Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[ricnunes]

I'll give it a try one more time:

I don't like people twisting my words to make a strawman argument

Then you certainly don't like yourself because that's basically all that you have been doing here. And the fact that I'm not the only one thinking this, as such I'm likely or probably right regarding this.

I have never said "Gripen HAD TOWED DECOY AS AN ADVANTAGE OVER F-35"
I was replying to your claim of: "Newer technology always obliterate older one"
and I said these exact words:

I am not trolling, i point out the flaw in the logic of newer technology always obliterate older one.
Newer technology doesn't necessary mean later date of manufacture: ok agree.
Let have a look at Gripen E vs F-35 :
APG-81 radar uses fixed AESA array with GaAs modules
ES-05 radar uses movable AESA array with GaN modules
Should we concluded that ES-05 will obliterate APG-81 ???

Gripen is equipped with Brite Cloud, a small expandable DRFM jammer that can be carried in large number, i don't think F-35 has an equivalent to that

Skyward vs EOTS, skyward is both newer and can uses frequency more optimized to cold target.

I can go on and on, there are many pieces of technology on Gripen E, which is newer than the one on F-35. Because of the simple fact that it was built later so more advanced technology are available at the point than when F-35 was created. But we know that doesn't mean you can draw the tangent line of Gripen will obliterate F-35 because "newer technology always beat older one" . The kind of overly simplify assumption like that bring more bad judgment than good

1- What i did is point out the flaw in your simplified logic
2- Brite Cloud is NOT a TOWED DECOY, because it is NOT TOWED behind the aircraft, it is an expandable jammer, same as RT/1489/ALE aka GEN-X. Look up GEN-X. The equivalent of ALE-70 on Gripen is BO2D
3- I did not at any point said Gripen BO2D towed decoy is better than ALE-70. I said: "ALE-70 is comparable to BO2D on Gripen". These are the exact words.

Here you are again twisting words (in this case mine) to make a "strawman argument", let's see:
- You claim that the F-35 doesn't have something like Brite Cloud yet I indicated you the AN/ALE-70. You know that the AN/ALE-70 is not a simple decoy as for the example the AN/ALE-50. The AN/ALE-70 is also a Jammer and can not only be towed but also used as a expendable decoy/jammer. Here:
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... ys-for-f35

Designed and produced by BAE Systems for deployment from the F-35, the ALE-70 towed radio frequency countermeasure consists of the reel and launcher assembly, tow line, T-1687 countermeasure transmitter, and electronic and mechanical subassemblies. It also has canisters, and explosive cartridges to deploy the decoys.

So basically the AN/ALE-70 does the same job as the Brite Cloud and BO2D combined! So again, what's the most advanced system here?? The AN/ALE-70 or something else which needs two separate systems (Brite Cloud and BO2D) to do the same job as the The AN/ALE-70. This is a rhetoric question, BTW...

And continuing your twisting other people's words kind of narrative, you twisted what I said which I'll re-post below:
- Just because something was build or entered in service at a later date does NOT mean it uses more advanced technologies, period!
Resuming and as a last hope in order for you to understand:
- Despite the Gripen being build and enter in service at a later date than the F-35, the Gripen is built using OLDER combined technology than the F-35 (for example the Gripen is not Stealth). The Gripen E could have been build and enter in service in the year 2070 but it would still be a 4th gen and therefore older technology aircraft. This is something which is Crystal Clear but that you have been twisting to fit your narrative!

Or even saying that LWIR sensors don't show the imagery with bigger contrast while the images that eloise posted clearly shows that the LWIR image has a much bigger contrast than the MWIR image...

Do you truly believe LWIR photo has more contrast than MWIR in that photo? that is ridiculous. Even without the photo, you should be able to deduce with sensor has higher contrast from what hornetfinns told you. LIWR need very cold background while MIWR works better with clutters, and from that you deduce that LWIR sensor has higher contrast?.

The meaning of the word contrast:

an obvious difference between two or more things

When looking at the LWIR image you can either see very dark colors (the colder areas) or very bright colors (the hotter areas like the people's exposed skin/head and the rocks on the shoreline) - That's IMO bigger contrast!
As opposed in the MWIR image the colors are much more progressive, you not only have dark or very dark and bright or very bright color but you also have various degrees of coloring or color intensity between the dark/very dark and bright/very bright colors.

[eloise]

bug post - skip next

[eloise]

Then you certainly don't like yourself because that's basically all that you have been doing here. And the fact that I'm not the only one thinking this, as such I'm likely or probably right regarding this.

Really? In what part did i twisted your words? Can you quote that paragraph?
You at least once has twisted my words about decoys issue.
And the accuracy of a statement doesn't depend on whether it is popular or not.

Here you are again twisting words (in this case mine) to make a "strawman argument", let's see:
- You claim that the F-35 doesn't have something like Brite Cloud yet I indicated you the AN/ALE-70. You know that the AN/ALE-70 is not a simple decoy as for the example the AN/ALE-50. The AN/ALE-70 is also a Jammer and can not only be towed but also used as a expendable decoy/jammer. Here:
https://www.militaryaerospace.com/unman ... ys-for-f35

Designed and produced by BAE Systems for deployment from the F-35, the ALE-70 towed radio frequency countermeasure consists of the reel and launcher assembly, tow line, T-1687 countermeasure transmitter, and electronic and mechanical subassemblies. It also has canisters, and explosive cartridges to deploy the decoys.

So basically the AN/ALE-70 does the same job as the Brite Cloud and BO2D combined! So again, what's the most advanced system here?? The AN/ALE-70 or something else which needs two separate systems (Brite Cloud and BO2D) to do the same job as the The AN/ALE-70. This is a rhetoric question, BTW...

How can i twist "your words" when i was quoting myself ???
You claimed i said " Gripen having towed decoy as advantage over F-35 ", i quote and highlight my comment to show that clearly not the case.
yes i know ALE-70 is more like ALE-55 than ALE-50, in short, ALE-70 and ALE-55 can also transmit waveform generated by aircraft internal EW system, but BO2D is also not exactly the same as ALE-50, in that BO2D can communicate with the platform and operate in several modes depend on nature of the threats while ALE-50 transmitter is stand alone. Either way, i keep my opinion that F-35 has no equivalent to Brite cloud, because, it really doesn't. Brite cloud fit in standard chaff carrier so it is a DRFM jammer that can be carried in very large numbers, a dozen at least. But the most unique part of Brite Cloud is the no connection to the aircraft after engaged (unlike towed decoy whether it is ALE-50, ALE-55 or ALE-70). Meaning you can maneuver and fly as you wish after launch and there is no risk from missiles warhead fragment regardless of how big their warhead is

And continuing your twisting other people's words kind of narrative, you twisted what I said which I'll re-post below:
- Just because something was build or entered in service at a later date does NOT mean it uses more advanced technologies, period!
Resuming and as a last hope in order for you to understand:
- Despite the Gripen being build and enter in service at a later date than the F-35, the Gripen is built using OLDER combined technology than the F-35 (for example the Gripen is not Stealth). The Gripen E could have been build and enter in service in the year 2070 but it would still be a 4th gen and therefore older technology aircraft. This is something which is Crystal Clear but that you have been twisting to fit your narrative!

No i actually fully agreed that later built doesn't always mean newer technologies
I only pointed out that: Gripen does have some technologies which are newer than the one on F-35, simply because it was built later: Brite cloud, GaN EW, Skyward. That does not mean Gripen is better than F-35 as a whole but to assume an aircraft built years later can't have any newer technologies is borderline delusional.

When looking at the LWIR image you can either see very dark colors (the colder areas) or very bright colors (the hotter areas like the people's exposed skin/head and the rocks on the shoreline) - That's IMO bigger contrast!
As opposed in the MWIR image the colors are much more progressive, you not only have dark or very dark and bright or very bright color but you also have various degrees of coloring or color intensity between the dark/very dark and bright/very bright colors.

This is getting ridiculous

[eloise]

Well lets start again and I'll try not to say you are trolling.

1. You seem to be assigning A2G capability to A2A....does the Talios brochure clearly say what is what?.
2. do you agree the manufacturers would know what it does.

If you can't stand someone having different opinion from you and associate that with trolling then why even bother ?
1-I don't assigning A2G to A2A
I said targeting pod can provide targeting information after they are cued, because within LRF distance they can provide angular, range, velocity information, i can't think of anything else that is needed for a firing solution.

15904241-7BF0-46F3-A942-B52DDD6900E7.png (422.11 KiB) Viewed 28134 times

2- Yes

[eloise]

And I can tell you that I live in a temperate region myself and here cumulonimbus are quite frequent during the Autumn, Winter and Spring (although they happen somehow less now due to climate changes - but this also affects all cloud types) and in most cases there isn't a storm present.

An example of what I see frequently which was taken in a place relatively near to where I live:


Below is another example of a sky very often observed in the region where I live (again, specially during Autumn, Winter and Spring):


In the image above you can see a mix of cumulonimbus and cumulus clouds.
A friend of mine which was recently studying meteorology told me that he learned that some clouds that people think are cumulus are in fact cumulonimbus - this is due lack of perception of how high the clouds projects, this to someone who is on the ground and relatively afar from the cloud itself (as you can see in the last image above).

I can't imagine someone mistaken Cumulus with cumulonimbus, especially the one that can reach 50.000-60.000 ft, cumulonimbus has very distinct tube like shape

If your friend study meteorology, I am sure you can ask him to provide with some cloud frequency statistic charts or study

[swiss]

Interestingly both Rafale who were in Switzerland for Testing, had Sniper pod under there Wings



[/quote]

[eloise]

Only rear aspect detection range, but quite good nonetheless

irst.PNG (90.46 KiB) Viewed 28031 times

http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%209_1_3.pdf

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

and Hornetfinn had something to say about that... Range ratios between FOVs are off.

"I think those NFOV figures from those simulations are probably close to what could happen in real world especially in clearer conditions. WFOV figures are probably about two times too high and for example clean atmosphere figures should be something like 29-45 km. MFOV figures should be something like 44-70 km."

[ricnunes]

I can't imagine someone mistaken cumulus with cumulonimbus, especially the one that can reach 50.000-60.000 ft, cumulonimbus has very distinct tube like shape

And I can't imagine that after all this discussion you still haven't realized that:
1- The "tube" is not so defined or easily seen from someone on the ground due to perspective. (the tube is better observed from the air when flying sideways to one of those clouds. The most prominent cumulonimbus feature that someone on the ground can eventually observe is the "anvil" shape on the top of the could but even this sometimes can't be well observed that well, again due to perspective.
2- Cumulonimbus propagate vertically. Cumulus propagate horizontally and are "puffy". You can see a cumulonimbus forming seen and filmed by someone on the ground:


I've seen/observed lots of those clouds around where I live yesterday and today. And as you can see from the video above, the "tube" can't be well observed but it's definitely a cumulonimbus cloud.

If your friend study meteorology, I am sure you can ask him to provide with some cloud frequency statistic charts or study

When I get in touch with him, I'll surely ask him that. However there's not much of a need for that since after just a quick search over the web I found this:
http://aerapa.conference.ubbcluj.ro/201 ... ttilia.pdf

You can read on the document above that in the region of Târgu Mureş, Romania (also a temperate region) that cumulonimbus appear during 207 days on average (during a year) with a maximum registered in 2001 of 362 days with cumulonimbus present (almost all the 365 days of that year). On the third page you can read that on a yearly average the cumulonimbus are the 3rd most common clouds while during the summer it rises to being the 2nd most common clouds compromising 18% of the could occurrence.

In the site below whose original is in Portuguese but translated to English:
https://translate.google.pt/translate?h ... onimbus%2F

You can read that at each moment (for example right now) 1800 cumulonimbus are in development worldwide right now (or at each given moment).
Also in the link above you can observe in the majority of cumulonimbus photos (and there are plenty of them) you can't actually observe the "tube" (and in many of them the "anvil" can't also be observed).

If this isn't a proof that cumulonimbus are among the most common clouds than I wonder what it would be. Anyway, I hope that the above is evidence enough to what I previously stated!

[ricnunes]

and Hornetfinn had something to say about that... Range ratios between FOVs are off.

"I think those NFOV figures from those simulations are probably close to what could happen in real world especially in clearer conditions. WFOV figures are probably about two times too high and for example clean atmosphere figures should be something like 29-45 km. MFOV figures should be something like 44-70 km."

Ditto!

I even have my suspicions about those NFOV values. Perhaps they could have a chance of being accurate against something like an airliner or at best against an aircraft with exposed nozzles (such as the Rafale or SH for example) but against the F-35 whose engine nozzle is quite well concealed within the fuselage (and even the nozzles seem to be designed to shield heat/IR the best way possible) I have my doubts.

Anyway, like Hornetfinn said the WFOV and MFOV values completely eliminates any credibility that "study" could have had.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Remember ricrunes, this chart was for rear aspect Mil power, so looking up the non-AB tailpipe.

[eloise]

And I can't imagine that after all this discussion you still haven't realized that:
1- The "tube" is not so defined or easily seen from someone on the ground due to perspective. (the tube is better observed from the air when flying sideways to one of those clouds. The most prominent cumulonimbus feature that someone on the ground can eventually observe is the "anvil" shape on the top of the could but even this sometimes can't be well observed that well, again due to perspective.
2- Cumulonimbus propagate vertically. Cumulus propagate horizontally and are "puffy". You can see a cumulonimbus forming seen and filmed by someone on the ground:


I've seen/observed lots of those clouds around where I live yesterday and today. And as you can see from the video above, the "tube" can't be well observed but it's definitely a cumulonimbus cloud.
When I get in touch with him, I'll surely ask him that. However there's not much of a need for that since after just a quick search over the web I found this:
http://aerapa.conference.ubbcluj.ro/201 ... ttilia.pdf

You can read on the document above that in the region of Târgu Mureş, Romania (also a temperate region) that cumulonimbus appear during 207 days on average (during a year) with a maximum registered in 2001 of 362 days with cumulonimbus present (almost all the 365 days of that year). On the third page you can read that on a yearly average the cumulonimbus are the 3rd most common clouds while during the summer it rises to being the 2nd most common clouds compromising 18% of the could occurrence.

Annually (statistic from winter, fall, autumm, summer) cumulonimbus is the fourth in term of popurlarity, occuring only 10.3% of the time?
But you are right, in summer, that statistic increased to 18%, make it the second most popular cloud in summer.

cloud.PNG (81.03 KiB) Viewed 27687 times

However, from these statistuc we can conclude that at high altitude you only have cumulonimbus as cover from infrared sensor for 10.3% of the case, and 18% of the case in summer. At 40,000 feet and above there isn't significant infrared obstruction most of the time

In the site below whose original is in Portuguese but translated to English:
https://translate.google.pt/translate?h ... onimbus%2F

You can read that at each moment (for example right now) 1800 cumulonimbus are in development worldwide right now (or at each given moment)

With 1800 cumulonimbus in development at any point in time:
1- because their base is from 700-10.000 feet and like the article said: "they are developing", you do not have 1800 cumulonimbus at 39.000 feet or higher at any point in time.
2- Surface of the earth is 510 million square km, so you have approximately 1 cumulonimbus cloud every 283.333 square km. That is a circle with radius of 300 km

[ricnunes]

Remember ricrunes, this chart was for rear aspect Mil power, so looking up the non-AB tailpipe.

Yes, I know. However I'm still skeptical.
Even if (and that's in itself a very big IF) and assuming that the IRST is directly looking at the engine's "tailpipe" with NFOV and it can indeed detect that heat source at those 147-181 km odd distance then the chances of that happening - IRST directed looking at the F-35's engine tailpipe with NFOV and with absolutely clear and drought weather - starts IMO to look like a "winning a lottery" king of odd/chance.

[ricnunes]

Annually (statistic from winter, fall, autumm, summer) cumulonimbus is the fourth in term of popurlarity, occuring only 10.3% of the time?

No. Re-read the table:
- The most occurring/common cloud is Altocumulus (which BTW is a cloud capable of reaching a respectable altitude of 20,000ft) which occur with a frequency of 25.1% and then the Stratocumulus with a frequency of 14.1%. Then in 3rd comes with cumulonimbus with 10.3%.
Honestly I don't know what the '0' Value (with 14.1%) stands for but I believe that it's not a representation of a single type of cloud since there are 10 types of clouds which are the ones from Ci to Cb shown on the table and chart.
Cloud types and abreviations:
https://cloudatlas.wmo.int/abbr-and-sym ... ecies.html

But you are right, in summer, that statistic increased to 18%, make it the second most popular cloud in summer.

cloud.PNG

And that's in Romania or more precisely in a single location of Romania.
For example here in Portugal (where I live) I can grantee you that the occurrence of cumulonimbus are far more frequent during non-summer seasons compared to the summer where the skies are either generally clear or there's a presence of cirrus and it's derivatives.
But yeah, lets use the statistic of that location in Romania as a representative of clouds in a temperate weather.

However, from these statistuc we can conclude that at high altitude you only have cumulonimbus as cover from infrared sensor for 10.3% of the case, and 18% of the case in summer. At 40,000 feet and above there isn't significant infrared obstruction most of the time

No, you cannot conclude that - at least not linearly like that.
What the statistic shows you is that 10% or so of the existing clouds are cumulonimbus which means that for each 10 (ten) clouds in the sky 1 (one) would be a cumulonimbus and moreover the cumulonimbus as you are aware is a "monster" of a cloud and thus much bigger than any of the other clouds. This means that the 10% of cumulonimbus covers much, much more airspace than the 10% of any other cloud type.

With 1800 cumulonimbus in development at any point in time:
1- because their base is from 700-10.000 feet and like the article said: "they are developing", you do not have 1800 cumulonimbus at 39.000 feet or higher at any point in time.

Well, on average cumulonimbus clouds reach altitudes between 36,000ft to 40,000ft.
While it's true that not all those 1800 cumulonimbus may not reach 40,000ft or so feet, many will.

Moreover a "cumulonimbus developing/in formation" is called 'Cumulonimbus Calvus' and these reach 30,000ft. Here:
http://www.namesofclouds.com/cumulonimb ... alvus.html

2- Surface of the earth is 510 million square km, so you have approximately 1 cumulonimbus cloud every 283.333 square km. That is a circle with radius of 300 km

Assuming your values are correct (and haven't checked them but at first glance they seen accurate) and considering that cumulonimbus are massive clouds then the chances of having one of those clouds obscuring an IRST or having those clouds serving as a background where it makes it harder for an IRST to detect something in front of that same background/cloud seems quite high.
And considering that cumulonimbus don't form on Arctic and Antarctic areas then the occurrence/radius where a cumulonimbus could form, this on temperate and tropical areas would be even smaller/closer.

And on top of all this, you have other high altitude clouds such as the Cirrus derivatives such as the Cirruscumulus and Cirrustratus which are certainly much more opaque to IR compared to Cirrus.

So there are lots and lots of things (clouds/weather effects) which affects and already rather limited detection/tracking sensor which is the IRST.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Look, I appreciate that a largely academic discussion on weather and how it effects IRSTs is happening, but for the purposes of my comparison I am using clear skies and standard atmosphere. I'm not going to skew anything to favor one type or another.