DAS targeting vs radar targeting

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7479
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 04:11

A previous NG vid says the same thing from 2010.

https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=1m5s
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1497
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 04:56

SpudmanWP wrote:A previous NG vid says the same thing from 2010.

https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ?t=1m5s


But NO MENTION OF LASERS Spud! I heard "imagery" mentioned several times. But no lasers! I KNOW DAS has 'dem, cuz over a decade ago I read about them in an article that I threw out some years back. I got it! They're STEALTH lasers. That way they are undetectable, and DAS passive! Yeah, DAS it! :drool: :doh:

[/sarc=off]

Interesting that in each scenario in that video where DAS ranged a threat, there were at least two F-35's sensing the threat simultaneously, which would enable instantaneous ranging via trigonometry. Which also goes to Spaz' pointing out that Bogdan referred several times that F-35's will be much more effective when not alone.

At risk of Spaz yelling at me for not searching... in what wavelengths does DAS operate? Specifically, to what extent does smoke and visible moisture (fog or clouds) affect DAS? In the video above, NG was claiming that DAS keeps tabs on all aircraft, even in a dynamic, maneuvering fight. Does this mean DAS can track an aircraft even if it flies in / out of a cloud bank?
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3400
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 05:29

steve2267 wrote: Does this mean DAS can track an aircraft even if it flies in / out of a cloud bank?

According to the Italian pilot who flew across the Atlantic, yes.

". I was able to see the aircraft surrounding me through the clouds, such as keeping distance with my tankers, by using my helmet and the Distributed Aperture System and see the C-130s below me below the clouds. "
"Spurts"

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

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2719
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 05:30

element1loop wrote:



If you have a target in the rear your associated open-formation flight elements will keep you informed of where the threat is. Not even an issue

The ranging need is (mostly) more prosaic, to deal with rapid vector generation on pop-up contacts, to provide earliest EW, for you and open formation elements, well before they're IDed, or IFFed and classified, and prioritised.

You need to know where stuff is going, and how fast, at the earliest possible time.

duh.

Yes, you could use slewed EOTS (which is a very obvious and extremely old idea, again, duh), and maybe change aspect/heading, for Radar+EOTS also, but when missle flight time may be <20 sec, you need vector (and range) of pop-up(s) - FIRST.

You need it ASAP, no delay, because you don't want to be pointing in the 'wrong', or more unwise direction, with respect to the pop-up(s), as your family may not see you again.

Hence, precise ranging, for vector (and ALSO range) is critical, and not optional.

This is in fact what I said from the beginning, btw.

But such relative vector and range generation is also perfect for killing any rapidly determined highly prioritized threat contact, as well.

Making OODA cycled the shortest possible time span.

I'm fairly sure that was all a high priority aspect of DAS's design aim, intent and development gestation.

I shall happily stew like a soggy old tea bag in my unacceptable a-evidentiary blissful idiotness. ... lol

{The burden of proof is on 'tomorrow' to prove it will exist, otherwise I refuse to accept its' logical possibility, and will not plan to do anything untill I get proof ... it's a reaonable logical and epistimologically valid request! ... I want facts damn it! ... none of this hippy-hippy, "... I THINK there will be a tommorow ... ", stuff ... well lardy-freakin-dah! ... what makes you THINK any one cares about what you THINK about tommorow? ... Eeeeeeediot! ... lol ...}

Yeah, I can do that too, it doesn't mean anything, unless one really does believe everything is knowable within a teathered bubble of knowledge, and that the bits that aren't well defined, are not relevant to your knowledge bubble (in which case you would be quite obviously wrong) and can be disregarded without consequence. Exploration off the mental teather is valid inquiry process - especially if you're a hardline empiracist and looking for testing opportunities, and data ... that's not my concern though ...it's yours.

Cheers. :D

You don't need EOTS to engage targets in the rear hemisphere. If EODAS can see the target, you can shoot over the shoulder shots, if necessary.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1497
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 06:04

spazsinbad wrote:Beats me why the F-35 is always considered a singleton - alone in that horrible world - but hey there is hope of course and this is the way it will be: at least 4/5 F-35s in a widespread formation with their 'gods-eye view of the battlespace'. ...
"...The comment about the effectiveness of F-35s together "has less to do with stealthiness and more to do with overall survivability," he said. "We are going to ask the F-35 to do things that no other airplane—fourth gen or otherwise—is going to be able to do in the future," he [LtGen Bogdan] stated. For some of those missions, "it would be much better to do it with more than one F-35."

... "When you put two F-35s in the battlespace, … they become even more survivable when they do it together," Bogdan asserted. With two or more, "the sum of the parts is greater than the whole," especially when the aircraft are teaming up "from different parts of the airspace, on the same targets. It becomes quite effective."" viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=388166&hilit=tirpak#p388166


The mental image that formed in my head was that of an F-35 fourship Lufbery circle. Now if JSF JPO can only figure out a stealthy, in-flight re-fueling and re-arming concept... the 21st Century Lufbery could be a killer tactical concept. Now, granted, figuring out a way for a stealthy drone to raise, insert, and re-attach AIM-120s or Meteors inside the F-35 weapons bay, midflight, will be difficult... but you must admit that will be a piece of cake to figuring out how to refresh the cannon. :drool:
Take an F-16, add a dollop of A-7, a big gob of F-22, sprinkle on some AV-8B, stir well, then bake. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2360
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 09:38

steve2267 wrote:Interesting that in each scenario in that video where DAS ranged a threat, there were at least two F-35's sensing the threat simultaneously, which would enable instantaneous ranging via trigonometry. Which also goes to Spaz' pointing out that Bogdan referred several times that F-35's will be much more effective when not alone.


