.
lukosIt’s not that the EODAS can see (IR band not withstanding) farther that the human eye (which it likely can), it is that it will notice, track, and share everything (100 tracks anyways)
Humans often suffer from information overload where it is impossible to process everything that we see. Computers are less susceptible to this and can scale up where humans cannot.
According to AIR International: F-35 Special
The six apertures sensors function in the infra-red in all direction, run advanced exploitation algorithms to increase range and reduce false alarms.
…the processing power available enables DAS to simultaneously track thousands of targets… with no practical limit on the number of targets it can track.
What this means in a hypothetical air combat situation is that you’ll know where every enemy is at all times – definitely a huge advantage – and no enemy ever sees you without you seeing them effectively.
lukosit’s lukos that talks about the 800nm rocket track and shows that video…
“lukos
lukos is online now Rank 4 Registered UserJoin Date
Aug 2013
Posts
1,074I think we need to clarify what WVR is here. I wouldn’t class a rocket launch at 800nm as within Mk1 Eyeball range.
This is a better video of it:…”
😉
Yeah okay, I assumed it was the same video because it looked similar but obviously it wasn’t.:o:rolleyes:
At least it put an end to the myth that MAWS can’t detect a missile launch at BVR ranges,
implying a MAWS equipped fighter would be clueless if it was shot at at BVR,
or, alternatively, will only realize it a couple of seconds before intercept.
There is nothing hotter than a rocket
Depends on weather conditions. Detecting a rocket launch at 800nm through a monsoon would probably be substantially more difficult I imagine.
lukos10x is digital zoom, it doesn’t add any additional information to the fixed 1x mag picture. You can post-process it with 100x mag and it doesn’t change a thing.
Okay, but the distance remains impressive and as Spudman has alluded, the DAS deliberated doesn’t zoom so that it constantly monitors everything. The actual detection distance however, is equivalent to something the human eye needs many times magnification for.
I am quite sure that EODAS can easily track a Moon at a distance greatly exceeding 175,000 miles. It can even detect a Sirius star at a distance of 45,000,000,000,000 miles. I just don’t know what to do with such figures as they are tactically useless. Just like that 800nm range of the Falcon 9.
I think the idea is that you use your imagination and ask yourself how far a naked eye could see a rocket launch from, then apply the ratio between that and DAS capability to aircraft detection. Not that this 800nm might not be the absolute maximum even.
lukosWhat’s interesting in the longer video is how the APG-81 takes over tracking after burnout before 2nd stage ignition.
lukosI have a small problem with a part of that video…
you talk about 800nm range… except that, if the horizon was visible at 800nm; that would require your “aircraft” to be at about 170km altitude (over 500 000ft). on that video you can see that the launch starts, and is visible way below the level of horizon, meaning that, if the rocket had been launched @ 800nm, your horizon should be at around, say 120nm. So, unless you testbed is a spacecraft, there’s no way your detection on the video is done from such a distance.
considering the angles, it looks much more like 80nm distance to launch (which places any rocket launch way inside the “eyeball mk1 detection range”.
but then again, I guess that if you believe all LM crap about the F-35, you can also explain to us that in the US the earth is flat enough to see the horizon 120nm away from the F-35…
The video generated by DAS (More at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZ…) during the flight test has been magnified 10 times to allow clearer viewing of the rocket. Unlike other sensors, DAS detects and tracks the rocket at horizon-break without the aid of external cues.
Official Northrop Grumman press release:
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=200739
BALTIMORE, Sept. 7, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) AN/AAQ-37 Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS) for the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter successfully detected and tracked a two-stage rocket launch at a distance exceeding 800 miles during a routine flight test conducted aboard the company’s BAC 1-11 test bed aircraft.
There were 5 separate rockets:
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=260297
The DAS autonomously detected all five rockets, launched in rapid succession, and tracked them from initial launch well past the second stage burnout.
lukosI think we need to clarify what WVR is here. I wouldn’t class a rocket launch at 800nm as within Mk1 Eyeball range.
This is a better video of it:
lukosThe IS air farce:
lukosPerhaps you should actually check out the videos and make up your own mind. Having a built in Sniper pod equivalent is actually quite a big deal too:
Sign In
