Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[SpudmanWP]

The first "800 mile" rocket was a Falcon 9 (50 meters long)
The thrust of a v1.0 Falcon 9 is 5000 kN (556 kN * 9 motors) which is over 100X that of the Terrier Malemule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Falcon_9_v1.0


The second was a Terrier Malemule sounding rocket (12 meters long)
Average thrust of 42.7 kN
http://www.astronautix.com/t/terriermalemute.html

---Edit
The Malemule is from the video titled "F-35 DAS and APG-81 radar for the JSF detect multiple rocket launches". It's the one that has multiple rocket launches.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

I don't follow. What was the Malemule in relation to DAS videos?

[ricnunes]

That comparison of yours would be akin for a F-35 pilot deciding to engage an enemy non-stealth fighter aircraft like your Rafale at short range instead of a longer range where it could shot the Rafale without being detected.

This base on the assumption that Spectra can't detect or jam APG-81. I am asking the question: what if it can?

Well, for the first time here in this forum (if my memory doesn't fail me) I'll break a promise of not replying but since your rebate was mostly composed of questions I'll reply. I hope I won't regret but honestly I think I will end up regretting.

Anyway and getting stated, regarding what you asked above I already replied but here's a summarize:
1- If the Spectra is for some reason able to detect the APG-81 it will likely do that for brief moments due to the functionality of AESA radar and how it can change emitting frequencies and moreover with the extremely advanced Sensor Fusion (the most advanced in any fighter aircraft - despite of what you said in a previous post of yours) the APG-81 doesn't need to constantly emit and it certainly won't emit in the same frequency. So lets see: The APG-81 will only need to emit sporadically and when it does it doesn't emit at the same frequency, what does this mean? Again that the chances of Spectra detecting the APG-81 are at best LOW.
2- The same above also works the same way regarding (or against) jamming - it will be very hard to Spectra to jam a APG-81 will full capacity.
3- BUT, but but... even if Spectra does manage to detect the APG-81 it was already explained to you that it won't be able to geo-locate fast moving air targets like for example a F-35. It would be able to know the general direction of that incoming F-35 (if it does detect the APG-81 emissions) but this track won't have enough precision/resolution to aim/slave a TGP (EO Targeting Pod) or an IRST with full zoom (or narrower FoV or Field-of-View).
Resuming by the time that that a Rafale will have an accurate F-35 track in it's "scope" (i.e. in its displays) the F-35 will already have detected the Rafale first - even with a "jammed" APG-81 - and already shot an AMRAAM (or several of them) at the Rafale.

Technically speaking: Gripen, J-31, J-20, Su-57 are newer than F-35
I don't think you can say they can all obliterates F-35.

Really?? This is the best that you got?
So if I build now in 2019 a fighter aircraft based on WWI technology this means that my WWI technology aircraft would then be more advanced than the Rafale which entered in service on the last decade, right??
Of course not! Newer technology doesn't necessarily mean later date of manufacture. For example the F-35 technology is far more advanced than the Gripen E this despite the F-35 entering in service sooner - We're talking about the a newer generation which is 5th (the F-35) which is much more advanced than the previously generation which is 4th which despite the Gripen E being manufactured at a later stage than the more advanced technology (F-35) it (the Gripen) is still based on older technology (4th gen) - not too dissimilar to my WWI example above! A similar principle also applies for the J-20/31 and Su-57.
Resuming, what I'm talking here about is LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY and not date of manufacture! But I suspect that you already know this, so please if you still want to have a discussion with me (and I suspect with others as well) , please stop this behavior which borderlines the behavior of a troll.

For the sake of argument, let say they both have their radar off.
The gap now is much closer. F-35 is not as stealthy in IR as it is in RF.

The gap could closer but it's still the F-35's advantage!

MWIR is better in high clutter and high humidity condition
LWIR is better against low-temperature object in cold background.
The scenario is fighters at high altitude where there is little to no cloud. So it fit the bill where LWIR out perform.
As a matter of fact: Pirate, OFS, Skyward, Legion pod are LWIR. I don't think that is a coincident

Cloud and humidity forms up to altitudes of 40,000ft and aircraft like the F-35 and Rafale usually operates at altitudes of 30,000ft-40,000ft.
So no, the conditions at the altitude at which these aircraft usually operate are not the conditions that would generally give LWIR sensors an advantage over MWIR.
Here:


Again, LWIR sensor only have the upper hand (over MWIR) when looking at a very cold background, i.e. Space

Moreover, if we look at higher altitudes of 40,000ft-50,000ft with the later (50,000ft) being the max service ceiling of both the F-35 and Rafale you can see that the background temperature actually rises (and very high so, reaching temperatures near 0º degrees Celsius) as you can see below:



So even here at 40,000ft-50,000ft the MWIR sensors should be better than LWIR due to the hotter background.

Regarding the "matter of fact" that many (or most) IRST have LWIR sensors, hornetfinn already told you why (which again you seemed to ignore) and the reason again is:
- LWIR are cheaper and easier to implement, that's it!

Why/how do you know it is BS?

1- Because there's isn't single picture of a Rafale carrying AAMs in the centerline station even with a full A2A loadout with no to only wing mounted external fuel tanks.
2- Because if you look at the actual Rafale and imagine that "front AAM" on that centerline pylon configuration on the actual aircraft, this would look "goofy" (at best).

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

ricrunes, your temp chart has altitude in meters, not feet. 40,000-50,000 are all in the Tropopause and have constant temp.

[SpudmanWP]

I don't follow. What was the Malemule in relation to DAS videos?

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

The Malemules are the rockets being used in the test titled "F-35 DAS and APG-81 radar for the JSF detect multiple rocket launches".

I was just giving context to the difference in the rocket that was tracked at 800 miles (Falcon 9) and the ones tracked much closer (no range given for the Malemules).

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Thanks for the info then. I appreciate it.

EDIT* I see an AIM-120D motor being ~ half the thrust of that rocket, so the second video could give an idea of what an AIM-120 launch would look like.

[SpudmanWP]

There are a few things to consider:
--An air-launched AIM-120 will be viewed against a "cold sky" and will be easier to detect vs the ground-launched Malemules
--There are no range calculations in the Malemule test
--All of these estimations go out the window when Raytheon's new EODAS comes online in a few years

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

There are a few things to consider:
--An air-launched AIM-120 will be viewed against a "cold sky" and will be easier to detect vs the ground-launched Malemules
--There are no range calculations in the Malemule test
--All of these estimations go out the window when Raytheon's new EODAS comes online in a few years

That's right, the DAS with ~5x resolution and ~2x range. That thing will be insane.

[disconnectedradical]

There are a few things to consider:
--An air-launched AIM-120 will be viewed against a "cold sky" and will be easier to detect vs the ground-launched Malemules
--There are no range calculations in the Malemule test
--All of these estimations go out the window when Raytheon's new EODAS comes online in a few years

That's right, the DAS with ~5x resolution and ~2x range. That thing will be insane.

5x reliability, not resolution. It's still impressive though.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

We had a big discussion on this on another thread, general consensus was 2x range which would require ~5x the elements.

[SpudmanWP]

I have heard the 5x resolution before, but I can't remember where.

It's also pretty easy to see that tech progression over a 15+ year period (yes.. it's been that long) would allow for a cheaper unit that has much better resolution, reliability, power consumption, cooling requirements, etc.

[Dragon029]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qoD69gn7xc

Just after 47:30 Jeff Babione says it'll have 5x the resolution, although there is a chance he misspoke and was thinking of 5x reliability.

4x resolution would let you discern a target at twice the distance in a perfect artificial world, 5x would give you a little extra to help deal with other factors that increase with range as well.

It would also make sense if resolution increased by about 5x as well; DAS sensors are made by L-3 (as a subcontractor to NG) which at the time in was making 1280x1024, 2048x2048 and 4096x1096 MWIR arrays; I found an article and image from 2007 talking about new InSb wafer tech being specifically developed for the F-35's DAS and from that image I was able to confirm that it matched the data sheet physical dimensions for the 2048x2048 sensor and not the 16MP sensor (although I couldn't find the 1280x1024 sensor's data sheet, so it's possible it matched it as well).

A 5x resolution increase from 1280x1024 would be 2560x2560 pixels; a 5x resolution increase from 2048x2048 would be roughly a 21MP, 4580x4580 pixel sensor.

[hornetfinn]

I also remember that 5X resolution. For twice the range, "only" 4X resolution would be just enough if everything else is equal. 5X resolution is somewhat strange in that it doesn't really fit with normal detector sizes which are pretty much always something like 1024x1024 or 2048x2048 or 640x512 or 1024x768. I think the resolution in this new EO DAS is likely 4X higher than before, range is still 2X better than before and reliability is 5X better. It might be that someone mistakenly said or wrote reliability as resolution. But those numbers are really awesome as the original EO DAS already has very impressive performance IMO.

[ricnunes]

ricrunes, your temp chart has altitude in meters, not feet. 40,000-50,000 are all in the Tropopause and have constant temp.

Yes indeed. Oops, it was my mistake (should have paid attention to the scale used in that chart).

Thanks for correcting me and I stand corrected

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

No worries. It happens.