Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[SpudmanWP]

OLS-35 is an IRST and would naturally have a much higher range than a MAWS.

I was not stating as an absolute the 20km rage, just giving a perspective as to what it means.

Here are the units on the PAKFA. Since they are ultraviolet instead of IR, I wonder what the ranges are like?

[wrightwing]

:roll:

If it's too far away to detect the initial motor burn then it will not pick up the inbound AAM till it's close enough for residual heat to show or it goes active.

I suppose I should have clarified. Why is a Russian MAWS so short ranged? That is a lower range than the OLS-35 is supposed to detect a fighter jet from the front.

UV MAWS has a shorter detection range than IR, and can't detect missiles after engine burn out. It's better against SAMs than AAMs. That's why it's likely that the first time a Russian pilot knows they're under attack, is when an AMRAAM goes active.

[hornetfinn]

:roll:
I suppose I should have clarified. Why is a Russian MAWS so short ranged? That is a lower range than the OLS-35 is supposed to detect a fighter jet from the front.

UV MAWS has a shorter detection range than IR, and can't detect missiles after engine burn out. It's better against SAMs than AAMs. That's why it's likely that the first time a Russian pilot knows they're under attack, is when an AMRAAM goes active.

That's correct. UV MAWS work better against SAMs as ozone concentration goes up quickly when altitude gets closer to 30,000 ft or so. Ozone very quickly blocks UV radiation used to detect missiles (UVC). At 40,000ft or higher that happens within few kilometers and there is no technology to counter that. So they are basically useless for detecting BVR missile shots. Most systems are meant only against MANPAD and SHORAD missiles.

UV systems are used because they are far simpler, cheaper and easier to develop than IR based systems. IR based systems require powerful and advanced image processing and software to filter out missiles and similar from background noise and non-interesting objects. UV systems are very simple in comparison and have very high reliability and false alarm rate. Naturally the performance is significantly lower than with IR based systems. Especially at high altitude any IRST will have far longer range than any UV-based MLD system.

[viper12]

That's correct. UV MAWS work better against SAMs as ozone concentration goes up quickly when altitude gets closer to 30,000 ft or so. Ozone very quickly blocks UV radiation used to detect missiles (UVC). At 40,000ft or higher that happens within few kilometers and there is no technology to counter that. So they are basically useless for detecting BVR missile shots. Most systems are meant only against MANPAD and SHORAD missiles.

Terve terve tervaperseeeeee !!!

Does that mean UV MAWS is more effective in polar regions where there's ozone depletion ?

[hornetfinn]

That's correct. UV MAWS work better against SAMs as ozone concentration goes up quickly when altitude gets closer to 30,000 ft or so. Ozone very quickly blocks UV radiation used to detect missiles (UVC). At 40,000ft or higher that happens within few kilometers and there is no technology to counter that. So they are basically useless for detecting BVR missile shots. Most systems are meant only against MANPAD and SHORAD missiles.

Terve terve tervaperseeeeee !!!

Does that mean UV MAWS is more effective in polar regions where there's ozone depletion ?

LOL! Terve vaan!

No, not really because most of the ozone is at higher altitudes than where fighter aircraft usually fly. The ozone depletion is also at higher altitudes. I don't think it matters much in this context.

[mixelflick]

That's correct. UV MAWS work better against SAMs as ozone concentration goes up quickly when altitude gets closer to 30,000 ft or so. Ozone very quickly blocks UV radiation used to detect missiles (UVC). At 40,000ft or higher that happens within few kilometers and there is no technology to counter that. So they are basically useless for detecting BVR missile shots. Most systems are meant only against MANPAD and SHORAD missiles.

Terve terve tervaperseeeeee !!!

Does that mean UV MAWS is more effective in polar regions where there's ozone depletion ?

LOL! Terve vaan!

No, not really because most of the ozone is at higher altitudes than where fighter aircraft usually fly. The ozone depletion is also at higher altitudes. I don't think it matters much in this context.

Ultimately won't matter, given "climate change" will doom us all soon...

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Thanks for that clarification on UV vs IR systems.

[swiss]

:roll:
I suppose I should have clarified. Why is a Russian MAWS so short ranged? That is a lower range than the OLS-35 is supposed to detect a fighter jet from the front.

UV MAWS has a shorter detection range than IR, and can't detect missiles after engine burn out. It's better against SAMs than AAMs. That's why it's likely that the first time a Russian pilot knows they're under attack, is when an AMRAAM goes active.

That's correct. UV MAWS work better against SAMs as ozone concentration goes up quickly when altitude gets closer to 30,000 ft or so. Ozone very quickly blocks UV radiation used to detect missiles (UVC). At 40,000ft or higher that happens within few kilometers and there is no technology to counter that. So they are basically useless for detecting BVR missile shots. Most systems are meant only against MANPAD and SHORAD missiles.

UV systems are used because they are far simpler, cheaper and easier to develop than IR based systems. IR based systems require powerful and advanced image processing and software to filter out missiles and similar from background noise and non-interesting objects. UV systems are very simple in comparison and have very high reliability and false alarm rate. Naturally the performance is significantly lower than with IR based systems. Especially at high altitude any IRST will have far longer range than any UV-based MLD system.

Thanks! Good to know.

Im curious on what certain range an OLS-35 would detect a Meteor.

The OLS-35 has roughly 40 km range against a Su-30 head on. So i assume it will be significant lower against a missile.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Maybe. The Meteor may be at a higher elevation (colder background, more contrast). Co-altitude, sure.

[eloise]

The OLS-35 has roughly 40 km range against a Su-30 head-on. So i assume it will be significant lower against a missile.

Su-30 body can hide the engine plumes, for a missile, it is impossible, and ramjet plume is hotter than jet engine plume, at great height, missile contrail can be detected from remarkable distance. At the same time, Meteor can't be out run

[eloise]

APG-81 detection range vs Rafale
If Rafale RCS is 0.1 m2. There is 50% chance it is detected from 155 km and 90% chance it is detected from 96 km.
If OSF laser range finder system is equally powerful as ATFLIR, it can start launching Meteor toward F-35 from 74 km.
I assume F-35 cruise speed is Mach 0.85, Rafale supercruise speed is Mach 1.2 => closure rate is Mach 2.05
At 45.000 feet altitude, speed of sound is 1062 km/h, so F-35 has between 36 - 133 seconds to engage Rafale before Rafale can return fire.

But with Spectra, Rafale can reduce APG-81 detection distance, it is possible that they will attack one another at the same time so i propose another tactic
1- F-35 cruising at 45.000 feet, immediately launch 2 AIM-120D at Rafale once APG-81 find it. Rafale counterattack by launching several Meteor with guidance from OFS.
2- Right after launching 2 AIM-120D, F-35 should dive below 20.000 ft to hide within the cloud layer, OFS can't track F-35 through clouds so midcourse guidance to Meteor will be disrupted. By contrast, F-35 can keep provide mid-course guidance by APG-81
3-F-35 launch support jammer such as SPEAR-EW/MALD-J to neutralize RBE-2
4-Launch 2 meteors from below cloud layer. Ramjet missiles are more suitable for low altitude launch.


Load out: 2 AIM-120D/2 meteor/4 SPEAR-EW /2 AIM-132

[marsavian]

When the Rafale first came out the OSF detection range was given as 40km. That may also be the cued azimuth/elevation detection of a fleeing target not including the laser ranging and might have been improved since then. The OSF is not as good as Damocles whose laser's range is less than 40km or ATFLIR. The best Rafale can hope for is that Spectra detects the APG-81 and Spectra and then OSF guide the Meteor in the general direction hoping that its seeker picks the F-35 up from a couple of miles out when it finally gets a lock on. It's an anti-stealth strategy of course which I did note previously but the pK will be low. The OSF won't range over 20nm and probably 15nm at best. EOTS has better detection and range than OSF.

[prof.566]

Rafale thread? However, according to some, range is 100 KMs, ID 50+

https://blogs.letemps.ch/pascal-kuemmer ... du-rafale/

Damocles isn't anymore the mark. Talios is.

[marsavian]

However, according to some, range is 100 KMs, ID 50+

OSF 3rd gen technology hasn't changed and why don't you go the whole hog and quote Picard's fantastic 80 front/130 rear km while you are at it. The laser range finder in OLS-35 is given as up to 20km which is more representative of what OSF can do with frontal detection just under double that. EOTS is the best internal IRST/LRF and that is short of a big external pod like ATFLIR.

[prof.566]

However, according to some, range is 100 KMs, ID 50+

OSF 3rd gen technology hasn't changed and why don't you go the whole hog and quote Picard's fantastic 80/130 km while you are at it. The laser range finder in OLS-35 is given as up to 20km which is more representative of what OSF can do. EOTS is the best internal IRST/LRF and that is short of a big external pod like ATFLIR.

just copy pasting. Do not shoot at the messenger please.