How effective is DAS?

[mrbsct]

Title.

I heard DAS picked up an ballistic missile at 1200 km and even an air-air missile at Red Flag at 1900km.

How effective is it as a normal IRST system? Does it have more range than EOTS? Since it is multiple IR sensors it obviously larger FoV. Can it launch AMRAAMs at BVR?

[SpudmanWP]

lol, pass whatever your smoking

It picked up a Falcon9 rocket at 800nm but no way in hell it picks up an AAM at 1900km.

Besides, it has not been to Red Flag yet.

Yes, EOTS is likely better than current IRST systems, certainly better than published Russian specs.

fyi, Any sensor can launch any weapon at any range as long as it's a weapon's grade lock and any supporting needs are avalable (within laser range for an LGB, etc)

[hornetfinn]

Title.

I heard DAS picked up an ballistic missile at 1200 km and even an air-air missile at Red Flag at 1900km.

How effective is it as a normal IRST system? Does it have more range than EOTS? Since it is multiple IR sensors it obviously larger FoV. Can it launch AMRAAMs at BVR?

It picked up and identified (as TBM) and tracked SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.0 rocket from over 800 miles or over 1300 km away in 2010. What's more impressive that it did do that also to second stage with ease, which is far smaller than the first stage. This tells us that it has very sensitive detector able to see very far given large enough heat source (like large rocket exhaust plume). It's likely very capable of detecting missile/rocket launches very far away.

DAS has far larger field of view (FOV) compared to regular IRST and thus can't see anywhere as far given equal detector technology. It definitely has less range than EOTS as EOTS has much narrower FOV which means EOTS will cover a lot smaller area with likely quite similar sensor. While EOTS might detect a target 100 km away, DAS might detect the same target maybe 10 to 20 km away. On the other hand it sees everywhere all the time while other IRST systems will see 1/1,000 to 1/10,000 of the whole sphere at any given time. Scanning will increase the coverage to maybe 1/5 to 1/100, but still most of the sphere around the fighter will not have any coverage by conventional IRST systems. Targets would also be updated every few seconds during scanning whereas DAS can update targets tens of times every second. So DAS will not lose targets within the range as the update rate is very high.

All this makes DAS extremely good system for missile launch and approach detection and warning with very long range. It also makes it very good for detecting and tracking everything around the aircraft at shorter ranges. It will be able to keep extremely good SA at shorter ranges and track every friendly, hostile or neutral targets with very high confidence. It will not be able to identify or passively range targets until they get to very close range (maybe a few kilometers) due to very wide FOV. IMO, combination of EOTS and DAS system makes F-35 by far the most capable fighter jet in infra-red spectrum.

[hornetfinn]

Yes, EOTS is likely better than current IRST systems, certainly better than published Russian specs.

EOTS is definitely by far better than any current Russian system as they are non-imaging systems with very unimpressive specs. Eurofighter has Pirate and Dassault Rafale has FSO which use previous generation imaging systems which make them much better than Russian ones, but very likely much inferior to EOTS which uses latest gen detector technology.

[uclass]

It picked up and identified (as TBM) and tracked SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.0 rocket from over 800 miles or over 1300 km away in 2010. What's more impressive that it did do that also to second stage with ease, which is far smaller than the first stage. This tells us that it has very sensitive detector able to see very far given large enough heat source (like large rocket exhaust plume). It's likely very capable of detecting missile/rocket launches very far away.

Also impressive because it was a liquid-fuel rocket not a solid-fuel rocket, the latter being far easier to detect because of they burn hotter and produce a continuous smoke trail.

There's no way it could see an AAM at 1900km though, the horizon would prevent that. At 18km altitude the distance to the horizon is 479.5km. So assuming the missile is also at 18km altitude, 959km is the absolute theoretical maximum regardless of sensor capability.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

[bring_it_on]

EOTS is being upgraded and the areas where they are looking to improve it in block 4 have been covered in the Sweetman article. EODAS will also be upgraded over time and recent R&D activity points to significant interest in developing these systems over time. All in all what many forget is that this is just the start of a multi-decade service life and the impressive capability is just the baseline.

[eloise]

EOTS is definitely by far better than any current Russian system as they are non-imaging systems with very unimpressive specs. Eurofighter has Pirate and Dassault Rafale has FSO which use previous generation imaging systems which make them much better than Russian ones, but very likely much inferior to EOTS which uses latest gen detector technology.

i think EOTS is better than FSO, but it probably worse than Pirate though . ( Pirate seem to be similar to a modern version of AAS-42)

It seem that an upgrade version of AAS-42 is consider better than an upgrade sniper-XR, at least for air to air function ( since the new Legion pod isn't a poded EOTS but rather poded IRST21)

[SpudmanWP]

IIRC AAS-42 and it's derivatives are not an "imaging" IRST so in that regard EOTS would be better at making an ID of a potential target. Also, without a laser, the AAS-42 would also have a problem doing a non-radar ranging of the target.

[eloise]

IIRC AAS-42 and it's derivatives are not an "imaging" IRST so in that regard EOTS would be better at making an ID of a potential target.

original AAS-42 was a scanning array IR system , i guess the derivative will be staring array, nevertheless, they sure can see target as an image
https://youtu.be/GstwLblPpIM

Also, without a laser, the AAS-42 would also have a problem doing a non-radar ranging of the target.

i heard they will use radar to provide range

[SpudmanWP]

IIRC AAS-42 and it's derivatives are not an "imaging" IRST so in that regard EOTS would be better at making an ID of a potential target.

original AAS-42 was a scanning array IR system , i guess the derivative will be staring array

Nope, still a scanning array

they sure can see target as an image
https://youtu.be/GstwLblPpIM

You linked the wrong vid, that is of a F-14 flyby

Also, without a laser, the AAS-42 would also have a problem doing a non-radar ranging of the target.

i heard they will use radar to provide range

Three problems with that:
1. VLO target
2. Trying to stay undetected
3. Jammers

[eloise]

Nope, still a scanning array

why though, even Sniper-XR use staring array, what the point of still use scanning array?

You linked the wrong vid, that is of a F-14 flyby

my bad
https://youtu.be/HztwvYwPtrM

Three problems with that:
1. VLO targe

agree

2. Trying to stay undetected

not really a big deal fighter like f-15 i guess, it already have massive RCS

3. Jammers

agree, but may be they only use radar to send very short pulse to measure range thus less affected by jammer

[playloud]

not really a big deal fighter like f-15 i guess, it already have massive RCS

That's assuming the enemy is facing you when you are trying to get his/her distance.

[SpudmanWP]

My bad.. scanning IR = Krapy image that is not good for an ID. That is why the F-14 also had a TV camera mounted next to the IRST.

[neptune]

[quote="SpudmanWP..

Also, without a laser, the AAS-42 would also have a problem doing a non-radar ranging of the target.

i heard they will use radar to provide range

..

Ranging without transmitting....detection/ tracking by two separate a/c sharing the data....might be able to calculate the distance....algorithm...???

[SpudmanWP]

And you will share data between multiple aircraft without transmitting... how?