Exactly. There are numerous ways a flight of F-35s can measure range to targets. With MADL they can share all tracks from both passive and active sensors and measure range to them with triangulation or with EOTS laser or radar. Then the result can be improved with 3D map data, threat libraries etc.

steve2267 wrote:At risk of Spaz yelling at me for not searching... in what wavelengths does DAS operate? Specifically, to what extent does smoke and visible moisture (fog or clouds) affect DAS? In the video above, NG was claiming that DAS keeps tabs on all aircraft, even in a dynamic, maneuvering fight. Does this mean DAS can track an aircraft even if it flies in / out of a cloud bank?


It operates in MWIR wavelengths (basically 3.0 – 5.0 µm part). That's generally best wavelength for highest performance in IRST/FLIR systems for fighter aircraft applications. MWIR and LWIR sensors both can see through clouds, smoke and other particles better (sometime much better) than naked eye can see (there are exceptions to this though). Especially other military equipment (like aircraft, ground vehicles, missiles etc) are more easily seen as they radiate quite a lot of infrared radiation (heat) which is seen best by MWIR sensors in most cases (LWIR is better against very cool targets).

EODAS has the advantage against all other sensors that it continuously sees all around the F-35 and can almost instantly detect and track targets when they become visible. If target is lost flying in clouds, EODAS will continue tracking at last known speed and heading (that's called dead reckoning or track coasting). This is evident in that Falcon 9 rocket launch video where EODAS keeps tracking a rocket even though it could not see it for a while (when first stage burnt out and second stage was not yet burning). So it will try to keep tracking when it loses a target. When the target is seen again, tracking is initiated very quickly.
Offline

marsavian

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Feb 2018, 22:32

... and the answer is not with one but with two DAS you can get an aamram target track. F-35s returning from a bombing run could have a lot of fun with enemy aircraft in their rear hemispheres ;).

viewtopic.php?p=388805#p388805

Two networked DAS systems can be linked together to generate a three-dimensional target track.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 04:57

You are correct. ESM provides 360 deg TARGETING support and ranging:
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/a ... ure-system
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7224
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 05:11

The beauty of F-35 data fusion is the pilot doesn't care.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1097
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 06:57

popcorn wrote:The beauty of F-35 data fusion is the pilot doesn't care.


^this^

And that may include off platform data from sources far removed from the flight of two. And the pilot still wouldn't care. This conversation has been trapped in bigger, faster, platform, device, etc. etc. ie. 4th gen babble.

And with approaching 500 F-35's flying or in some pieces of being assembled, the "yeah but !" of "if you have numbers," is soon to be irrelevant as well. When you have 2 F-35's (or more) to every 4+ gen adversary aircraft, it gets even uglier. 500 plus F-35s against 12 prototype SU-57's or 7 prototype J-20's is really not fair. A couple dozen SU-35's isn't going to help either.

MHO FWIW,
BP
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2106
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post26 Feb 2018, 15:10

blindpilot wrote:
popcorn wrote:The beauty of F-35 data fusion is the pilot doesn't care.


^this^

And that may include off platform data from sources far removed from the flight of two. And the pilot still wouldn't care. This conversation has been trapped in bigger, faster, platform, device, etc. etc. ie. 4th gen babble.

And with approaching 500 F-35's flying or in some pieces of being assembled, the "yeah but !" of "if you have numbers," is soon to be irrelevant as well. When you have 2 F-35's (or more) to every 4+ gen adversary aircraft, it gets even uglier. 500 plus F-35s against 12 prototype SU-57's or 7 prototype J-20's is really not fair. A couple dozen SU-35's isn't going to help either.

MHO FWIW,
BP


You know, he's right. Very soon there will be an overwhelming F-35 numbers advantage. And provided we continue funding it, there are just going to be more and more US F-35's proliferating around the globe. That doesn't include allies like Israel, which very soon (if not already) will be flying them in hotspots like Syria. The Russians have what, a dozen fighter aircraft in Syria? A mish mash of SU-57's, SU-30SM's and SU-35's.

I have no idea what the numbers are for deployed U.S. fighters in Syria. I would imagine it's at least 4 - 6 F-22's, a healthy number of Golden Eagles with the latest AESA radars and possibly a larger number of swing role F-16's. Add to that Israeli F-15/16's, 3-5 F-35's and of course all of our (US) ELINT aircraft. Then there are Super Hornets off carriers, which should also put up a good fight against the various Flanker derivatives.

They are outnumbered, dramatically so. And it's only going to get worse. Any full scale conflict will quickly expose the token force they (Russia) have in Syria, which is why I'm convinced the last thing they want is to go head to head against USAF and Israeli pilots..
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post28 Feb 2018, 15:10

In fact with the advanced SA provided by the F-35, US air fleet can even win the air war out-numbered. Let alone the number advantage is at US's side.
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests