RE: DAS for the F-35

[brad kaste]

RE: DAS for the F-35

<table style="width: 605.25pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" width="807" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding: 0in; width: 605.25pt;" valign="top" width="807">



And this is only what they are telling us about...
This is an electronic shield around an aircraft that alerts and protects...
Right out of star wars.
Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the F-35












Check out Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the
F-35. A must see - absolutely amazing. Video runs about 5 and half minutes.







http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html



























</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[deathfromafar]

This is yet only part of the capability of the F-35 & F-22's integrated electronic warfare system and fire control. I made a point about this in a few threads that the Russian thrust vectoring(and F-22 for that matter) are really pointless now and only add weight, and added mechanical complexity to the aircraft which requires more maintenance hours/downtime. The best way to fight is with advanced systems like this couple with Stealth and advanced omni-aspect weapons.

 

[centuryseries]

Interesting systems.

Wonder what the SU-27's pilot is doing while the F-35 is running way - probably shooting an off boresight missile straight up the F-35's massive jet exhaust, which no doubt would be in afterburner as the F-35 makes his escape.

While it remains to be seen whether an F-35 can evade an up-to-date SU-27 with thrust vectoring, and modern weapons it strikes me that the video above is just weapon system propaganda!

Are F-22's datalinked yet??

No wonder these programs have cost and time over runs with all this built in wizardry.

Cal me cynical :ernae:

 

[deathfromafar]

Wonder what the SU-27's pilot is doing while the F-35 is running way - probably shooting an off boresight missile straight up the F-35's massive jet exhaust, which no doubt would be in afterburner as the F-35 makes his escape.

That's assuming the SU-27 would ever acquire an F-35 in the first place which is highly unlikely when the F-35 (or F-22) are in full LO configuration. If they were in Conventional config with pylons and weapons hanging underneath, then yes a Sukhoi or any fighter, AWACS, or GCA could see them.

The systems in that video are very real. I saw the advanced demonstration of this system during a DC DARPA meet. Very impressive. It is not exactly new but the technology as it stands now has matured from the original planing back in the mid 90's. Some wrongly conclude that Russia created the IRST system. The US was flying them in Combat in the 1960's long before such systems appeared on the first Mig-29's and SU-27's in the years after a pilot flying a US made F-14A belonging to the Iranian Air Force defected to the Soviet Union. The older IR & Optical systems like the previous US designs and current Russian IRST are not even close to the capability of this system. The best way to describe the comparison would be that it is like going from iron rifle sights to an optical scope with 30X magnification and a 50mm objective except, you have one covering every aspect of geometry in your situational awareness and kill sphere. There's simply nothing like it.

If we follow previous indications about Migs and Sukhois in Combat, we and Israel already have perfect kill ratio(no losses of our own) flying against those current designs using our 3rd generation designs with legacy avionics. In DACT, Just ask the Indian AF what their fratricide and loss rate was at Red Flag with their SU-30's. Thrust vectoring looks cool to watch in flight but it is a huge waste of airframe weight and high maintenance costs and when considering the current generation of Air to Air weapons and coming generation can easily turn 4 to 6 times the G envelope of any manned fighter(or even unmanned) due to structural limitations.

Yes these new systems are expensive but they are a must if we are to maintain an edge. That is a never ending cycle.

Yes, the F-22's are datalinked. Were from the beginning. Many of the legacy aircraft have been as well.

(Edit)
Just located a journal I had in storage regarding this system. Seems that there are plans already underway to create custom offshoot systems for 4th Gen Fighters/Attack Aircraft from Allied Nations. The system's cost is comparatively low compared to AESA sets and can be integrated into many current systems.

 

[centuryseries]

I was partly incorrect, but it would appear that F-22 are datalinked to each other, but are not completely datalinked with other types in the inventory using the standard Link16? Apparently the F-22 can only receive information from Link16.

All that aside, I agree the F-35 is a LO platform from everywhere but the rear, the big engine exhaust will show up well on the Flankers infrared search-and-track sensor, even without burners if they merge.

You cannot assume that the Russian IRST is out of date, or wouldn't work against such a powerful engine in the F-35.

"If we follow previous indications about Migs and Sukhois in Combat, we and Israel already have perfect kill ratio(no losses of our own) flying against those current designs using our 3rd generation designs with legacy avionics."

The Indian Air Force may have done badly at Nellis but their training is different and they lack experience.

Show me one piece of evidence that suggests a USAF or Israeli 3rd generation fighter has gone up against an SU-27.

This video below (from 34 seconds) shows the Raptor at Farnborough when viewed through an IR camera - now I know the Raptor is very different to the F-35 - indeed it's nozzles are more stealthy, but you can't help but wonder if you got behind an F-35 how well it would defend itself against an IR missile straight up the exhaust.

 

[deathfromafar]

Both the USAF and the IDFAF F-15C's have shot down Mig-29's with IRST with no losses. The IDFAF F-15C's have engaged Syrian SU-27's on 3 occasions but in those encounters no shots were fired. The IDFAF F-15C's gained and held rear aspect and locked them up with their Python 4 missiles forcing the SAF SU-27's break off. Thats not to mention that an IDFAF Srike package of F-15C/I's and F-16D's that flew all the way through the country to near Syrian/Iraq border unchallenged to strike that suspected reactor site in 2007. Overall, seems years of Russian training current hardware/avionics didn't do so well the older F-15's(and F-16's) with well trained and experienced pilots of two different air forces. Remember, the Mig-29, SU-27, F-15, F-16 are of the same generation and their performance numbers don't give a clear edge over the other. The Mig and Sukhoi share a lot of vital fire control/avionics. The Sukhoi is a bigger, easier to see target than the Mig.

On the EO systems.
Let me lay this out a little more clearly. The original Russian IRST(still in wide use) is a short range limited aspect system. It was never intended to be a front line system but more of an assisting/secondary system. It's aspect envelope is limited to to the frontal plane of the aircraft it is mounted on. The overall usefulness of the system is very limited not unlike the ones the US used decades ago. The EO DAS system has long range detection capability of both air and ground threats in a fully 360 degree omni-spherical aspect and can detect threats through multi spectral sources(target emissions) and the system is 100% passive(no emissions). The sensors alone are only a small part of the system integration. The F-35 pilot's helmet visor will have all the basic HUD flight information as well as fully heads up 360 degree aspect cuing with color coded IFF capability. Having seen a demo of this capability in person, it has no close competitor.
Bear in mind, this is only a small part of the F-35's capability.

now I know the Raptor is very different to the F-35 - indeed it's nozzles are more stealthy, but you can't help but wonder if you got behind an F-35 how well it would defend itself against an IR missile straight up the exhaust.

The F-22 nozzles are designed to help reduce RCS at rear aspect. It has nothing to do with reducing the IR signature. The F-35's nozzle is actually very low RCS as well. The Saw-Tooth edges and other design aspects were well thought out on that area. Most modern All-Aspect IR homing missiles don't operate strictly within the IR spectrum. The seeker and electronic filtering focus on specific electromagnetic signatures/wavelengths inside a given IR spectrum range. Since fighters and other aircraft have very specific IR signatures(engine, skin, and leading edge surface IR signatures), the missile seekers and and their filtering(discrimination) are specifically tuned. These days with combined all aspect sensors and staring focal plane arrays, turning merge in a ACM or BVR fight has never been so deadly.

@ Centuryseries- This is not meant is a challenge so to speak(LoL) just sharing/comparing parts of the knowledge I somehow managed to retain over the years from loads of data thrown at me and bins full of publications I acquired for 20+ years(actually longer-since junior high school). I have learned the hard way that it's risky and dangerous to allow oneself to get dazzled by gadgetry that is both hard to afford and perhaps worse, can fail you when you need it most. In the Defense industry, there's often a fine line between buying from an antique dealer, a snake oil salesman, or a Ferrari dealer! LMAO!

 

[centuryseries]

No worries, I'm not trying to criticise the F-35, I'm just trying to understand why its supposed to be so good.

Thats interesting about the nozzle on the F-35 because I thought the reason for the F-22 nozzles being flat was for RCS reduction, I didn't realise they could make a round nozzle that is LO!?

The Russian IRST surely must've been upgraded since the late eighties, but who knows. Their military is only just starting to recover from years of apparent neglect.

 

[deathfromafar]

Actually, I am very critical of the cost of the plane. Both the F-22 and F-35 are ridiculous even though they are state of the art. But I understand why the costs are driven so high, the multitude of factors which don't have to be that way and such a plane could be delivered at the same or better quality nearer to target pricing.

There have been improvements of the Russian IRST but it is still a very limited/simplistic system. The cuing is on the MFD(S) & HUD. It can be slaved to the seeker head of an Archer or similar missile and the Helmet mounted sight which is a monocle sight which is not unlike that on the AH-64 helicopter.

Here's a good photo of the F-35B's engine nozzle. Take note of the individual saw tooth sections on the edges and the shaped interior channels under the thermal coatings. My understanding is that this design alleviates the need for a flat 2-D nozzle and has lower maintenance costs/cycles.
View attachment 30093

 

[hubbabubba]

Any given day...

Any given day...

NORAD DEW station reports an unknown, possibly hostile, target approaching Canada airspace. One or two CF-18 are dispatched from CFB Bagotville on an intercept course. They are first vectored by NORAD, then acquire the target on inboard radar. As the target is nearing our airspace, it is visually identified as XYZ Russian long-range bomber. or fighter, no matter what.

The CF-18 pilot make sure he is seen by the Russian and tries to tell him he's not welcome in our airspace and should immediately turn away or else. He does that on international frequencies or, if the Russian plays "deaf n' dumb", he scare the s*** out him by falling on his tail and lightning his dashboard with radar-IR warnings.

Fortunately, up to this day, they've always turned back, but...

I'm no expert in modern warfare (WWI and II are my playground), but I have trouble to understand how 60 F-35A are going to do the job of the 100 CF-18 they're supposed to replace.

The logistic simply doesn't add-up. As a new airframe, the percentage of maintenance-repair-refit-retrofit-et cetera will certainly not help. I understand that the transition will not be done overnight, but eventually it will be done. The F-35 may be capable of many things, but ubiquity is not one of them.

The stealth aircraft is, by nature, an offensive weapon. It approaches its target unnoticed, get a firing solution, fires, then turns back or goes for another target.

This doesn't work with the scenario I described, which is routine btw. You can't show yourself and stay unnoticed. You can't fire at a unknown target "beyond the horizon" and kill 300 civilians because their Aeroflot radio system is outdated. You must positively identify the target; a passenger Tupolev gives the same signature as a bomber Tupolev on radar screen.

And if the "possibly hostile" goes to plain and simple "hostile", you can't outrun its missiles.

The F-35A may be a very good aircraft to have in a war-like environment, but it is ill-suited for peace time missions, with the possible exceptions of spying and preemptive strikes.

Convince me that it can do the job and I will jump in the "F-35 band wagon". Until then...

 

[deathfromafar]

The EO DAS will give your pilots the ability to passively detect and identify a target through NCTR(Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) Beyond Visual Ranges. Current and even legacy radars NCTR capability can distinguish between an airliner and a combat airframe "shape"(& other factors).

The 60 F-35's are very proportionate to 100 CF-18's, actually I'd say the average is considerably better from what I have seen in tests with both the 35 and 22. The technology and stealth combined will mark a huge jump in capability over the Hornet. Stealth isn't solely an offensive platform, there are a multitude of ways LO capability can be employed that would give an advantage to Interception and CAP scenarios and enjoy clear advantages over non-LO 3rd & 4th Gen designs. It's the sting in the cost of this plane that hurts but as most defense aerospace experts now say, if you're not in the 5th Gen game, you're not in the game at all.

 

[Bone]

most defense aerospace experts now say, if you're not in the 5th Gen game, you're not in the game at all.

Aha! So it is a game after all...experts=proof! I like my airliner more and more, games are for kids. lol.

