Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post28 May 2019, 14:11

eloise wrote:Thomson-CSF Optronique says exact performance details of the FSO are classified, but it is understood that, at 20,000ft (6,100m), for example, in air-to-air mode, the system will have an infrared detection capability of about 70nm (130km), or 60nm at low altitude, while laser ranging will be possible to 12nm
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ics-50879/


Interesting. First time i read about the range from the FSO. That would be at least roughly 50% more range then the OLS-35. And we talk here about the first version.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post28 May 2019, 14:35

The russians are behind in local IR. They bought the french damocles.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 May 2019, 14:44

optimist wrote:Is it me or you? It's not anti french, you are posting a US system. What part of targeting don't we understand? It can show you pretty pictures of aeroplanes all day long. It can follow them. It doesn't provide targeting data, as it does for air to ground weapons.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/atp.htm

Do you see the part i put in the square ?
Sniper-XR can do passive detection/tracking/ranging to air target.
For firing solution you need: Direction/range/velocity
The first can be provide by IR/ESM sensor
The second can be provided by LRF and motion analysis (passive ranging)
optimist wrote:eloise, I just realised what is happening, you are trying to get to a position to say it is the same as EOTS, which does have search, track and targeting in A2A. In fact it was the first US sensor to do both FLIR and search and track. Obviously the ATFLIR, Sniper and Talios don't

No, EOTS and all IRST can automatic search for air target.
FLIR pod can't automatic search for air target and they have to be cued
But after they are cued and you found the target, they can provide targeting solution with LRF or passive ranging
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 May 2019, 14:50

swiss wrote:
eloise wrote:Thomson-CSF Optronique says exact performance details of the FSO are classified, but it is understood that, at 20,000ft (6,100m), for example, in air-to-air mode, the system will have an infrared detection capability of about 70nm (130km), or 60nm at low altitude, while laser ranging will be possible to 12nm
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ics-50879/


Interesting. First time i read about the range from the FSO. That would be at least roughly 50% more range then the OLS-35. And we talk here about the first version.

The LRF range is a bit pathetic though
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 May 2019, 15:08

Even with my pessimistic approach of "all IRST max ranges stated are for a rear hemisphere AB target" That still makes OSF as good as I was assuming the EOTS to be, except for the laser range. That seems to be the one area the US systems have a commanding lead.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post28 May 2019, 15:09

Fair enough eloise, you are just a troll, I'll leave it at that.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 May 2019, 15:21

optimist wrote:Fair enough eloise, you are just a troll, I'll leave it at that.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post28 May 2019, 15:28

optimist wrote:The russians are behind in local IR. They bought the french damocles.


Yes im aware of this. They still don't have IIR Seeker on there missiles. Which is standard for western missiles since over one decade. But im surprised they are that far behind.

eloise wrote:The LRF range is a bit pathetic though



True. It's on the same Level as the LRF from the OLS-35. I assume it should be better at the latest version.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Even with my pessimistic approach of "all IRST max ranges stated are for a rear hemisphere AB target" That still makes OSF as good as I was assuming the EOTS to be, except for the laser range. That seems to be the one area the US systems have a commanding lead.


Are there any range figures about the EOTS?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 May 2019, 15:38

swiss wrote:
Are there any range figures about the EOTS?

Specifically? No. I am taking figures from the EODAS and figuring that the EOTS could be 50% more capable than that. Even then I am taking what I find about DAS conservatively. We all now about the Falcon-7 detection from 800nm, but that is HUGE. If I was to trust Wiki (which I don't on this) than an AAM launch was detected 1,200nm out. I may be able to grant that was a typo and 120nm may have been true. Maybe. I am assuming 20nm head on mil and 52nm tail on AB for DAS and 30nm/78nm for EOTS. Until any real data comes along to cause me to change my assumptions, this is what I am sticking with.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1728
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 May 2019, 16:02

swiss wrote:Are there any range figures about the EOTS?

The CCD sensor can identify hotel window from 90 km
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27945
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8396
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 May 2019, 16:37

That is also an intentionally degraded image (hence the blurry text)
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 May 2019, 18:28

The CCD display can SHOW a hotel window, this doean't say anything about what range the IRST system function can autonomously detect an aerial target.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post28 May 2019, 20:44

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:We all now about the Falcon-7 detection from 800nm, but that is HUGE.


Was the distance not 100 km?

I assume you talk about this video?



sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: I am assuming 20nm head on mil and 52nm tail on AB for DAS and 30nm/78nm for EOTS. Until any real data comes along to cause me to change my assumptions, this is what I am sticking with.


Sounds fair.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4530
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post28 May 2019, 20:52

swiss wrote:
Was the distance not 100 km?

I assume you talk about this video?



No, this video.

"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post28 May 2019, 21:04

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
Was the distance not 100 km?

I assume you talk about this video?



No, this video.



Ok. Honestly, 120nm sound far more realistic.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests