Forum: Technology

I saw snip from a USAF general outlining the need to increase the embedding of sensors into the airframe of future US aircraft. After thinking about this abit, I wonder if this isn't actually heading the wrong way.

Should instead future aircraft designs have podded sensors with conformal recesses designed into the aircraft and not taking up valuable wing hardpoints?
Standardized pod weight, shapes and sizes?
3 standard sizes of pods and then the aircraft airframe designers can leave the mission package choice to the buyers?

That way upgrading the aircraft sensors doesn't mean a near complete teardown of the aircraft wing as they are currently doing with the B2.

The move to podded sensors has allowed older aircraft to cheaply (relatively) upgrade to hard hitters and competition between contractors has kept the pod development and upgrades moving much more swiftly than airframes at a fraction of the cost.

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by LinkF16SimDude on Dec 30, 2011 - 08:09 PM; edited 1 time in total

I assume he meant the use of AESA-type tech molded into conformal arrays? Perhaps. But if you're gonna design those items into an airframe anyway, the Human Factors guys would prolly come up with access methods that don't involve too much dissassembly.

The recess idea is good but I think it would only be plausible for aircraft that have enough real estate for the recess and only have a need to engage ground targets. This could be feasible on something as big as a B-1 or B-52, or even a P-8. You can see a ship on an FLIR pod just as well as you can a tank. And since stealth will figure prominently in any future design, you'd also have to figure a way to minimize the RCS of the pod at the mount point.

Regarding a new fighter design, it's tough to give up real estate to a dedicated pod. But if you're really intent on it, instead of a stand-alone pod in a recess you might consider remote mounting the turret(s) in low-profile, low-RCS "pimples" (upper and lower) and mount the pod guts (housed in LRUs) internally but in a place they're easily accessed for maintenance and upgrades. The two turrets give you practically 360 degrees of coverage and can use a system like the F-117s that handed off video between turrets as the target passed between their FOVs.

Yes SimDude, the larger the aircraft the more flexibility you have.
Consider the anti-missle packages being added to every new cargo and air refeuling aircraft being built and sold. When I look at these aircraft and see them covered in a plethora of mission specific lumps and bumps it makes me think that the buyer and builder should have developed chaff/flare pods instead of integrating those into the airframe. For non-combat missions the aircraft could simply leave all that bulk at the base. When in combat zones load up.
I saw a photo of Sikorski's new ASW helo for Canada and you can't even see the shape of the airframe due to the sheer quantity of add on system sensors. Total loss of aerodynamics and mission flexibility.
Well yes the current family of mission pods are heavy and long'ish.
But much of that space in current pods are being consumed by power generation/cleaning.
If your aircraft expects a pod from design time then the aircraft can supply the power resulting in lighter weight smaller pods that include primarily senser emiter/reciever and data processing + coms boards.

archeman wrote:

...When I look at these aircraft and see them covered in a plethora of mission specific lumps and bumps it makes me think that the buyer and builder should have developed chaff/flare pods instead of integrating those into the airframe. For non-combat missions the aircraft could simply leave all that bulk at the base. When in combat zones load up.

Disagree...They may not make the plane look pretty, but the embedded detection systems are ready, whether needed or not. When you don't need them, just turn them off. You only really need to worry about handling of the chaff/flare sticks (obviously pyro devices). And those bumps and lumps are designed to not affect the plane's handling qualities, which can't be said for pods. Whether in a low or high threat area they're completely unobtrusive and the plane flies like they're not even there. It's a tried and proven system having been fielded for many years.

Forum: Technology

Pod Sensors vs Airframe Sensors