Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_incl ... N03127.xml

Quote:

"The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness," says a veteran Air Force fighter pilot. The point about fifth generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere - even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you."

F-16.net Sponsor

shingen wrote:

Do you agree that the AESA and Meteor alone should cut it, no need for "silent"?

It should be sufficient against the majority of threat fighter the west can expect. Further upgrades to the DASS and PIRATE, directional datalinks instead of the current MIDS are more important in my opinion than trying to squeeze out a somewhat lower RCS. The Typhoon can't be stealthyfied in a meaningful manner anyway. The aircraft was designed with some signature reduction measures in mind from the very beginning, unlike the F-15 for example where a Silent Eagle makes more sense. One has to bear in mind the limitations of the airframe design of the Typhoon i.e. no room to accommodate CWBs for example. Typhoon at least has semi-conformal weapon stations which are not much worse at all at lower complexity, weight and cost at least as far as AAM carriage is concerned.

I am not sold on the idea that PIRATE or any other IR system is that important for A2A. (360 degree EO DAS is different) Why do you feel it is important? I agree that the DASS is a high priority.

hcobb wrote:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/SHORN03127.xml

Quote:

"The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness," says a veteran Air Force fighter pilot. The point about fifth generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere - even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you."

Well, they built a plane with LO, not VLO and if they have to fight they have to use it. That's what I've been discussing with 82.

His point is valid, that the EF was built with LO in mind and that "silencing" it won't have much effect but will cost $.

PIRATE, if my memory serves, can be used to cue ASRAAM missiles without a radar lock and then use the missile's strapdown inertial guidance for HOBS launches but the problem is you won't be able to get range data for BVR launches with AMRAAM/meteor without using significant datalink information sharing to compute range. Without range the target solutions will be shoddy at best.

I think that you guys seriously underestimate the capabilities of modern IRST systems. IR technology evolves like other technologies and todays systems are easily capable to detect heat sources which are smaller than their pixel elements. It's true that the performance can be increased by zooming in at the expense of a larger FoV, but that doesn't mean that the system is incapable of detecting targets at long ranges within a relative large FoV. PIRATE is reportedly capable to simultaneously track 200 targets at the same time! PIRATE isn't limited to provide accurate angular position data of a contact the system has a kinematic ranging capability, it determines velocity, acceleration rates and even whether a contact is approaching or receding. It prioritises track automatically and can generate a target image for visual identification at BVR distances in STT mode as well. In the FLIR role the sensor has a very large FoV matches that of the HuD quite well. In sum PIRATE certainly offers a FoV not inferior to the radar, though it's performance depends on various factors including aspect angle of the target, its IR signature, meteorological conditions etc. I think that's sufficient to launch missiles in LOAL mode a longe distances, though MCG is certainly an issue. But the aircraft doesn't solely rely on its IRST/FLIR it can use the DASS ESM system and MIDS to gather data without betraying its own position through active RF transmissions. All those data are correlated and fused to provide an unambiguous picture of the tactical situation and provide targeting solutions.

Scorpion82 wrote:

I think that you guys seriously underestimate the capabilities of modern IRST systems. IR technology evolves like other technologies and todays systems are easily capable to detect heat sources which are smaller than their pixel elements. It's true that the performance can be increased by zooming in at the expense of a larger FoV, but that doesn't mean that the system is incapable of detecting targets at long ranges within a relative large FoV. PIRATE is reportedly capable to simultaneously track 200 targets at the same time! PIRATE isn't limited to provide accurate angular position data of a contact the system has a kinematic ranging capability, it determines velocity, acceleration rates and even whether a contact is approaching or receding. It prioritises track automatically and can generate a target image for visual identification at BVR distances in STT mode as well. In the FLIR role the sensor has a very large FoV matches that of the HuD quite well. In sum PIRATE certainly offers a FoV not inferior to the radar, though it's performance depends on various factors including aspect angle of the target, its IR signature, meteorological conditions etc. I think that's sufficient to launch missiles in LOAL mode a longe distances, though MCG is certainly an issue. But the aircraft doesn't solely rely on its IRST/FLIR it can use the DASS ESM system and MIDS to gather data without betraying its own position through active RF transmissions. All those data are correlated and fused to provide an unambiguous picture of the tactical situation and provide targeting solutions.

Here's something else an IRST can do for you. Let's say for whatever reason you're in an exercise with an -22. You're not going to have that good a track if at all with your radar. However, since unlike the F-117, B-2 or F-23, not much effort was done to suppress the engine plume, you're going to be able to establish a track if you're anywhere in his rear half (dry) or from almost anywhere if the 'burner's lit. Now, it he's supercruising, then his leading edges are going to be trackable at least in the forward half.

Candor forces the admission, though, that even if you can track via IRST, that doesn't mean that your radar guided AAM is going to be able to track, given its small antenna and transmit power. Here the IRST will serve to give you a good position fix on something you can't hit anyway.

and if you can see him on IR he can see you on RF, and he can guide missiles, so you still just have SA on the guy who kills you.

madrat wrote:

Oh, c'mon. Nobody has thought of over-wing conformal weapon packs for the Typhoon?

Unless they were air to air only, the typhoon would have to fly inverted to use them.

well then the pilot would have as good of a view of the target as an F-35 pilot Smile

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

well then the pilot would have as good of a view of the target as an F-35 pilot Smile

Once they get the poor guy's helmet to work right!! Laughing

The EF is just behind the power curve. The F-15 has the size and customer wealth to potentially turn it into the next-best-thing to an F-35, but the EF has neither. I'd expect EADS/BAE/whoever to start looking into a Typhoon replacement soon, because it's going to be inferior to [s]most[/s] all 5th-gen fighters. The relatively small number of F-35s expected to be flown by Europe just won't cut it.

southernphantom wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

well then the pilot would have as good of a view of the target as an F-35 pilot Smile

Once they get the poor guy's helmet to work right!! Laughing

The EF is just behind the power curve. The F-15 has the size and customer wealth to potentially turn it into the next-best-thing to an F-35, but the EF has neither. I'd expect EADS/BAE/whoever to start looking into a Typhoon replacement soon, because it's going to be inferior to [s]most[/s] all 5th-gen fighters. The relatively small number of F-35s expected to be flown by Europe just won't cut it.

What makes you think they want to "cut it"? They'd rather jsut have a jobs program disguised as a weapon.

[quote="shingen"]

southernphantom wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

well then the pilot would have as good of a view of the target as an F-35 pilot Smile

Once they get the poor guy's helmet to work right!! Laughing

The EF is just behind the power curve. The F-15 has the size and customer wealth to potentially turn it into the next-best-thing to an F-35, but the EF has neither. I'd expect EADS/BAE/whoever to start looking into a Typhoon replacement soon, because it's going to be inferior to [s]most[/s] all 5th-gen fighters. The relatively small number of F-35s expected to be flown by Europe just won't cut it.

What makes you think they want to "cut it"? They'd rather jsut have a jobs program disguised as a weapon.[/quote

Well, they're looking at a hornet's nest in the Middle East. Having something that can defeat the double-digit SAMs will be critical. I just don't see EFs doing that. F-35s, maybe.

I'm fairly certain F-35s WILL be able to defeat double-digit SAMs. It doesn't need to be super cruise capable to be able to evade detection from enemy search radar networks. It's RCS should hopefully be quite good against L-Band radars despite Kopp's claims to the contrary. It just needs its trusty Barracuda suite and it should be able to plan its ingress routes quite nicely.

tacf-x wrote:

I'm fairly certain F-35s WILL be able to defeat double-digit SAMs. It doesn't need to be super cruise capable to be able to evade detection from enemy search radar networks. It's RCS should hopefully be quite good against L-Band radars despite Kopp's claims to the contrary. It just needs its trusty Barracuda suite and it should be able to plan its ingress routes quite nicely.

Fair enough. Even without stealth, both the Raptor and F-35 are in a better position than non-LO/VLO platforms when attacking modern IADS.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Silent Typhoon?