F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 625
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 09:06

Garrya, a lower limit as in the specific best case example you compared of detecting Mig-29/Tornado/Su-30 assuming that this detection was in the rear quadrant i.e. more than 100km instead of <= 90km.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 20:31

marsavian wrote:90km was an upper limit in the OLS-35 case whereas 100km was a lower limit in the Pirate case.


How can you say something like that when your own source says this:
The system is water cooled with a weight of 60 kg and a volume of 45 liters, with 550 W. The use of high performance athermal optical systems, a highly sensitive second generation infrared (IIR) detector that sweeps the band 3 to 11 μm in two bands (3-5 μm and 8-10 μm), and an advanced algorithm with more than 190,000 lines of ADA code allows the PIRATE to detect hot parts of the engine hood and surfaces heated by friction with air. When super cooling the sensor, even small temperature variations can be detected at long distance. Although no upper limit has been set, the distance of 150 km is accepted, and the typical one is 50 to 80 km. In the tests PIRATE detected Tornado and Mig-29 aircraft over 100km.


??
So you're saying that the PIRATE's typical detection range (of 50 km to 80 km) is lower than the "lower limit of 100km"! What's the logic of that?
Anyway, I'm about to give up here even because others already explained you and very well so that the detection ranges of an IRST drastically changes with the target's aspect, the target itself (if it's a stealth low-IR signature like the F-35 or a non-low IR signature fighter aircraft like the Mig-29 or Tornado or a very large aircraft like a Boeing 747 or B-52) and a bunch (and literally a bunch) of other features such as weather, etc, etc, etc... but then you seem to be continuing with your own and same narrative.

Your source(s) don't even specify which kind of aircraft could THEORETICALLY be detected by the PIRATE at 100km-150km but and specially after reading your sources I have no doubts that would be a very large aircraft like again a Boeing 747 or B-52 while 50 km to 80 km would be the detection range against a non-low IR signature fighter aircraft like the Mig-29 or Tornado, being like it was already said to you (by garrya if I'm not mistaken) that 50 km would be the frontal aspect detection range (which is about the same value that I already told you earlier) and 80 km likely the rear aspect detection range against the same type of aircraft (like a Mig-29 or Tornado) being that this later value could eventually be increased to 100km or even a bit higher than this (100km) if these same aircraft (Mig-29 or Tornado) are flying with Afterburner and detected from the rear aspect.

Resuming, the detection range of the IRST against a frontal aspect F-35 would be quite lower than 50km while in the rear aspect would be lower than 100km even with AB.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 20:34

hornetfinn wrote:
tailchase wrote:Nice sum up of data fusion rationales no?


Yes, I think data fusion definitely brings a lot of new value for all sensors. Combining the best features of all sensors is definitely much more effective than having number of individual sensors without fusion. I think that's also why IRST systems are getting a lot more attention.


Absolutely and I fully agree!
Like I previously said, IRSTs are not becoming widespread because they are the "magical solution" (or any solution at all) against stealth! They are becoming widespread because it's one more source of information to add to the whole picture, this in this era of information and sensor fusion in aerial warfare.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2577
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 12:04

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
tailchase wrote:Nice sum up of data fusion rationales no?


Yes, I think data fusion definitely brings a lot of new value for all sensors. Combining the best features of all sensors is definitely much more effective than having number of individual sensors without fusion. I think that's also why IRST systems are getting a lot more attention.


Absolutely and I fully agree!
Like I previously said, IRSTs are not becoming widespread because they are the "magical solution" (or any solution at all) against stealth! They are becoming widespread because it's one more source of information to add to the whole picture, this in this era of information and sensor fusion in aerial warfare.


Definitely this. If we think about having only IRST, we get some very interesting info about the target but also lack some crucial info. We will still lack range information and thus also real speed of the target. ID is also fairly short ranged. The system has fairly limited all-weather capability and clouds, rain, fog and smoke affect it significantly. It also has to balance between range and coverage much more than radar systems do. We gain however great angular accuracy and useful information about target temperature. At shorter ranges it can give very good ID (when there is enough pixels from target). The system is capable of detecting and tracking almost limitless number of targets and is totally passive.

With fusion system the whole thing becomes much more than the sum of its parts. Especially so when the fusion system handles all the data coming from sensors and does sensor tasking like in F-35. Even conventional track correlation systems like in all Eurocanards and SH are really useful in improving SA and lowering pilot workload in more complex situations. IRST/FLIR systems can provide some very useful information to whole system, but would definitely not be magic bullet against stealth aircraft. Especially when said stealth aircraft also carry advanced IRST/FLIR systems and whole range of other sensors. I think Pirate system does give EF advantages against other 4th gen aircraft with no or less capable IRST and sensor fusion systems. But I don't think it would matter much against F-35.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 18:21

hornetfinn wrote:....
With fusion system the whole thing becomes much more than the sum of its parts. Especially so when the fusion system handles all the data coming from sensors and does sensor tasking like in F-35. ...


Well said. Little alarms should go off in folk's head everytime a discussion starts down the path of "better, faster, further, higher ...", which is what happened in this discussion arguing about detection range. These things have been overcome by events with 5th gen sensor fusion and systems of systems.

I'm not sure how long it is going to take before this starts to register, but it definitely will when the "Red Flag numbers" appear in real live operations, and the faster, longer ranged, mega sensored aircraft just blows up in the sky without even knowing the game was on... just like it happens in Red Flag et al.

An F-35 taxiing out to takeoff has a better picture of what is going on, than the Tiffy in perfect position with perfect conditions, and a lucky return with its best sensor. Remember the witness of the pilots flying into Israel on this very subject.

MHO
BP
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3719
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post11 Jan 2019, 19:03

"It was my first flight at Edwards AFB Jan ’16. I got in the airplane and started it up. I was still on the deck and there were apparently other F-35s airborne – I believe USAF, I was not aware. I was a single ship, just supposed to go out and get familiar flying the aircraft. As the displays came alive there were track files and the SA as to what everyone else was doing in the airspace, and I was still on the ground. I mean, I hadn’t even gotten my take-off clearance yet. I didn’t even know where it was coming from. It was coming from another F-35. The jet had started all the systems for me and the SA was there. That was a very eye opening moment for me."
"Spurts"

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

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 625
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Jan 2019, 03:25

UK F-35B and Centurion Typhoon are Combat-Ready

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... mbat-ready

The Typhoon IOC declaration means that the aircraft is now ready to take over from the soon-to-retire Tornado, adding MBDA Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles and Brimstone precision attack missiles to their existing Paveway IV dual-mode bombs. These new weapons were added under the £425 million ($546 million) Project Centurion upgrade, which also provided enhanced software and the integration of the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile.

The RAF plans to use the F-35B and Typhoon in concert, exploiting the synergies between them to counter evolving threats in the contested environments. To facilitate this, the UK plans to achieve MOD Main Gate investment approval for a new AESA radar for Typhoon in the latter half of 2019. This, the so-called Radar 2, will be embodied in 40 Tranche 3 Typhoons.


p.s. Tranche 2 Typhoons can take the AESA too but require more plumbing work.

Image
Previous

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests