F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2769
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 15:19

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.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 15:26

marsavian wrote:Garrya, sources ...
F-35 LWIR
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/loc ... grade-f-35
Lockheed Martin has revealed an internal project focused on significantly improving the ability of the F-35 to passively detect other aircraft at a long distance by their heat
viewtopic.php?p=402044#p402044
1.An internal project proposed by LM
2.Different from Advanced EOTS which adds the SWIR capability and grows the aperture to get significantly improved range performance, this upgraded EOTS will add the LWIR capability for long range air-to-air detection purpose.
3.St. John said it's very attractive to develop the passive sensor-only killed chain that using multi-ships IRST capability.
4.They have completed a prototype by their internal funding and provided this concept to JPO office to decide whether inserting this project to block 4 upgrade list.

That is interesting and i certainly haven't seen that before, unfortunately i can't see the actual articles and there isn't others sources for me to learn more about such potential plan.
Nevertheless, the overall infor is too vague to make the conclusion that LWIR is better than MWIR, for example:
1) will they replace the MWIR sensor with LWIR ? Or do EOTS will have both ?
2) if EOTS have both, will it be with 2 different sensor head or the same sensor head?
3) will they use the same traditional MCT sensor or it will be something different?
4) Will they keep the same aperture size or will they increase the size?

marsavian wrote:Pirate up to 150km,
Author: Lieutenant Colonel dG Mag. Reinhard Zmug, born in 1968. Invaded in 1986 to the Antiaircraft Battalion 2 in Zeltweg. 1987-1990 officer training at the Theresian Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt, retired as an air traffic control officer in the Military Control Center to Vienna. From 1997 to 2000 general training course at the national defense academy in Vienna, afterwards use as G4 in the command air force division respectively command air forces. Early 2004 use in the BMLV, department training A; since May 2004 use in the armaments department / air force department as head of the staff unit in the project group air surveillance aircraft. Since 1 April 2008 use of troops as head of the Fliegerwerft 2 in Zeltweg.

http://www.bundesheer.at/truppendienst/ ... php?id=807
FLIR PIRATE

In addition to the "Captor" as a primary sensor for target finding, tracking and target acquisition, the Eurofighter "Typhoon" also has the advanced infrared sensor FLIR PIRATE (Forward Looking Infrared Passive Infrared Infrared Airborne Tracking Equipment). This second generation infrared imaging sensor was developed by the EUROFIRST consortium (FIAR from Italy, Thales Optronics from the UK and Tecnobit from Spain).

FLIR PIRATE can be used as both IRST (Infrared Search and Track) in air-to-air mode and as FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) in air-to-ground operation. It is housed in a spherical housing to the left of the cockpit in the bow of the machine.

The system uses Infrared Charged Couple Device viewfinders (IR CCDs), an analog signal processor, a moving mirror, and related software, and is fully integrated with the Attack Identification System (AIS) and coupled with other sensors. The infrared sensor works with wavelengths from three to eight and from eight to eleven microns. Infrared Assisted Search and Track (IRST) allows the FLIR PIRATE to passively search for and track air targets at high altitudes with the infrared sensor looking for heat sources. Different air-air modes are offered:

Multi Target Track (MTT);
Sector acquisition;
Slaved Acquisition (SACQ);
Single Target Track (STT);
Single Target Track Identification (STT Identification).

In Multi Target Track mode, the FLIR PIRATE searches for a predefined range. It is able to track and prioritize up to 200 targets simultaneously while searching for more targets. A limited number of targets can also be displayed to the pilot with a particularly high priority.

In Sector Acquisition mode, the FLIR PIRATE scans an area defined by (for example, the radar) very closely for targets.

In the Slaved Acquisition mode, the FLIR PIRATE searches for targets that are transmitted to the "Typhoon" from external sources.

When the target is detected, the FLIR PIRATE immediately switches to single target track mode, which is used for single target acquisition. The information about the destination is updated quickly and target data is delivered.

There is also a single target track identification, an identification function, where the FLIR PIRATE creates an image of the object. This allows visual target identification outside the optical field of view. Furthermore, it is possible to identify ground targets.

The infrared-based target search and target tracking allows the "Typhoon" to detect, track, detect and identify air targets passively (ie without their own radiation), thus enabling the use of infrared-controlled air-to-air missiles.

The range of the system is between 50 and 80 kilometers, but could be up to 150 kilometers. The destination identification can be made from more than 40 kilometers. However, the weather conditions affect the performance of the infrared-assisted target search and target tracking considerably.

The alignment can also be done via the radar and the helmet visor or by means of external source information on targets and is an effective supplement to the "Captor". In addition, various air-floor functions are offered. When used as a forward looking infrared (FLIR) device, the FLIR PIRATE can produce high-resolution infrared images of the landscape ahead, which are then displayed on different displays. The pilot thus sees, even in the darkest night or in bad weather, what is happening in front of his machine. This facilitates attack operations under such circumstances, landings and flying in general, especially at low altitudes. Through the connection with the helmet visor and the helmet display on which the FLIR image can be projected.

Ok they did mentioned 150 km, however:
1) There isn't any part in that article which mentioned the target is Mig-29 or Tornado in that case. I mean you can make a factually correct statement that DAS can detect target from 1200 km away, but we all know that we can't expect that performer figure against a fighter aircraft. Similarly there isn't any mention regarding the type of target that Pirate can detect from 150 km in some rare condition, so it could easily be a massive target like a jumbo jet.
2) As i mentioned earlier, target aspect is important, from the words of the pilot in the article, 150 km is pretty much the upper limit for Pirate that it rarely achieved, which mean it is the range in most favorable conditions so there is no reason to believe that Pirate can achieve that 150 km range against an aircraft flying head on and subsonic (because IRST can see 3-4 times further if enemy present their tail aspect). Even if we assume the target is fighter size, it is likely against their tail on or beam aspect, probably even in full AB.
If you look at performer figure of OLS-35 that i posted earlier, it can detect target from 90 km away tail-on but barely 35 km head on, Pirate likely suffer similar penalty which put detection range against head on target from about 58 km.
3) IRST is very different from radar that they can't directly acquire range with the IR sensor but often rely on a sub system such as LRF or method like kinematic ranging, triangulation. On OLS-35 you can see that while at rear hemisphere it can detect target from 90 km away, the range finding distance is only 20 km. Kinematic ranging (motion analysis) doesn't have the same limitation in range but much more inaccurate but if enemy doesn't keep a constant course then it pretty worthless, triangulation is the most flexible option (accurate/fast) but again it require 2-3 Typhoon tracking a single F-35.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 16:12

The fighter target ranges were in another link

https://web.archive.org/web/20120725081 ... /irst.html

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.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 16:28

marsavian wrote:The fighter target ranges were in another link

https://web.archive.org/web/20120725081 ... /irst.html

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.

Which is not that impressive without any others detail of the condition, OLS-35 achieved 90 km detection range against Su-30 from the rear hemisphere, only 10 km shorter than Pirate claim. Yet its frontal hemishphere detection range is barely 35 km, so assuming similar condition, at frontal hemisphere, Pirate will detect Mig-29 and tornado from 38 km.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 16:48

90km was an upper limit in the OLS-35 case whereas 100km was a lower limit in the Pirate case. Tornado only has about half the thrust of Su-30 on a smaller body so should be a smaller radiator at all angles. You would expect Pirate to outperform OLS-35 by more than 10% as it is later technology and these Pirate tests were done before range increasing software update.

As for the EOTS LWIR the summarizer made clear it would be in addition to the current hardware, probably IRST21 related, as MWIR is too useful for resolution purposes to ever discard. Perhaps someone with an AW subscription can give us fresh insight.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3213
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post08 Jan 2019, 19:13

marsavian wrote:90km was an upper limit in the OLS-35 case whereas 100km was a lower limit in the Pirate case. Tornado only has about half the thrust of Su-30 on a smaller body so should be a smaller radiator at all angles. You would expect Pirate to outperform OLS-35 by more than 10% as it is later technology and these Pirate tests were done before range increasing software update.

As for the EOTS LWIR the summarizer made clear it would be in addition to the current hardware, probably IRST21 related, as MWIR is too useful for resolution purposes to ever discard. Perhaps someone with an AW subscription can give us fresh insight.

150km was the upper, but 50-80km was the typical limit. These are best case numbers (ideal atmospheric conditions, altitudes of targets, aspect of targets, and use of afterburners.) The IRST was likely cued by radar, too, as Tornado/Mig-29s aren't particularly stealthy. The non-cued detection range, against a stealthy, non-afterburning target, in the forward aspect, is going to be a fraction of the advertised range. That is the key takeaway.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 00:31

The bigger key takeaway is that IRSTs are better suited to track 5th gen stealth aircraft than radars. The smaller AESAs won't be picking up F-35 until around 10-15km and even the older IRSTs should be able to beat that. Also rearward IRST tracking should not be dismissed as if it is tactically irrelevant, F-35 will be most likely to be detected by IRSTs precisely from the rear just after a strike mission where it's not too difficult for a persuing interceptor to connect the dots between where a strike has just occurred and an F-35 home base and set chase accordingly in the appropriate direction and start wide scanning mode ahead.

If detected from the rear by an IRST the F-35 will have to fight its way out because unless the interceptor is low on fuel the F-35 won't be able to outrun most 4th gen interceptors especially after they have dropped any EFTs.
In summary 4th gen fighters with decent IRST stand a bit more than 'NO' chance against F-35 which is where this particular sub-thread discussion started as it is not a useless appendage but a useful co-sensor to radar especially against stealth aircraft.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 00:58

marsavian wrote:The bigger key takeaway is that IRSTs are better suited to track 5th gen stealth aircraft than radars.


Maybe... but...

First, the 5th gen fight is a systems-of-systems vs other systems-of-systems. An IRST may have a better chance than an X-band radar at finding a true VLO 5th gen aircraft. On the other hand, longer wavelength 'dars (VHF / UHF?) may have a better chance at detecting the VLO target, but not developing a weapons quality targeting track. If the low frequency 'dar can cue an IRST, automagically, then you are starting to put together a nascent system-of-systems, and you stand a better chance. An IRST by itself? Not so much.

marsavian wrote:F-35 will be most likely to be detected by IRSTs precisely from the rear just after a strike mission


What's that old saying? "Those that know, aren't saying... Those that say, don't know..."

marsavian wrote:where it's not too difficult for a persuing interceptor to connect the dots between where a strike has just occurred and an F-35 home base and set chase accordingly in the appropriate direction and start wide scanning mode ahead.


Ummm... yeah... as a strike planner... I always be sure to egress from the target area along a straight line to tell the people I just pissed off where I am going...

marsavian wrote:If detected from the rear by an IRST the F-35 will have to fight its way out because unless the interceptor is low on fuel the F-35 won't be able to outrun most 4th gen interceptors especially after they have dropped any EFTs.


As a 5th gen strike planner... I'm throwing an entire net over the AOR. In fact, I may just use some strikers to poke the hornet's nest to get some Mig's to fly up. Kind of like Bolo II (I hope Robin would get a kick out of it and raise his glass of suds and watches from wherever he is.) As my striker's egress in a straight line towards where I want the enema to think I am a goin, Olds flight, or Chevy flight, or Ford flight of F-35's will be sweeping the strike area with their LPI APG-81 'dars, EOTS, DAS and whatever other goodies they have, so that we've got some splashes to celebrate back at the O'club tonight.

In 'nam, backseaters AND frontseaters shared the kill. The bigger question in the 5th gen fight... is WHO get's credit for the kill? Is it the launching aircraft? The targeting aircraft? The aircraft that just volunteered to be the bait? What about the system's architect / engineering weenie that cooked up all this system-of-systems stuff... he made it all possible, shouldn't get to paint a star on the door of her Prius?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

gc

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 158
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 02:12

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 01:26

marsavian wrote:The bigger key takeaway is that IRSTs are better suited to track 5th gen stealth aircraft than radars. The smaller AESAs won't be picking up F-35 until around 10-15km and even the older IRSTs should be able to beat that. Also rearward IRST tracking should not be dismissed as if it is tactically irrelevant, F-35 will be most likely to be detected by IRSTs precisely from the rear just after a strike mission where it's not too difficult for a persuing interceptor to connect the dots between where a strike has just occurred and an F-35 home base and set chase accordingly in the appropriate direction and start wide scanning mode ahead.

If detected from the rear by an IRST the F-35 will have to fight its way out because unless the interceptor is low on fuel the F-35 won't be able to outrun most 4th gen interceptors especially after they have dropped any EFTs.
In summary 4th gen fighters with decent IRST stand a bit more than 'NO' chance against F-35 which is where this particular sub-thread discussion started as it is not a useless appendage but a useful co-sensor to radar especially against stealth aircraft.


Your are missing the main overarching point of stealth by getting obsessed with technicalities of detections range of sensors against different target aspect. An IRST most probably can see the F-35's a$$ when close enough, but non-stealth 4+gen fighters will always be highly visible to 5th gens and the 5th gen force (all networked sharing passive and active sensor data) has constant awareness of all of them. The non-stealth fighters will be dying by the dozen as they work their a$$ off trying to get kills on 5th gens. And your game plan to intercept egressing F-35 will certainly get you killed in no time.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1186
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 02:08

This is a weird conversation. How will there ever be a significant number of 4th gens with IRSTs in the air or a functional IADS or C4?

For most of Desert Storm 4th-gen MiG29s (with IRSTs) mostly fled away from 4th gen teens and European jets without. Why? Because the IADS and fighter airfields had been systematically attacked for days, thus making organized BVR fighting untenable and the occasional A2A skirmish a suicidal act. So they went for survival in Iran instead.

But somehow the sky will be full with 4th gens with IRSTs when F-22A and F-35 wade in, virtually unmolested by either fighters or SAMs, to systematically smash IADS and airbases, and anything that moves on them, or tries to launch from them. And can maintain a continuous air-dominance presence over them without much FUD from SAMs (unlike for teens in Iraq which only had transient tactical air-superiority).

Forget it, 4th gens are goners in future OCA battles.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2151
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 02:41

Upon further reflection... perhaps the 4th gen does manage to detect the F-35 with an IRST, right before it gets slammered... or is that an SM-6 from the side? Or maybe the Lightning drivers played a game, out of shear boredom(?), and one snuck up from 5 o’clock low to gun the Typhie... just because.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 03:48

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

Well no, the captain said the detection range is between 50-80 km so 50 is likely frontal aspect limit while 80 km is rear aspect limit,iam certainly sure 100 km is upper limit against fighter aircraft
while 150 km is pretty much the absolute upper limit, against bigger target instead of fighter aircraft, similar to 1200 km detection range of DAS, impressive to look at, but not very useful
marsavian wrote:Tornado only has about half the thrust of Su-30 on a smaller body so should be a smaller radiator at all angles. You would expect Pirate to outperform OLS-35 by more than 10% as it is later technology and these Pirate tests were done before range increasing software update

I don't think Tornado is that much smaller than Flanker series, and neither had any IR reduction measure like F-35
1.PNG

2.PNG

besides, we don't know about the exact condition, for example: were they on AB or not? were they supersonic or subsonic?
a su-30 on dry thrust can easily have lower signature than tornado and Mig-29


marsavian wrote:As for the EOTS LWIR the summarizer made clear it would be in addition to the current hardware, probably IRST21 related, as MWIR is too useful for resolution purposes to ever discard. Perhaps someone with an AW subscription can give us fresh insight.

I meant we don't know if they will use a dual band sensor such as MCT type or adding a separate LWIR, another thing is the aperture size
Offline

glennwhitten

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 12 May 2017, 18:42

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 07:38

marsavian wrote:
"I am not saying it, the manufacturers are saying it, > 74 km which is about 50 miles but which you are still blithely ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative."

I get 74 km to be 33.6 miles, not about 50 miles.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 07:50

tailchase wrote:No what you see on Rafale isn't the noozle, situated maybe 10 inches inside, but ceramic plates.

https://www.facebook.com/armeefrancaise ... ater&ifg=1

what you show is the inner nozzle vs the outer turkey feathers, which all airplane had IMHO
Rafale nozzle:
1.PNG


F-15 nozzle without feathers:
2.PNG


F-15 nozzle with feathers
3.PNG


Cutaway of F-16 nozzle


all of them had some space between the inner nozzle and the outer turkey feathers

F-35 nozzle had that separation too but it also has vents that use ambient air to cool the nozzle
untitled.png

Image
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1178
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Jan 2019, 09:01

glennwhitten wrote:marsavian wrote:
"I am not saying it, the manufacturers are saying it, > 74 km which is about 50 miles but which you are still blithely ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative."

I get 74 km to be 33.6 miles, not about 50 miles.


74km is 46 miles (*0.6214) or 40 nautical miles (*0.54). > implies about 50 miles like I said.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests