DAS targeting vs radar targeting

[element1loop]

But F-35 still has laser in EOTS and that can be used when range data is needed. Laser is also not passive but an active sensor which can be detected. Also tracking does not require range data at all as that can be done without any range data. Of course range data is nice to have in many cases and that can be had with laser, radar, ESM sensors or triangulating with EODAS or other sensors in other F-35s (or even other platforms). There are numerous ways to get range data besides having laser range finder in every EODAS sensor. Having 3D terrain model is also going to help a lot.

And having laser rangers in DAS is the fastest, most precise and most tactically useful means of getting immediate range data on every contact, continuously, for accessing pop-ups for threat priority with no delay.

Would you want any delay or lag when there doesn't have to be any?

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic in fact.

I thought we had this discussion already.

Anyways ... in astronomy, astrometric sensors use precision arc on the sky measurements to determine radial distances to objects of known sizes.

So if DAS can ID a pop-up contact and also measure its arc on the sky, it could compare its apparent size to the dimensions data in the MDF, to determine its true radial distance via geometry, with as little as +/- 1 km radial range error.

The better the res of DAS the better the range data.

Not ideal, but it is passive, and providing line of sight is not too degraded, would produce a fairly useful track quality for LOAL plus datalink passive attacks. Not too bad.

DAS will predictably have that ... and much more.

As I said at the beginning, DAS-IRST will be the mother-of-all-BAD-ASS targeting systems, and not just a detector with niffty surround helmet view and some bonus SA.

I would not want to face that system in a fight.

[SpudmanWP]

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic actually.

There is no credible evidence that they exist, especially given how accessible info is in the F-35 program (ie PDFs, DOT&E reports, info from mfgs, etc).

[element1loop]

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic actually.

There is no credible evidence that they exist, especially given how accessible info is in the F-35 program (ie PDFs, DOT&E reports, info from mfgs, etc).

I'm sure you know a lot of stuff does not get put in open source documents.

[popcorn]

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic actually.

There is no credible evidence that they exist, especially given how accessible info is in the F-35 program (ie PDFs, DOT&E reports, info from mfgs, etc).

Or, to quote Christopher Hitchens ... "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
No one is espousing any theory, but simply rejecting element's claim for lack of credible evidence. .His attempt to shift the burden of proof to support said non-existent theory is unacceptable.

[SpudmanWP]

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic actually.

There is no credible evidence that they exist, especially given how accessible info is in the F-35 program (ie PDFs, DOT&E reports, info from mfgs, etc).

Or, to quote Christopher Hitchens ... "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

Well... There is more "evidence" that there is not a laser in the EODAS unit than there is that it has one. The primary evidence is the continual reference to EODAS as a "passive" sensor.

[blindpilot]

The THEORY that laser rangers are not present on DAS is not too compelling, it's a bit weak on logic actually.

There is no credible evidence that they exist, especially given how accessible info is in the F-35 program (ie PDFs, DOT&E reports, info from mfgs, etc).

Or, to quote Christopher Hitchens ... "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".
No one is espousing any theory, but simply rejecting element's claim for lack of credible evidence. .His attempt to shift the burden of proof to support said non-existent theory is unacceptable.

And that element is why you have to give some sort of background, expertise, source ... to be validated in some way, or otherwise you are sinking into the world of everyone just thinks you're an idiot.

But you don't have to give that, if you are content being seen as an idiot...
BP,

[marauder2048]

If you read the patents, MADL is described as a time-shared radar/datalink.

from Autonomous station keeping system for formation flight
US 7024309 B2


The sensor 16 is configured to detect a presence of another aircraft within a predetermined distance of the aircraft. Advantageously, the system 10 may use an existing on-board sensor as the sensor 16. That is, a stand-alone sensor need not be added to the aircraft if an acceptable sensor is already installed on the aircraft. For example, in one preferred embodiment, the sensor 16 suitably is a MADL MMW radar. Use of the MADL MMW radar enables the system 10 to detect presence of other aircraft within a distance of around 10 miles or so. In one embodiment, the MADL advantageously is the same MADL system that is used for the data link 14. The antennas 32 and 34 transmit and receive, respectively, the signal 36. When the MADL MMW is used as the sensor 16, the signal 36 is used to detect presence of other aircraft. Time-sharing of the MADL is controlled by the processor 18 and will be discussed below.

[SpudmanWP]

The patent's use of "MADL" is not the same "MADL" that is on the F-35.

From the patent:
MADL = "Multifunction Airborne Data Link "

Per Northrup Grumman:
MADL = "Multifunction Advanced Data Link"

Not only that, but the link as a whole was open to having one or more types of links involved:

According to another aspect of the present invention, the data link may include a Link 16 data link, an ARC 210 data link, or a Multifunction Airborne Data Link (MADL), a Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link, or any other data link suitable to this application.

https://www.google.com/patents/US7024309

That being said, the F-35's MADL is a steerable datalink that with enough CPU power behind it, should be able to act in the manner you describe.

[marauder2048]

"A third preferred data link 14 is a Multifunction Airborne Data Link (MADL). MADL is a millimeter wave (MMW) radar that is being developed by the Harris Corporation. Advantageously, MADL has a low cost and is small (approximately 4″×6″ aperture). Six MADLs provide full four pi coverage around the aircraft. This allows the aircraft to detect any aircraft within around 10 miles. MADL is a very high bandwidth, steerable data link on the order of around 1.5 megabyte per second for line-of-sight applications. A high frequency (around 20 GHz) and low power (around 5 watts) afford MADL a very low probability of detection and interception. As a result, MADL is a preferred data Link 14 for station keeping purposes. However, final selection of the data link 14 for a particular application may be made based upon a balance of benefits, performance, cost, and integration feasibility."

I've seen that decompression of the MADL acronym before.
C'mon. How many K-band MADLs is Harris developing?

[SpudmanWP]

I didn't catch the Harris part. It's still not a supported function just as images are not supported in the F-22's MAWS despite the capability that is in the sensor itself.

A more interesting tidbit is this:

A third preferred data link 14 is a Multifunction Airborne Data Link (MADL). MADL is a millimeter wave (MMW) radar that is being developed by the Harris Corporation. Advantageously, MADL has a low cost and is small (approximately 4″×6″ aperture). Six MADLs provide full four pi coverage around the aircraft. This allows the aircraft to detect any aircraft within around 10 miles. MADL is a very high bandwidth, steerable data link on the order of around 1.5 megabyte per second for line-of-sight applications. A high frequency (around 20 GHz) and low power (around 5 watts) afford MADL a very low probability of detection and interception. As a result, MADL is a preferred data Link 14 for station keeping purposes. However, final selection of the data link 14 for a particular application may be made based upon a balance of benefits, performance, cost, and integration feasibility.

[marsavian]

I don't believe for one minute that there is a laser function in EODAS however that potential additional MADL functionality as a MMW radar could prove a useful future enhancement if EODAS cued. It's highly directional and the EODAS could tell it exactly where to look and the range measurement would be superb due to the Ku high frequency although it's more a CMW at that frequency. However you lose the stealth of passivity going that route and if you want active radar and laser for a firing solution just turn the aircraft around temporarily but that may not always be tactically possible I suppose.

I suppose future testing/combat could determine how required this is i.e. is there a need for a) EODAS to to be used as a rear sensor shooter ? b) its range measurement to be enhanced when AESA and EOTS are not directionally available ? Certainly this MADL enhancement appears the way to go rather than adding an additional six lasers to the aircraft.

[spazsinbad]

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'. There are at least a TRILLION quotes about this co-operative aspect which seem to be ignored - because why? Because. A quote.

"...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."

Besides their stealthiness, the F-35s share information and can perform electronic warfare, electronic attack, and cyber missions. "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

[wrightwing]

Any engagement in the rear hemisphere, isn't going to be at a distance where precise ranging is necessary. We're talking 10nm or less. It's pretty safe assumption that EODAS can passively range a target that close, and that's within a seeker's range, too. For long range targets, multiple F-35s can correlate data, from their multiple sensors.

[element1loop]

Any engagement in the rear hemisphere, isn't going to be at a distance where precise ranging is necessary. We're talking 10nm or less. It's pretty safe assumption that EODAS can passively range a target that close, and that's within a seeker's range, too. For long range targets, multiple F-35s can correlate data, from their multiple sensors.

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.

[spazsinbad]

Wonder what YATO is all about -this guy in just unconvincing- typical 'merican - overselling what YATO is all about. Then a song to cheer US all up (apyolylogys to David RIP) <sarc off>