 

[AckAck]

If you want to be seen in stealth aircraft, just slap some external stores on them - even make a "radar visibility" pod if you want. Blow it off when you need to be invisible (if it does turn "hot", for instance.)

Just an idea, and not thought through.

Brian

 

[CG_1976]

I'd rather have new Super CF-18's then the CF-35 in the Arctic. I have not seen any data on hard testing in the Arctic WX conditions and effects on one engine and maintainability cost. My theory on Arctic Ops of the CF-35 is very high maintainability cost to the overall aircraft and mission. Arctic conditions are pure H@ll on a aircraft and its engines and systems.

 

[hubbabubba]

The EO DAS will give your pilots the ability to passively detect and identify a target through NCTR(Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) Beyond Visual Ranges. Current and even legacy radars NCTR capability can distinguish between an airliner and a combat airframe "shape"(& other factors).

And ECM pods can make almost any a/c project almost any other a/c signature, Snoopy's hut included. Soviet-Russians have taunted us with airliners disguised as bomber and vice-versa. Are we really going to shoot them down on the presumption that our hardware is better than their hardware?

The 60 F-35's are very proportionate to 100 CF-18's, actually I'd say the average is considerably better from what I have seen in tests with both the 35 and 22.

In a hockey game, when you're playing three against five, you're in trouble, no matter how good those three are.

The technology and stealth combined will mark a huge jump in capability over the Hornet. Stealth isn't solely an offensive platform, there are a multitude of ways LO capability can be employed that would give an advantage to Interception and CAP scenarios and enjoy clear advantages over non-LO 3rd & 4th Gen designs.

I never said that it was "solely offensive". But when it is time to make a "show of force", not being seen is a handicap.

It's the sting in the cost of this plane that hurts but as most defense aerospace experts now say, if you're not in the 5th Gen game, you're not in the game at all.

This sounds more like a sales pitch than anything else. Remember that while we're building super-duper vehicles to beat the Talibans, they're simply piling-up more mines in their next hole on the roadside. Technology is not everything.

And yeah, it is costing an arm and a leg. This is how Soviet Union crumbled btw...

 

[deathfromafar]

And ECM pods can make almost any a/c project almost any other a/c signature, Snoopy's hut included. Soviet-Russians have taunted us with airliners disguised as bomber and vice-versa. Are we really going to shoot them down on the presumption that our hardware is better than their hardware?

That statement lends me to believe you might not be aware of how many of these systems truly work. ECM(Active Multi-Spectral/Noise Jammers) are 100% useless against EO DAS. Never heard of ECM changing the RCS or size of an airframe? Hiding in noise jamming yes but such emissions are very visible. I used to know an F-111 WSO who flew in the latter part of Vietnam who told me horror stories about his ECM use. You might disrupt fire control and tracking radars both airborne and GC but you're also painting yourself like a flashlight in the dead of night.

I don't work for Lockheed Martin so I have no stake in the game to make a sales pitch. But if you feel Canada is getting a rotten deal then by all means, organize against the purchase and get it canceled if it's generally felt they aren't needed or worth it.

In a hockey game, when you're playing three against five, you're in trouble, no matter how good those three are

Hockey is a game, combat(which I have been in twice) isn't. There have been many cases of both man and machine being heavily outnumbered and prevailing. Having the best equipment is a plus, being confident in your equipment and training might save your life. There's a number of accounts for example where pilots flying machines like P-47's and P-51's were grossly outnumbered but ended up taking out multiple enemy aircraft within minutes and clawing their way out of almost certain death. The late Adolph Galland rightly recognized that the heart of a highly developed flying machine is still it's pilot but he too recognized that having inferior equipment can be a hindrance to a skilled pilot & ultimately a waste of their skill and life.

Now I don't want to continue this into a pointless he said/she said pissing match about who is right, but having worked in DARPA circles I have seen a number of cutting edge technologies and know for a fact they are not only real, but such technologies might mean the difference between victory or defeat and loss of expensive hardware & life. I'm confident in the F-35 and F-22 and have zero doubt that if they ever see combat(which I hope & pray doesn't become necessary) the pilots and machines will acquit themselves well against all critics just as many other programs did which were once called overly expensive/lemons.

:ernae: :salute:

 

[deathfromafar]

I'd rather have new Super CF-18's then the CF-35 in the Arctic. I have not seen any data on hard testing in the Arctic WX conditions and effects on one engine and maintainability cost. My theory on Arctic Ops of the CF-35 is very high maintainability cost to the overall aircraft and mission. Arctic conditions are pure H@ll on a aircraft and its engines and systems.

The Superbug would be a cheaper option with quality for sure. Believe me, the F-35 will get the full extreme environment testing just like any other aircraft. Norway, Denmark, Sweden all rely on single engine fighters in a harsh winter environment. No issues there. The F-22 is doing well in Alaska. From what I've heard, it's holding up better than some of the other aircraft. Truth be known, no matter how well built the machine of any kind, that environment can and will disable any machine if certain precautions aren't adhered to.

 

[CG_1976]

" Sweden all rely on single engine fighters in a harsh winter environment."

No argument here from me. What I look at is the vast range a CF35 would have to cover vs the Super Bug. We have more space to patrol and secure then Scandinavia. Them F-22's can kick some arctic rear for sure. Now I would love the US to share a few with us Canuks to throw against the CF35 for fair competition. Then the engine debate and range can be settled threw hard physical testing.

 

[deathfromafar]

Here are some figures for the F-35 and F/A-18E

F-35A
Max Speed- Mach 1.6
Range: 1,200 nmi (on internal fuel)
Combat radius: over 590 nmi (on internal fuel)
Max Payload including external hardpoints-18000 lbs(External Stores are in Non-LO Configuration)

F/A-18E
Max Speed-Mach 1.8
Range: 1,275 nmi (on internal fuel)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (on internal fuel)
max Payload-17,750 lbs

The numbers are close but the F-35 advantage is both Stealth and Weapon System Avionics.
The difference in Combat Radius is due to the lower average/estimated fuel consumption based on high thrust single engine operation. In other words, an F-35 using the F135 engine @ 40,000 lbs thrust can fly at typical cruise and push-up combat speeds at lower power settings.

 

[Bjoern]

Fortunately, up to this day, they've always turned back, but...

No sane pilot would penetrate if he doesn't want his arse handed to him by the Kremlin.

Were not in the 40s to 80s anymore. Why do people keep forgetting that?

Norway, Denmark, Sweden all rely on single engine fighters in a harsh winter environment.

Scandinavia is no match for Canada in terms of size.

If a swedish pilot loses his ride, he's gonna walk three days at best until he's rescued.

If a canadian pilot goes down somewhere in the rear left of the Northern Territories, he'll walk three weeks.

 

[hubbabubba]

I'm not trying to win a pissing contest, deathfromafar. I'm simply stating very legitimate worries.

I don't buy the F-35, but my government does. Recanting on contracts? "Been there, done that" with the Cormoran helicopters, just look where we ended up!

Now that we are committed, I don't think that back-paddling is an option. I just hope that your optimism will be justified. Crossing my fingers in the meantime...

If you want to be seen in stealth aircraft, just slap some external stores on them - even make a "radar visibility" pod if you want. Blow it off when you need to be invisible (if it does turn "hot", for instance.)

Just an idea, and not thought through.

Not such a bad idea, AckAck! We're going to bleed our defense budget on a stealth aircraft and, as soon as they land, we will fit them with jettisonable external ECM pods to make them un-stealthy.

It sounds weird but, hey!, it may just be the solution to one of my main concerns. This is a very Canadian way of thinking btw, AckAck. Any ancestry or relatives north of the border?

No sane pilot would penetrate if he doesn't want his arse handed to him by the Kremlin.

Were not in the 40s to 80s anymore. Why do people keep forgetting that?

They haven't changed that much, Bjoern. Russians may be our new friends, but they are still poking at our borders, especially since the melting arctic ice cap is opening new perspectives. All bordering nations, even non-bordering like China, are trying to get a piece of the pie and, the greater the better. The scenario I was using is loosely based on an incident that happened less than a year ago, maybe CG_1976 could had more precise infos to that.