Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2014, 21:57
by mixelflick
These seem to be revolutionary, and so far unique to the F-35.

Is anyone aware of another country that plans to introduce something similar? Keep wondering if this is something the Chinese stole. If so, that'd be a shame. Then again, mass producing it is another matter. The stealth is one thing, but I'd argue the SA the F-35 brings to the table is its main advantage.

Other countries will get there on stealth, but I see no such attempt at DAS/EOTS etc on PAK-FA, J-20 etc.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2014, 22:03
by eskodas
The EOTS is only revolutionary in that it combines an IRST with a FLIR for enhanced imaging and dual Air to Ground and Air to Air use. The DAS is already built into the F-22 in a lesser manner in the form of the AAR-56 Missile Launch Detection system. As with most aircraft engineering it's very rarely anything revolutionary but evolutionary, building upon and expanding previous systems.

As to other countries, these systems are very expensive, other nations are much cheaper with their development.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 01:11
by popcorn
Software will likely be the bigger challenge.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 11:04
by hornetfinn
There are several issues for China or Russia to copy DAS and EOTS capabilities.

First, neither currently has nearly the capability to produce the sensors themselves as neither has the required production capabilities. Currently only USA can produce that kind of sensors. Only France, Germany, UK, South Korea and Japan have capabilities to develop such sensors in the near future (within 5-10 years) if they find the need. China is well behind all of those countries in developing IR sensors and Russia is even further away. I see China being able to produce similar sensors within 10-20 years or so and Russia maybe 10 years after that. Current Russian products are about as advanced as what was available 20-30 years ago in western countries.

Second is the computing capability to handle the massive amount of data coming from such sensors. This requires modern signal processing capabilities and in that field USA is the clear leader with European and Japanese companies following. China and Russia do not produce advanced signal processors or even general purpose CPUs and what they have is produced by foreign companies.

Third is the networking capability to transfer the data around the aircraft from sensors to processing systems to cockpit. This sounds easy, but is far from it for a military aircraft, especially high performance. Russia has just started to use the ancient MIL-STD-1553B databuses and does not have a fighter aircraft in latest MiGs and Sukhois. Most Russian and Chinese aircraft still use the commercial ARINC 429 and do not have any kind of high speed data transfer capabilities.

Fourth is the software required to make things work. It takes a lot of software to do that and it takes a lot of resources to develop working software. This means high costs and quite long development times. I doubt there are many countries that can introduce anything remotely as capable.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2014, 16:16
by popcorn
The sensors are a convenient feature to focus upon but the more meaningful comparison IMO, would be the scope and sophistication of the sensor fusion they are able to deliver, integrating the elements hornetfinn identified. The more capable the fusion engine, the shorter the pilot's OODA Loop meaning he can make smarter decisions faster.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 06:39
by geforcerfx
I see the PAK-FA has some of this capability with the front facing Aesa and the two small side looking and the rear AESA and the L-band on the wings, that's a lot of radar that can gather a lot of data. The F-35 is unique with both of the IR technologies. The EOTS will give the US its first decent forward looking IRST since the F-14 while at the same time be a great ground targeting system. But DAS acts as a IRST just 360 degrees as well, it did detect a ballistic missile launch from 800nmi's away something tells me it can prob see a hot two engine fighter from 30nmi if not more dependent on conditions. The IRST capabilities on the F-35 are unmatched and will deliver insane amounts of data to the pilot and flight computers to keep that aircraft alive an give it major offensive capabilities. As I started off with the PAK-FA is the only other fighter I have seen trying to give there pilots this much SitAwarness, but its using radar and will prob have less computing capabilities and a less effective way to deliver all the information it is able to grab to the pilot, also radar can be jammed (especially those L-bands on the wings, but me thinks those are more ECM then SitAwar). The F-22's pilot have raved on about all the situational awareness they have coming from there jets using software/hardware that was designed almost 20 years ago, imagine how the F-35 pilots will feel, more information and a better system(s) to deliver it to them and share with friends (sharing is caring).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 11:01
by hornetfinn
I think you can forger the L-band system in the wings of PAK FA as it's definitely not a good set up for a radar system and IMO very unlikely to ever be used as one. With that set up it's impossible to get target height and would give only rather rough directional data. That is most likely just an IFF system with maybe some potential capability to be used in EW and communication. I think PAK FA SA will be about as good as in latest Rafales, EF Typhoons or Super Hornets with some twist due to those small side looking antennas (if they actually use them in operational aircraft). I seriously doubt they have the ability to compete with the systems in F-35 or F-22.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 12:31
by zero-one
The PAK-FA and the KF-X and the ATD-X programs seem to have proposals (artist impressions) having a closed rear canopy design.

This could either mean that they will have terrible rearward visibility or will have a DAS like system for rearward visibility.

Just like everything else, I think competitors will be able to catch up, how long it takes for them to catch up is anyone's guess

However it also depends on how effective the tech will be.

Remember, during the late 60s - early 70s

Variable Geometry was such a hot new design breakthrough and many planes started appearing with it, the F-14, F-111, Mig-23, B-1, Tu-160 and Tornado all had it and we expected that soon, most countries would follow.

However Engineers quickly found more effective wing designs that did not have the draw backs of Variable Geometry.


Today Thrust Vectoring seems to take that spot, and the ATF, PAK-FA and ATD-X programs all employ it and are optional for many Russian 4th gen fighter upgrades, even the Typhoon seems to be looking into TV options as well.

Stealth is another, to a greater degree.

Not sure if 6th gens will have it, but if the Navy's requirement of having the F/A-XX "surpass all current fighters in Kinematics" is any indication, then it might also employ TV.

However this does not only apply to aircraft designs.

Sensors may also follow a similar trend. Remember how PESA radar was supposed to be the newest trend in fighter radars?

However just a few years later Japan installed AESA on the F-2, suddenly PESA looked so yesterday

Right now DAS seems like the new hottest sensor system out there but if someone quickly finds a better more efficient system then it could be out of the trend very soon also.


Remember DAS is a series of sensors that collect info around the aircraft it doesn't necessarily have to be an IR sensor
The F-22 has an RF based DAS system

Just off the top of my head
if some one could build a single AESA sphere antenna that sent signals to all directions and covered the entire aircraft spherically, then it could give some competition to DAS.

Basically my point is, some designs seem to hold a lot of promise but very quickly becomes obsolete (i.e. Variable Geometry wings, PESA, Mach 3+ capability, Long range air-air missiles,)

while others stay with us for a very long time (i.e. Relaxed static stability, Turbofan engines, Stealth, AESA)

Right now its too early to tell if DAS systems will be the former or the latter.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 13:48
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Remember DAS is a series of sensors that collect info around the aircraft it doesn't necessarily have to be an IR sensor
The F-22 has an RF based DAS system


No, F-22 does not really have DAS system at all. Of course it has AN/AAR-56 missile launch detector which has similar (but most likely less capable) IR sensors (not RF) to DAS but does not have the processing systems or required integration to other aircraft systems. It's thus now much more limited system than DAS is and can not provide nearly similar SA to the pilot.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 14:02
by zero-one
hornetfinn wrote:
No, F-22 does not really have DAS system at all. Of course it has AN/AAR-56 missile launch detector which has similar (but most likely less capable) IR sensors (not RF) to DAS but does not have the processing systems or required integration to other aircraft systems. It's thus now much more limited system than DAS is and can not provide nearly similar SA to the pilot.


Well actually the F-22 has the AN/ALR-94 which is a series of 30 or so apertures for antennas spotted around the airframe.

Before the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 became synonymous with DAS, the F-22s system was called "DAS" by some respectable aerospace figures.

I believe the History channel's last episode of Dogfights (Secrets of the Dogfights of the future) termed the ALR-94 as DAS.

If you think about it, they are apertures, and they are Distributed, and they are a system. So why not.

They are not on the same level as the AAQ-37 but still DAS none the less

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2014, 15:50
by spazsinbad
Perhaps some better IRST on the way - whenever?
Air Force mulls staring infrared search and track for combat aircraft
15 Oct 2014 John Keller

"WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, Ohio-U.S. Air Force electro-optics researchers are reaching out to industry for ideas and enabling technologies for a next-generation infrared search-and-track (IRST) system to provide advanced passive surveillance, tracking, and target-acquisition capability for military combat aircraft.

Officials of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, have issued a sources-sought notice (RFI-RQKS-2014-0001) for the Infrared Search and Track Technologies program, which seeks to determine the feasibility of developing a next-generation airborne, long-range offensive IRST.

Air Force researchers are interested in a new kind of IRST that is a staring sensor, rather than a scanned system, based on combinations of innovative optical design, high dynamic range infrared large format focal plane array (FPA) technology, and advanced processing methods....

...This exploratory concept is fundamentally different from current IRST implementations that use scanned and smaller-format infrared focal plane arrays for detection and tracking of enemy aircraft and missiles, researchers explain.

An IRST with a staring rather than a scanning sensor will yield higher performance in a more compact, lighter-weight design with greater installation flexibility, Air Force researchers say.

Advancements in large-format, two-dimensional infrared focal plane arrays offer potential advantages in clutter rejection, more frequent updates, longer integration times, and multi-frame detection techniques.

These advantages could yield an advanced IRST for military combat aircraft that supports long-range detection and tracking of targets in cluttered environments with a low false alarm rate over a large field-of-view (FOV), researchers say....

...The Air Force would like to hear from companies that could provide advanced IRST enabling technologies as part of assessment of industry's ability to provide component and system-level technologies for a next-generation airborne IRST.

Key considerations include wave-band selection; single-band longwave vs. medium-wave infrared sensors; dual-band longwave and medium-wave infrared sensors; sensitivity; dynamic range; frame rate; integration time; resolution; operability; readout design trades; wide-field optical design for large format arrays; opto-mechanical design; stabilization; real-time algorithms and processing; processing techniques; clutter rejection methods; target detection and track algorithms; clear sky; sky clutter; and look down into heavy clutter...."

Source: http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... craft.html

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2014, 13:55
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
No, F-22 does not really have DAS system at all. Of course it has AN/AAR-56 missile launch detector which has similar (but most likely less capable) IR sensors (not RF) to DAS but does not have the processing systems or required integration to other aircraft systems. It's thus now much more limited system than DAS is and can not provide nearly similar SA to the pilot.


Well actually the F-22 has the AN/ALR-94 which is a series of 30 or so apertures for antennas spotted around the airframe.

Before the F-35's AN/AAQ-37 became synonymous with DAS, the F-22s system was called "DAS" by some respectable aerospace figures.

I believe the History channel's last episode of Dogfights (Secrets of the Dogfights of the future) termed the ALR-94 as DAS.

If you think about it, they are apertures, and they are Distributed, and they are a system. So why not.

They are not on the same level as the AAQ-37 but still DAS none the less


Ok, that is true. Of course passive RF system can not give nearly as good resolution and does not work well with non-emitting targets but it has its own good features. I think both IR and passive RF SA systems will be used in the future as they offer quite different and complementing capabilities.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2014, 22:29
by quicksilver
hornetfinn wrote:
No, F-22 does not really have DAS system at all. Of course it has AN/AAR-56 missile launch detector which has similar (but most likely less capable) IR sensors (not RF) to DAS but does not have the processing systems or required integration to other aircraft systems. It's thus now much more limited system than DAS is and can not provide nearly similar SA to the pilot.


That is correct.

And, generally, AAR-56 is to F-22 what AAR-37 is to F-35; ALR-94 is to F-22 what ASQ-239 is to F-35.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2014, 22:30
by quicksilver
"I think both IR and passive RF SA systems will be used in the future as they offer quite different and complementing capabilities."

The future you suggest is now.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2014, 01:37
by cataphrat1
I believe the Chinese plans to incorporate an EOTS system onboard the J-20.

Image

As for DAS, there are rumors and pictures of possible DAS cameras in development by the Chinese.

How well these stack up to the F-35 is to be seen.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2014, 02:01
by count_to_10
The IR cameras are (relatively) easy to place -- it's the software to integrate it all usefully that takes serious investment.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2014, 02:22
by disconnectedradical
count_to_10 wrote:The IR cameras are (relatively) easy to place -- it's the software to integrate it all usefully that takes serious investment.


Software is really where the big bucks of the F-35 program are, and why it will likely have an advantage over any contemporaries. When it comes to software development, time and money matters. I think this is why the F-35's software keeps on being late, because as a CS professor once said, most large software projects, commercial or military, are late.

That said though, it seems like a very large percentage of computer science majors, especially the good ones, at my university is Chinese. Though that doesn't necessarily mean the Chinese will catch up on the DAS.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2014, 04:41
by geogen
disconnectedradical wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:The IR cameras are (relatively) easy to place -- it's the software to integrate it all usefully that takes serious investment.


Software is really where the big bucks of the F-35 program are, and why it will likely have an advantage over any contemporaries. When it comes to software development, time and money matters. I think this is why the F-35's software keeps on being late, because as a CS professor once said, most large software projects, commercial or military, are late.

That said though, it seems like a very large percentage of computer science majors, especially the good ones, at my university is Chinese. Though that doesn't necessarily mean the Chinese will catch up on the DAS.


However... various other competing developments per association with other alternative sensor hardware, should be 'good enough'. One doesn't need the highest number lines of code to be 'good enough'. Just produce an affordable, quality next-gen piece of hardware, coupled with sufficient software to operate it and upgrade it. Then, sell it/acquire it in sufficient numbers. Viola.

Regardless, by early 2020s, if not sooner, it's very likely that particular equipment hardware might even be superior in performance to EOTS and even DAS. E.g.. the next-gen SE pod w/ 1k FLIR is expected for delivery within a few years. Various dedicated (COTS) IRST systems are and will likely be on the market, too.

The issue is therefor more about availability, delivery, reliability (providing relevant capability), affordability. Not about... which 3rd gen product will finally deploy with the greatest complexity of software by 2020, etc.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2014, 09:17
by hornetfinn
quicksilver wrote:"I think both IR and passive RF SA systems will be used in the future as they offer quite different and complementing capabilities."

The future you suggest is now.


That is very true. If we think about history, it seems like first fighters got forward looking active RF system, radar. Then fighters got passive RF systems, RWR. First these had limited coverage, but later systems are fully spherical and with far more features than basic RWR. Then they got forward looking IR systems, FLIR/IRST. Now there is a fighter with full spherical IR coverage. I think it's clear that fighter sensors have been and are still getting better coverage in both the electromagnetic spectrum and coverage around the aircraft. I see someday fighters having full 360 degree passive and active RF sensors as well as UV, visible light, near IR, mid IR and long wave IR wavelengths. All of this fully digitized and automated with full data (not just sensor) fusion. I see F-35 systems improving a lot as it matures and it likely will get some additional capabilities along with all those it has now. A lot of those additional capabilities are likely coming from software upgrades and additions, but some will be hardware upgrades as well.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2014, 09:58
by popcorn
hornetfinn wrote:
That is very true. If we think about history, it seems like first fighters got forward looking active RF system, radar. Then fighters got passive RF systems, RWR. First these had limited coverage, but later systems are fully spherical and with far more features than basic RWR. Then they got forward looking IR systems, FLIR/IRST. Now there is a fighter with full spherical IR coverage. I think it's clear that fighter sensors have been and are still getting better coverage in both the electromagnetic spectrum and coverage around the aircraft. I see someday fighters having full 360 degree passive and active RF sensors as well as UV, visible light, near IR, mid IR and long wave IR wavelengths. All of this fully digitized and automated with full data (not just sensor) fusion. I see F-35 systems improving a lot as it matures and it likely will get some additional capabilities along with all those it has now. A lot of those additional capabilities are likely coming from software upgrades and additions, but some will be hardware upgrades as well.

Advantage to those who can best exploit Moore's Law to drive ever more sophisticated software to crunch all that data into something meaningful.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2014, 10:45
by hornetfinn
geogen wrote:However... various other competing developments per association with other alternative sensor hardware, should be 'good enough'. One doesn't need the highest number lines of code to be 'good enough'. Just produce an affordable, quality next-gen piece of hardware, coupled with sufficient software to operate it and upgrade it. Then, sell it/acquire it in sufficient numbers. Viola.

Regardless, by early 2020s, if not sooner, it's very likely that particular equipment hardware might even be superior in performance to EOTS and even DAS. E.g.. the next-gen SE pod w/ 1k FLIR is expected for delivery within a few years. Various dedicated (COTS) IRST systems are and will likely be on the market, too.

The issue is therefor more about availability, delivery, reliability (providing relevant capability), affordability. Not about... which 3rd gen product will finally deploy with the greatest complexity of software by 2020, etc.


I doubt it will be quite a while before anybody makes systems significantly superior even in hardware to EOTS or DAS as both seem to be very state-of-the-art currently. Of course the sensor hardware is only small part of capabilities of such systems. They need a lot of software to make the sensor work right. Of course they also need a lot of software to integrate the sensors to the fighter combat systems. There also needs to be good enough networks inside the aircraft to transfer all that data around. Having simply the sensors does not much good if it's not integrated to the aircraft. F-35 has the advantage that it has been designed with EOTS and DAS in mind from the beginning and those are fully integrated to the aircraft hardware and software. Add-on pods and systems are very unlikely to offer nearly the capabilities a fully integrated systems can.

Of course there is nothing stopping upgrading DAS and EOTS hardware. F-35 has good enough networks and computing systems to handle even upgraded sensor systems. I don't see that happening very soon as there is most likely a lot of capabilities that can be added and improved through software.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2014, 02:49
by arcturus
geogen wrote:
Regardless, by early 2020s, if not sooner, it's very likely that particular equipment hardware might even be superior in performance to EOTS and even DAS. E.g.. the next-gen SE pod w/ 1k FLIR is expected for delivery within a few years. Various dedicated (COTS) IRST systems are and will likely be on the market, too.

The issue is therefor more about availability, delivery, reliability (providing relevant capability), affordability. Not about... which 3rd gen product will finally deploy with the greatest complexity of software by 2020, etc.


You are assuming that EOTS and DAS will exist in a vacuum during that period. Upgrades can and do happen, so the status quo isn't nearly as simple as your post claims.

Complex technologies tend to require complex software. The tendency of software, across any platform, is to increase in size and complexity as generational growth takes place. This is just as true for your smartphone as it is defense systems.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2014, 05:23
by popcorn
Yup, just stick that magical new sensor in a pod and slap it on along with all the other baggage...nothing but the best for that super-duper updated legacy jet. :roll:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 10:40
by uclass
How many pixels are there in each EODAS array?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 11:42
by sdkf251
The thing about software is that it is a never ending process of refinement, fixes, testing and new releases.

The irony is that once you feel the software is working as perfectly as you want it to be, it is time to look for the next generation upgrade and the software would need to be updated as well. :( Sigh....

In any case, I hope people understand that software is a process and not a product. There will always be some need for incremental improvement and updates. You just have to decide to freeze with what you have now, and work with what is best at that time. Then you continue the process of improvement and decide to freeze at a later date on the improved version.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 13:11
by Dragon029
uclass wrote:How many pixels are there in each EODAS array?


I don't believe that's public knowledge, but I would guess they're something like 1MP to 4MP based on videos like this.

To back this up, we can compare it to the HMDS-mounted NVG IR camera.

The Gen 3 uses the ISIE-11 sensor which has a 1600x1200 (2MP) sensor. However, the original sensor, as used in the Gen 2, uses the ISIE-10, which has a resolution of 1280x1024 (1.3MP).

Now, the HMDS received an NVG camera specifically because it was believed that the EODAS alone might not provide sufficient clarity for all aspects of night flying; plus, obviously in-cockpit night vision was important.

Now, as far as I'm aware, the helmet cam is specifically designed to fit the visor's 40x30 degree display, while each EODAS sensor has a field of view of 120 degrees. What that means, is that if the (angular) pixel density is (roughly) 30% of the helmet cam's, the sensor is the same resolution (1.3MP).

At 50% the pixel density, the EODAS sensor has a resolution of about 4MP. While it's possible to go higher than that, I'm not entirely sure it's a realistic assumption to make, as without the F-35 having it's EODAS upgraded in the past 5 years, I'm not sure Northrop Grumman would have had the tech or means to produce >4MP MWIR sensors for this kind of application.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 13:17
by hornetfinn
uclass wrote:How many pixels are there in each EODAS array?


Well, the sensors are made by L-3 Cincinnati Electronics in the factory that makes 1M (1280x1024), 4M (2048x2048) and 16M (4096x4096) arrays.

http://www.cinele.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=873:russwalkerappointedpresident&catid=67:eits-news-cat&Itemid=148

. The expanded Mason, Ohio facility houses a new state-of-the-art semiconductor processing facility designed to meet the demand for the next generation of infrared imaging arrays used on platforms such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Wide Area Persistent Surveillance (WAPS) programs.


http://www.cinele.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1014:wide-area-persistent-surveillance&catid=174:infrared-products-a-systems&Itemid=234

L-3 Cincinnati Electronics is the industry leader in large format MWIR with a decade of experience in providing IR technology for major programs such as the F/A-18 and F-35. In addition to our compact 1280 x 1024 and 2048 x 2048 pixel MWIR HD cameras, we are the only manufacturer with IR sensors of 16Mp (4096 x 4096 pixels) currently in use by U.S. assets in overseas combat zones.


So, I'd say that at least 1280x1024 arrays are used.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 13:37
by bring_it_on
Northrop in its introductory paper on the DAIRS (DAS) describes each individual sensor as about the same resolution as a human eye. Go figure how much that is in pixels ;)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260144206/Di ... m7FxfSiC1B

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 14:18
by popcorn
bring_it_on wrote:Northrop in its introductory paper on the DAIRS (DAS) describes each individual sensor as about the same resolution as a human eye. Go figure how much that is in pixels ;)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/260144206/Di ... m7FxfSiC1B


http://gizmodo.com/what-is-the-resoluti ... 1541242269

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 14:36
by Dragon029
This article and this data sheet confirm it; the EODAS system uses L3's 4MP sensor.

Specifically; you can see the edges of the FPAs on the new 4" diameter wafer; if you use an image editing or CAD program you can then see for yourself that a 1.2" (30.7mm) sided FPA (as per the datasheet) creates the exact same pattern scale as in the AFRL image.

It's possible that it's just a 1MP sensor; L3 doesn't have a datasheet for their 1MP sensor, and it's not uncommon to use (eg) 4MP arrays downsampled to achieve a more reliable or better quality 1MP image. However, the fact that they don't provide a datasheet for the 1MP sensor, plus the fact that the EODAS sensor is physically larger than the 2MP sensor in the HMDS, and needs to achieve a decent level of resolution over it's ~120 degree FOV means that it's almost certain that it has a resolution of 4MP.

The 16MP sensor is twice the width / height of the 4MP and wafer size is measured in diameter by convention, so it's (unfortunately, and only just for now) not the 16MP sensor.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 14:53
by spazsinbad
'This article' link does not work for me with two browsers: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story_prin ... =123066261

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 15:08
by bring_it_on
Dragon029 wrote:This article and this data sheet confirm it; the EODAS system uses L3's 4MP sensor.

Specifically; you can see the edges of the FPAs on the new 4" diameter wafer; if you use an image editing or CAD program you can then see for yourself that a 1.2" (30.7mm) sided FPA (as per the datasheet) creates the exact same pattern scale as in the AFRL image.

It's possible that it's just a 1MP sensor; L3 doesn't have a datasheet for their 1MP sensor, and it's not uncommon to use (eg) 4MP arrays downsampled to achieve a more reliable or better quality 1MP image. However, the fact that they don't provide a datasheet for the 1MP sensor, plus the fact that the EODAS sensor is physically larger than the 2MP sensor in the HMDS, and needs to achieve a decent level of resolution over it's ~120 degree FOV means that it's almost certain that it has a resolution of 4MP.

The 16MP sensor is twice the width / height of the 4MP and wafer size is measured in diameter by convention, so it's (unfortunately, and only just for now) not the 16MP sensor.


Here you go

https://www.scribd.com/doc/254279654/Fi ... st-Century

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 15:28
by Dragon029
spazsinbad wrote:'This article' link does not work for me with two browsers: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story_prin ... =123066261


Here's a screencap:

Image



Thanks! So at least pre-2006 (do you know when exactly the paper was published? I can only find a reference to 2006 as being the future and 1996 as being the most recent reference used) the DAS system was meant to use 1MP sensors, using microscanning to increase that to a ~4MP final image, dependent on the available processing power. While that'd be okay, I'm hoping that the FPA they use today is a 4MP variant, as that'll reduce processing requirements and give better future software-based growth (to use microscanning again if they have the power present and no desire to drive for arrays with a larger resolution).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 15:50
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the info (not that I understand it much :doh: ) and here is an old screed about DAS/EOTS from Wiley (Coyote?) Military Avionics Systems. See attached PDF (replicated in .GIF graphic)
Military Avionics Systems
2006 Ian Moir and Allan G. Seabridge; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 0-470-01632-9

"...The distributed aperture system (DAS) being developed by Northrop Grumman together with BAE SYSTEMS comprises six EO sensors located around the aircraft to provide the pilot with 360° situational awareness information that is detected by passive means. The concept of horizontal coverage of the DAS is depicted in Figure 5.37. The six DAS sensors provide a complete lateral coverage and are based upon technology developed for the BAE SYSTEMS Sigma package (shown in the inset). Key attributes are dual-band MWIR (3–5 mm) and LWIR (8–10 mm) using a 640 x 512 FPA. Each sensor measures ~7 x 5 x 4 in, weighs ~9 lb and consumes less than 20W. Sensor devices with megapixel capability (1000 x 1000) are under development and will be incorporated...."

Source: http://www.helitavia.com/books/Mil%20Av ... ystems.pdf (10.4Mb)

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 21:37
by Dragon029
Odd; the author of that article believed in 2006 that there would be 6 cameras in a horizontal ring (rather than the current upper rear / forward, lower rear / forward and left / right). Does anyone know when the first F-35 flew with EODAS installed? It might give us another clue as to whether or not they used 1MP sensors or if 4MP sensors became available in time.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 22:56
by spazsinbad
'Dragon' do you refer to the WILEY article? The illustration is just that - not a specific 'device located here' F-35 exact one.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2015, 23:37
by SpudmanWP
FF of EODAS on an F-35 was in 2010

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 24687.html

The company had delivered three sets of EO DAS sensors to JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin for its mission systems integration lab in Fort Worth, for the Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird) aircraft, and for BF-4, the first F-35 slated to fly with the system. Bouchard said CATBird, a modified Boeing 737, will start flying with mission systems hardware this fall, including the AESA radar. The EO DAS "is about nine months to the right of radar," he said, putting its first flight on CATBird in latter 2009 and on F-35 in 2010.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 01:59
by mrigdon
Dragon029 wrote:It's possible that it's just a 1MP sensor; L3 doesn't have a datasheet for their 1MP sensor, and it's not uncommon to use (eg) 4MP arrays downsampled to achieve a more reliable or better quality 1MP image.


There are pixels and there are pixels, you can get different resolutions for the same numbers.

Most commercial digital sensors (the ones most people have experience with) in digital cameras use Bayer filters to combine four pixels on the sensor into a single color pixel in the final data file. So, you end up "losing" a fourth of your resolution. Foveon sensors use layers of light sensitive pixels, each layer receptive to one of the primary colors (Canon is supposed to be working on a similar sensor for future cameras). Those sensors have lower pixel counts, yet provide the same resolution.

The data sheet makes it sound like L3's sensor is the former, photosites with a filter applied over the sensor. If that filter doesn't require combining the same number of pixels for the final output pixel, like a Bayer filter does, then even a 1MP sensor can have much greater resolution than what you'd expect if you're used to hearing the numbers in your camera phone, for instance.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 09:39
by hornetfinn
If we assume that DAS uses 4M array and it has a field of view of 120 degrees, we can calculate the following:

1000 meter (1 km) circle has a diameter of about 6280 meters. This means each DAS sensor will see an area of slightly over 2090 meters in both width and height. With 4M array, each pixel would equate almost exactly 1 meter x 1 meter about 1000 meters away. At 10 km away that would mean each pixel would equate about 10 meter x 10 meter area.

Of course there are other variables as already mentioned regarding resolution and of course IR sensors operate differently in that a bright heat source would seem much larger to it than to naked eye. For example a pilot could not see a BVR missile launched 30 km away but DAS most likely could due to missile exhaust plume would make it rather large (and bright) in IR spectrum. Another thing besides resolution is how sensitive the sensor is and how small heat differences it can detect (thermal resolution). The 4M sensor has NETD of <30 mK at 25 degrees Celsius, which means it's highly sensitive sensor (current state of art) and can detect extremely small heat differences which means a very long detection range against all target types. This is key why DAS could see that Falcon 9 space rocket launch from 1300 km away. Most IR sensors are not sensitive enough to achieve this feat.

With this high thermal sensitivity, DAS should detect even a cool target like UAV when it basically fills one pixel. So a medium altitude UAV (like MQ-9 Reaper or equivalent) should be detectable at about 5 to 15 km away, depending on viewing angle. A fighter aircraft is more complex as it emits more heat and thus is brighter to IR sensor. It also heats the air around it (especially behind due to exhaust) and thus seems larger to IR sensor than what the physical dimensions of fighter aircraft are. DAS would see an afterburning MiG-31 flying perpendicularly very far away (several tens of kilometers for sure). F-16 or JAS Gripen coming directly towards at low power setting would be seen at much shorter ranges but still very likely more than 10 km away. I'd say that fighter aircraft are detectable about 10 to 50km away, depending on target size, power setting and viewing angle.

Missile launch detection ranges are also heavily dependent on missile size, propellant and rocket motor design and of course viewing angle. SA-10 long range missile launch will be seen very far away as the missile is big and exerts a lot of heat during boost phase. MANPAD missile will naturally be seen at much shorter ranges due to small size and low amount of heat generate. I'd say that most missile launches will be seen at considerably longer ranges than the missile could hit a target (like the F-35). Missile in flight after motor burn out will be seen due to missile heating during high speed flight. Thus the missile will be seen at much longer ranges than it will be seen with naked eye. The detection range will depend on viewing angle and missile skin temperature but I'd say we are talking about maybe 2 to 20 km range (small MANPAD to very large SAM). That'd usually give enough time (about 5 to 30 seconds) to maneuver and employ countermeasures.

These were detection range figure guesses and recognition and especially identification ranges are considerably shorter. Recognition ranges are usually about 3-5 times shorter than detection ranges and identification range is usually 5-10 times shorter than detection range. Of course all my range figures here are just guesses for performance in good conditions and exact figures depend heavily on exact design of the sensor array, signal processing and conditions (background, weather, moisture, pollution).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 19:26
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:If we assume that DAS uses 4M array and it has a field of view of 120 degrees, we can calculate the following:

FoV is stated as 90deg in those links and 95deg in AirForces Monthly F-35 special.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2015, 23:11
by Dragon029
uclass wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:If we assume that DAS uses 4M array and it has a field of view of 120 degrees, we can calculate the following:

FoV is stated as 90deg in those links and 95deg in AirForces Monthly F-35 special.


Those would refer to non-overlapping fields; Northrop / other sources also say that the system has a total FOV of 4pi, which equates to 120 degrees. If they were only 90 / 95 degrees, the system would have massive gaps in the sphere of coverage; here's a quick little CAD drawing to demonstrate; on the left is 6 cones, 120 deg wide, pointing in each direction, on the right are 6, 90 deg cones. At the corners, you can see right between them.

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 12:09
by uclass
Hmmm, maybe, here's where I got my quote from anyway.

-AFM 2014 F-35 Special, Page 28

Also here:

Image

The advanced features of the DAS include missile and aircraft detection, track, and
warning for the F-35. DAS also gives a pilot 360° spherical
day/night vision, with the capability of seeing through the
fl oor of the aircraft. And because the DAS is a passive
system, the pilot does not have to point a sensor in
the direction of a target to gain a track. Comprising six
infrared (IR) sensors (each housed in an aperture)
located around the aircraft, Northrop Grumman
classes the DAS as an integrated system and not a
sensor or a series of sensors.
The six apertures each provide 95° fi eld of regard and
a total of 570° to ensure suffi cient overlap in coverage
around the aircraft.
One aperture is positioned on either side of the radome
below the chine line (the right and left side apertures), one in front of canopy (upper
forward), one in front of the refuelling receptacle (upper aft) and two on the under fuselage
(the lower forward and lower aft) one pointing forward and one aft, but not straight down.
The six apertures are positioned so that no part of the aircraft blanks out its view. The
system receives threat information from all directions and stitches it together to give a
simultaneous three-dimensional spherical view, using that information to protect the aircraft.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 13:43
by linkomart
hmm, something's fishy about the 95 degree coverage, when I draw it up I get pretty big chunks of uncovered area around the Aircraft. If the aircraft shall have full 360 degree coverage the angle needs to be at least 108.752 degrees, IF the cameras are at the same point... more if not.
This is given that the sensor picture is circular, which no one states. if the sensor picture is square that can give the coverage of the corners.

Anyway, I'll leave the theories now, back to the real world...

regards.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 13:54
by quicksilver
In order to determine the notional sensor coverage, one also has to know the mounting angle of the sensor relative to the outer mold line of the aircraft at the aperture. Do we know that?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 15:44
by SpudmanWP
Since the sensor is square wouldn't the FOV be square also?

Given this, if the the angle was 95 at the edges this would mean greater than 95 at the corners which would allow for full coverage.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 16:42
by uclass
One way or another it covers everything anyway.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2015, 23:25
by mrigdon
uclass wrote:One way or another it covers everything anyway.


Somewhere in that system, either in front of the sensor or somehow baked into the silicon, there's a lens focusing light. Photons don't just resolve themselves onto points on flat planes. The field of view is going to depend on the focal length of the lens.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 03:22
by thomonkey
mrigdon wrote:
uclass wrote:One way or another it covers everything anyway.


Somewhere in that system, either in front of the sensor or somehow baked into the silicon, there's a lens focusing light. Photons don't just resolve themselves onto points on flat planes. The field of view is going to depend on the focal length of the lens.


the point is that it covers everything. You're trying to figure out HOW it covers everything not prove that it doesn't cover everything.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 12:00
by mrigdon
Lenses are HOW you take photons from the environment and focus them onto a photosensitive surface in order to generate an image. You can easily put a fisheye lens on the sensor and get a 180º view in front of the sensor, however that's going to reduce the level of detail that you can resolve (you only have X megapixels). You can increase the resolving power of the system by adding additional sensors with lenses that have a smaller field of view.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 14:04
by uclass

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2015, 16:46
by Dragon029
Realistically it fits neither (the 16MP has 3 cylinder edges, with 1 chamfered, the EODAS unit has 2 cylinder edges with 1 chamfered). A 16MP sensor would also have required a recent upgrade, as it didn't exist prior to a couple of years ago - Tech Refresh 2 could have included this, but IIRC it was stated somewhere that TR2 wouldn't include any sensor upgrades, just processor / avionics upgrades.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2015, 11:19
by hornetfinn
Since the page spazsinbad and Dragon029 posted here states that DAS uses 4 inch (100 mm) wafers and it seems like each die is about 1.25 inches or so. Even in 2007 it was very possible to use 15 micron pixel pitch in InSb detectors. That would equal 4M detector. Of course it's possible that it uses some other pixel pitch, but I think they went for higher end which would mean 15 micron pixel pitch. Currently there are InSb detectors with 10 micron pixel pitch. That would make 3072x3072 detectors possible with the same die dimensions. However I don't think technology for those was available in 2007.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2015, 11:59
by hornetfinn
What I've found impressive was DAS ability to detect Falcon 9 launch at over 800 miles/1300 km away. Even more impressive was that it could detect and track the second stage that far away. This would mean a single F-35 flying high would be able to reliably and very quickly detect any ballistic missile launched that far or even further away. It could also be capable of giving fairly accurate location where the launch occurred. Given several F-35s doing that, it should be possible to triangulate the launch position quite precisely. This would give a whole new capability when hunting enemy ballistic missiles and their launchers.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2015, 10:43
by popcorn
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... st-413022/


Northrop unveils OpenPod as USAF seeks F-15 IRST
By: JAMES DREWWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 21:46 2 Jun 2015
Northrop Grumman has responded to US Air Force interest in an infrared search and track (IRST) capability for its F-15C Eagle by unveiling OpenPod, a reconfigurable sensor pod which the company says is already being flight tested on a tactical military aircraft. Northrop’s system would employ an IRST produced by Italy’s Selex ES, owned by Finmeccanica.

The front end of the rail-mounted pod can be swapped out between sorties to host either an IRST, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), targeting, or communications payload.

James Mocarski, Northrop’s vice president of airborne tactical sensors, says OpenPod is the company’s answer to an unspecified air force sources-sought notice for an IRST system. It could also host the air force’s planned Maps System, a capability that will allow F-22s and F-35s to exchange tactical information with legacy fighters, he says.

“OpenPod IRST combines state-of-the-art IRST sensor system technology from our partner Selex ES with the latest advances in target identification, clutter rejection and tracking from Northrop Grumman’s F-35 distributed aperture system, fire control radar, and infrared countermeasures products,” Mocarski said at the June 2 unveiling in Washington DC. “It’s our intended entry into an upcoming air force competition for infrared search and track.”

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2015, 11:26
by borg
hornetfinn wrote:What I've found impressive was DAS ability to detect Falcon 9 launch at over 800 miles/1300 km away. Even more impressive was that it could detect and track the second stage that far away. This would mean a single F-35 flying high would be able to reliably and very quickly detect any ballistic missile launched that far or even further away. It could also be capable of giving fairly accurate location where the launch occurred. Given several F-35s doing that, it should be possible to triangulate the launch position quite precisely. This would give a whole new capability when hunting enemy ballistic missiles and their launchers.


I'm not sure why this is so impressive for you..

I was able to detect and track this object with my two MK1 eye balls.
And the range was a lot further than 1300km

as could people with video and photo system cameras...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnfTAs4BtM

Thinking about it, i can even see Jupiter and Venus on a clear night shy, not bad huh ;)

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2015, 13:35
by hornetfinn
borg wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:What I've found impressive was DAS ability to detect Falcon 9 launch at over 800 miles/1300 km away. Even more impressive was that it could detect and track the second stage that far away. This would mean a single F-35 flying high would be able to reliably and very quickly detect any ballistic missile launched that far or even further away. It could also be capable of giving fairly accurate location where the launch occurred. Given several F-35s doing that, it should be possible to triangulate the launch position quite precisely. This would give a whole new capability when hunting enemy ballistic missiles and their launchers.


I'm not sure why this is so impressive for you..

I was able to detect and track this object with my two MK1 eye balls.
And the range was a lot further than 1300km

as could people with video and photo system cameras...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnfTAs4BtM

Thinking about it, i can even see Jupiter and Venus on a clear night shy, not bad huh ;)


Please check the size of Jupiter or Venus or that spiral anomaly compared to second stage of Falcon 9 rocket... It's not the distance only, it's about seeing such a small target so far away. You can not see that second stage (or even the much bigger first stage) anywhere near that far away with your bare eyes. You may show us what other IRST or MAW/MLD system can detect, identify and track such a target that far away or even close to it....

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2015, 14:11
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:
borg wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:What I've found impressive was DAS ability to detect Falcon 9 launch at over 800 miles/1300 km away. Even more impressive was that it could detect and track the second stage that far away. This would mean a single F-35 flying high would be able to reliably and very quickly detect any ballistic missile launched that far or even further away. It could also be capable of giving fairly accurate location where the launch occurred. Given several F-35s doing that, it should be possible to triangulate the launch position quite precisely. This would give a whole new capability when hunting enemy ballistic missiles and their launchers.


I'm not sure why this is so impressive for you..

I was able to detect and track this object with my two MK1 eye balls.
And the range was a lot further than 1300km

as could people with video and photo system cameras...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJnfTAs4BtM

Thinking about it, i can even see Jupiter and Venus on a clear night shy, not bad huh ;)


Please check the size of Jupiter or Venus or that spiral anomaly compared to second stage of Falcon 9 rocket... It's not the distance only, it's about seeing such a small target so far away. You can not see that second stage (or even the much bigger first stage) anywhere near that far away with your bare eyes. You may show us what other IRST or MAW/MLD system can detect, identify and track such a target that far away or even close to it....

Not only that but check the nature of the propellant. Solid propellant gives a continuous trail and burns brighter pound for pound and is therefore much easier to spot. Solid propellant rockets you can see from extreme distances under the right conditions but Falcon 9 is liquid propellant.

http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbview.htm

The visibility of Vandenberg launches varies with the type of launch vehicle and is the result of the type of propellant used and the amount burned during a given unit of time.

Pound for pound, solid fuel radiates much more light when it burns than does liquid fuel. When solid fuel burns, it is so bright it resembles a road flare. Solid fuel also produces a continuous smoke trail during the entire burn time. Liquid fuel engines, however, produce a much fainter flame. It can be so faint that it is almost invisible in daylight. Unlike solid fuel rocket motors, liquid fuel engines do not continuously produce a smoke trail. Instead, they briefly leave a vapor trail when they pass through the stratosphere between 33,000 to 38,000 feet (10,058 to 11,582 M).

The amount of propellant burned during a given unit of time varies with the launch vehicle. For example, the Minuteman III and the now retired Peacekeeper both burned solid fuel, but Peacekeeper launches were more visible because the vehicle burns more fuel per unit of time.



What frequency bands does the EOTS IRST function operate on BTW?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 10:57
by spazsinbad
No more for me - no subscription.
Advanced Electro-Optical System A Priority For F-35 Block 4
02 Jul 2015 Bill Sweetman

"A comprehensive overhaul of one of the most important sensor systems on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a high priority for the Block 4 upgrade program, say company officials. It is needed because the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is already behind the state of the art in EO imaging and processing, and will fall further behind by 2020 as a new generation of pod-mounted systems enters service. The Block 4 project will encompass all the new weapon and sensor ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/advance ... 35-block-4

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 12:27
by optimist
Sweetman is only a month late with that, :doh: this was posted early last month.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... -4-413070/
15:54 3 Jun 2015
Sensor upgrades top USAF wish list for F-35 Block 4
Upgrading the Lockheed electro-optical targeting system and adding a wide-area high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode – dubbed “– Big SAR” to the Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) are must-haves, says Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 16:14
by Dragon029
The Av Week article:

A comprehensive overhaul of one of the most important sensor systems on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a high priority for the Block 4 upgrade program, say company officials. It is needed because the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is already behind the state of the art in EO imaging and processing, and will fall further behind by 2020 as a new generation of pod-mounted systems enters service.

The Block 4 project will encompass all the new weapon and sensor capabilities for the F-35 through 2027. Program leaders are now deciding which to include and when. The new Advanced EOTS is considered important because it is the key to engaging surface moving targets and reducing the risk of fratricide and collateral damage in close air support (CAS) missions. “After things that need to be fixed, it’s the first priority,” says Paul Lemmo, vice president for fire control programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control.

The current EOTS was defined in the late 1990s. Like targeting pods of that era, it operates in the mid-wave infrared (MWIR) band—between 3-5 microns—which provides a much higher-resolution picture than the long-wave infrared (8-12 micron) band used in early pods. It has a unique optical system using multiple gimbal-mounted mirrors to cover a large field of view below the aircraft, and some degree of look-up in the forward aspect that supports its function as an infrared search-and-track (IRST) system.

During the protracted system development and demonstration phase, F-35 program leaders have avoided major design changes except to fix flaws or avoid obsolescence. However, advancing electronics technology and the demands of CAS combat operations spurred development of improved targeting pods. One major change was addition of a daylight high-definition TV (HDTV) channel that provided much finer detail, even under low-light conditions.

Image

Advanced EOTS is intended to match the performance of new targeting pods like the Thales Talios (above arrow). Credit: Bill Sweetman/AW&ST

Pod manufacturers are moving to a new generation, with deliveries planned before the end of the decade. These new systems include the Talios pod, being developed as part of the F3R package for the Rafale, and Rafael’s Litening 5. Both are close to starting flight tests and expected to enter service by 2018.

The main innovations in Talios and Litening 5 are the introduction of a third operating band—the shortwave IR (SWIR) band, around 1.5 microns—and a switch from monochrome to color HDTV. SWIR operates well in nighttime conditions, but its most important attribute is that it is absorbed less by atmospheric moisture than visible light (0.5-0.7 microns) and provides longer oblique range than either MWIR or HDTV. According to Rafael, Litening 5 will be able to detect and track vehicle targets at ranges up to 60 km, using an ultra-telephoto SWIR sensor with a 0.3-deg. field of view.

Color HDTV comes into its own at shorter ranges (color is less useful at long distances) and for CAS missions. One advantage is that a ground controller, talking a pilot in on a target, can use color as a cue to identify a specific target or landmark. The new pods can fuse images from the different sensors into a true hyperspectral picture, providing more clarity and defeating camouflage.

Both Talios and Litening 5 feature redesigned optical chains with greater zoom range. Thales’s pod is larger, giving the French engineers more options, and incorporates an additional wide-field-of-view color image that can help the pilot orient himself and locate the pod’s field of view with the out-the-window view. Another feature shared by both new pods is the use of new automatic moving-target-indication algorithms.

Longer range changes the pod’s role. “This is more than a small step,” says a Rafael executive. “It goes from being a laser targeting pod to a stand-off, multiweapon pod.” The 60-km range is beyond the reach of accurate laser designation, because of low-altitude atmospheric absorption and distortion and geometrical “smearing” of the laser spot along the beam axis.

Rafael’s solution is to use pod imagery, a terrain database, and specially developed software known as MatchGuide to generate a template for the IR scene-matching guidance system of its Spice family of guided bombs. Similar technology is used for the scene-matching version of Rafale’s Sagem Hammer weapon family.

Lockheed Martin expects to complete initial development of an upgraded version of its Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod–Sensor Enhancement next year, which will add a two-color laser spot tracker, color HDTV and SWIR to the existing system, 1,000 of which have been sold to 20 customers. The company says it will be comparable to competitors’ new pods. The improved pod has been developed on company funding in response to specific customer interest. One difference between Lockheed Martin and other pod makers is that U.S. export rules restrict the supply of the most advanced image-fusion algorithms to some customers.

The improved Sniper’s hardware and software would be the basis for the planned Advanced EOTS for the F-35, which will retain the existing optical chain and IRST function, but will have a new MWIR sensor and add an SWIR channel. It does not appear to have been decided whether to add color HDTV; the tinted radar-reflective glazing of the stealth-compatible windows could cause problems with color video.

Advanced EOTS has a low technical risk, according to Lockheed Martin, but adds to a long list of fixes and upgrades competing for space in Block 4, ranging from nuclear-weapon integration to radar mode changes.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 17:10
by luke_sandoz
optimist wrote:Sweetman is only a month late with that, :doh: this was posted early last month.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... -4-413070/
15:54 3 Jun 2015
Sensor upgrades top USAF wish list for F-35 Block 4
Upgrading the Lockheed electro-optical targeting system and adding a wide-area high-resolution synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode – dubbed “– Big SAR” to the Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) are must-haves, says Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, chief of Air Combat Command.



Sweetman is a lifetime late. And he will never catch up.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 19:41
by SpudmanWP
The current Block 4 (parts 1-4) seem to be what the old Block 4/5 (in time and features) covered.

OLD

Image

NEW

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2015, 20:38
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'Dragon029' for the artickle and thanks 'SWP' for the BLOCK comparison - interesting eh. I wonder what the now FUTURE BLOCKs after FOUR look like?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2015, 08:48
by uclass
What frequency bands does the EOTS IRST function operate on BTW?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2015, 00:22
by playloud
I hate to see the expanded internal AA upgrades listed so far down the road. :(

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 13:50
by charlielima223
Does anyone have an idea what are the two nodes are forward of the cockpit?

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 14:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
part of EODAS

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2015, 18:46
by Dragon029
EODAS right, MADL antenna left.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 23:29
by rpg83
Disclaimer: Some of my questions probably fall into the OPSEC but even an (un)educated guess would be much appreciated.

Let's say there is a downed aircrew. Pararescuemen (or their equivalent in allied nations' air forces) will parachute into the area from a regular transport plane supported by a pair of F-35As.

Question 1: Does the F-35 automatically track the men jumping from the transport plane?

I would imagine that human body is trackable, but at the same time I think it would be pretty hard for the algorithms to classify the track (people don't fly, you know?). Alternatively, the track might be dismissed because you cannot warn the pilot about every man on the battlefield - that is way too much information - as most of them pose little to no risk to a jet fighter.

Anyway, the track would probably be dropped pretty quickly because apparently even this computer age doesn't allow us to track every tree, rock, deer and other IR-reflecting object on the ground. Correct me if I am wrong.

Additionally, I think that the EO-DAS might have difficulties detecting small and/or low temperature and/or distant objects, especially in adverse weather conditions. If the transport plane itself had to be tracked by the EOTS (instead of the EO-DAS), wouldn't it be difficult for the computer to decide whether to override the original command to track the transport plane and change to new tracks? I have to admit that my thinking might be flawed here because the transport plane could probably be tracked by radar and other means as well.

In the end it is all about algorithms, I guess, but how adaptive are they? There are only so many situations you can program the computer for.

Question 2: Is it feasible to track a man on the ground from a CTOL jet fighter? Obviously this is heavily dependent on the terrain but let's assume the area is reasonably wooded. Can the track be maintained as it would be with a helicopter?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 11:54
by spazsinbad
DAS and BACN Passive Stereo Ballistic Missile Tracking
Published on Sep 10, 2015 Northrop Grumman

"In November 2013, Northrop Grumman successfully demonstrated three dimensional battlespace awareness, detecting,
identifying, fusing and tracking the trajectory of a rocket launched from NASA wallops Island."


Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 12:39
by popcorn
I wonder if they were using MADL?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:04
by spazsinbad
The screenshot is not very good. If you click on it and zoom in on the right hand side you will see 'LINK 16' data stream between aircraft. The screenshot has been edited in an attempt to make that text more clear so it is now placed here.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:08
by hornetfinn
uclass wrote:What frequency bands does the EOTS IRST function operate on BTW?


Midwave Infrared (MWIR), same as DAS. That's the frequency band mainly used by pretty much all high performance FLIR and IRST systems.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:13
by spazsinbad
May as well put this PDF here - been meaning to post it for a day or so...
Technical article: metrological effects of fog and rain upon IR camera performance

"Although thermal imaging cameras can see in total darkness, through light fog, light rain and snow, the distance they can see is affected by these atmospheric conditions. Even in clear skies, inherent atmospheric absorption places limits on how far a particular infrared camera can see. A thermal imaging camera produces an image based on the differences in thermal radiation that an object emits. In essence, the farther this infrared signal has to travel from the target to the camera, the more of that signal can be lost along the way...."

Source: http://source.theengineer.co.uk/Journal ... 001_EN.pdf

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:15
by popcorn
Thanks eagle eyes. :D
Limk 16 it is, dashing any small hope of gauging MADL's range.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:39
by spazsinbad
Last frame screenshot - click on the graphic and zoom in etc....

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 13:45
by hornetfinn
rpg83 wrote:Question 1: Does the F-35 automatically track the men jumping from the transport plane?


Totally depends on the software. Currently probably not.

rpg83 wrote:Additionally, I think that the EO-DAS might have difficulties detecting small and/or low temperature and/or distant objects, especially in adverse weather conditions. If the transport plane itself had to be tracked by the EOTS (instead of the EO-DAS), wouldn't it be difficult for the computer to decide whether to override the original command to track the transport plane and change to new tracks? I have to admit that my thinking might be flawed here because the transport plane could probably be tracked by radar and other means as well.

In the end it is all about algorithms, I guess, but how adaptive are they? There are only so many situations you can program the computer for.


DAS will definitely have difficulties in detecting such a small and low temperature targets mainly due to very wide FoV. Even with 4kx4k sensor, it's likely that detection range is less than couple of kilometers in many situations.

rpg83 wrote:Question 2: Is it feasible to track a man on the ground from a CTOL jet fighter? Obviously this is heavily dependent on the terrain but let's assume the area is reasonably wooded. Can the track be maintained as it would be with a helicopter?


Possible, but difficult in wooded area.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2015, 16:12
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:I wonder if they were using MADL?


BAC-111 --> G11 BACN was with MADL

The "Link-16" part did not occur till the "BACN Test Aircraft then combined the track and transmitted precise trajectory information to the Air Operations Center"

Unfortunately since no range information was given, there is no way to gauge MADL performance from this vid. I suppose you could try and use Google Maps and place the planes on the map and use that.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 12:25
by uclass
I know many Spreys, Axes and Sweetmans plus disciples have been bleeting about whether the F-35 actually has active EW. Well here's the final answer from the most official source imaginable:

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an ... ure-system

Always active, AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars. The system stands alone in its ability to operate in signal-dense environments, providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures, and rapid response capabilities.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 13:06
by Dragon029
I've seen that statement (from other pages though); I've previously assumed that it's talking about being used in conjunction with the APG-81 though. That said, I'm not sure that I've seen it explicitly stated that the antennas are receive-only, and I've also wondered whether it's possible that it's CNI system and apertures (the MADL antennas, UHF antennas, etc) could be used as [at least potential] deception jamming transmitters considering how little energy would be getting reflected off it in a VLO configuration.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 13:09
by hornetfinn
Great find uclass! I think F-35 and AN/ASQ-239 offensive and defensive EW capabilities are something totally different to any fighter flying today (excluding maybe F-22). People have claimed that F-35 could only do active EW against X-band threats (due to AN/APG-81 being used for EW) but I don't think that's true. F-35 EW capabilities might be strongest against most threatening systems which are high-frequency fire control radars. IMO, it probably does have active EW capabilities against lower band radars also especially for self-protection where low power levels are enough.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:29
by bring_it_on
uclass wrote:I know many Spreys, Axes and Sweetmans plus disciples have been bleeting about whether the F-35 actually has active EW. Well here's the final answer from the most official source imaginable:

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an ... ure-system

Always active, AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars. The system stands alone in its ability to operate in signal-dense environments, providing the aircraft with radio-frequency and infrared countermeasures, and rapid response capabilities.


The "Always Active" portion of this sentence is most likely reffering to the fact that the EW suite is always working/on in terms of detecting threats, and is prepared to deploy countermeasures based on the systems assessment of the threat.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 16:57
by popcorn
No mention is made of cyber capabilities unless these are provided by a separate system from Barracuda... or possibly it's just to hush-hush to discuss. Gen. Hostage had mentioned previously that the F-35 does have a robust cyber capability, presumably as a standard feature. Subsequently the AF has disclosed that a cyber stealth pod is undergoing development by but declined to identify by whom. This jet is clearly full of surprises that we're likely never going to be privy to.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2015, 17:35
by eloise
F-35 can carry ALE-70 which is a FOTD, so it should be able to jam in others frequency as well rather than X band

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 02:03
by popcorn
By cyber I was thinking more along the lines of inserting malicious code ala STUXNET into enemy systems remotely via APG-81.

Re ALE-70 and F-35 defensive countermeasures, found this:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aircraft+ ... 0363687470

To cope with future EW requirements and overcome obsolescence issues, the US Naval Air Systems Command has recently awarded Lockheed Martin a contract covering the "redesign and qualification of replacement F35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter EW system components".

BAE Systems' AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda system is derived from the F-22 Raptor's AN/ALR-94 EW suite and provides Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and high sensitivity electronic surveillance capabilities, full-spectrum situational awareness and multi-spectral missile countermeasures. According to certain sources, the Barracuda offers precise geo-location and targeting of potential hostile emitters, without the need for triangulation .and thus other networked aircraft. The Barracuda is also integrated with Northrop Grumman's Communications, Navigation and Intelligence (CNI) suite data links for real-time data sharing as well as the APG-8.1 AESA radar, which is reported to have RF surveillance and jamming, in addition to cyberwarfare capabilities.

The technology refresh program is reported to be connected to the hardware modules only and will not affect the countermeasures systems and antenna arrays. The enhancements are reported to be introduced with aircraft belonging to Low Rate Initial Production 7, based on Block 3 baseline software and capabilities. To be applied to all F-35 versions belonging to American and international customers, work is expected to be completed by March 2018.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Presidential budget request, however, provides a deeper knowledge of F-35 EW suite, specifically the expandable countermeasures equipping the stealth aircraft. The description for air expandable countermeasures request by US Navy groups together "all unique countermeasures that provide self-protection for the JSF, specifically ALE-70, MJU-68, MJU-69 and CCU-168". While contracts for specifically tailored MJU-68/69 flares and CCU-168 impulse cartridge have already been assigned to BAE Systems for the F-35, the Department of Defence for the first time unveils the existence of the ALE-70 expandable countermeasure. According to collected data on the same system, the ALE-70 is reported to be an RF towed decoy. In the latter case, the FOTD is to be driven by a technique generator on board the F-35, which could imply the use of an RF jammer.

More recently, Northrop Grumman unveiled the development activities on a directional infrared countermeasures system (dircm) for fast jets, the first application of which is expected to be the F-35. According to Northrop Grumman the requirement for such equipment is to be issued soon. Based on experience garnered with earlier systems, including the US Army's Common infrared Countermeasures (circm) programme, Northrop Grumman presented last September a company-funded prototype of the Threat Nullification Defensive Resource (ThNDR) system, which is to begin testing in its integration laboratories by year-end. Although no requirement has been issued, the company is working in advance to be ready for an eventual request for F-35's Block 5 software update, which is scheduled for the early 2020s. Characterized by a reduced-size low-observable pointer/tracker and laser into a single, compact designed unit, the ThNDR is to have a smaller, more-powerful laser, requiring liquid cooling. To equip the F-35 with two jam heads to provide airframe spherical coverage, the ThNDR will be cued by the same company's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which has six infrared sensors for a 3600 coverage around the aircraft, providing missile warning and fine-cueing functionalities in support of the di rcm jamming heads. Moreover, in addition to surface-to-air missiles, the ThNDR is to manage air-to-air IR-guided threats, according to Northrop Grumman, which envisages offering the system in both internal and podded versions for other platforms like as the F-22, F-15 and F-16.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 13:25
by hornetfinn
Of course there has been statements about F-35 having very comprehensive EW capabilities as standard from pretty informed sources:

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=251609#p251609

The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:04
by uclass
hornetfinn wrote:Great find uclass! I think F-35 and AN/ASQ-239 offensive and defensive EW capabilities are something totally different to any fighter flying today (excluding maybe F-22). People have claimed that F-35 could only do active EW against X-band threats (due to AN/APG-81 being used for EW) but I don't think that's true. F-35 EW capabilities might be strongest against most threatening systems which are high-frequency fire control radars. IMO, it probably does have active EW capabilities against lower band radars also especially for self-protection where low power levels are enough.

As I understand it, the APG-81's ability is frequently referred to as 'stand-off jamming', implying that it can jam from significant ranges to potentially provide support for other NATO aircraft, effectively being like an X-Band only Growler, which is different to the immediate local jamming provided by the ASQ-239.

popcorn wrote:No mention is made of cyber capabilities unless these are provided by a separate system from Barracuda... or possibly it's just to hush-hush to discuss. Gen. Hostage had mentioned previously that the F-35 does have a robust cyber capability, presumably as a standard feature. Subsequently the AF has disclosed that a cyber stealth pod is undergoing development by but declined to identify by whom. This jet is clearly full of surprises that we're likely never going to be privy to.

My guess is that the APG-81's bandwidth means it can transmit more than just traditional jamming to interfere with enemy systems, something more akin to an airborne computer virus. Keypubs F-35 special also states that it can use, "other apertures, most notably the APG-81," so it sounds like the APG-81 isn't the only other aperture it can use. So maybe MADL can also be used but I'm just stabbing in the dark here.

eloise wrote:F-35 can carry ALE-70 which is a FOTD, so it should be able to jam in others frequency as well rather than X band

Indeed, Combat Aircraft also recently mentioned about expendable active jammer payloads on the F-22's AN/ALE-52 (part of AN/ALR-94 - made by same company as ASQ-239), so you can bet the F-35 also has something similar.

hornetfinn wrote: just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.

Now that's pretty crazy for built-in systems. :devil:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 16:40
by spazsinbad
Searching this F-35 forum produced 18 hits with: +electronic +Majumdar +attack (just first two will get same result).

LONG article mentioned at the URL below: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/21/stealth ... nic-attack

"...Lockheed Martin officials, however, maintain that the F-35 is able to operate inside highly contested airspace without any support assets.

“By government contract specification, the airplane is required to be able to go into high threat anti-access environments, autonomously perform its mission and survive,” said Eric Van Camp, Lockheed’s domestic F-35 business development director. “The results of flight test indicate conclusively that the airplane will meet that contract specification.”...

...Further, officials from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps agreed that while aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 are not solely relying on low observables for survivability—stealth is an absolute requirement to survive in an A2/AD environment even with airborne electronic attack support.

As one Air Force official explained, stealth and electronic attack always have a synergistic relationship because detection is about the signal to noise ratio. Low observables reduce the signal, while electronic attack increases the noise. “Any big picture plan, looking forward, to deal with emerging A2/AD threats will address both sides of that equation,” he said.

Air Force and Marine Corps officials took exception to Boeing pointing out that the F-35 only has X-band electronic attack coverage from the front. “Aft coverage may or may not be provided onboard any given fighter, but is provided by the package overall — which will likely include EA-18s,” one Air Force official pointed out.

However, Air Force and Marine Corps officials said that the Growler may not be particularly useful against emerging threats and noted that there are electronic warfare upgrades planned for the F-35 in addition to its baseline capability...."

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=24950&p=269919&hilit=electronic+Majumdar+attack#p269919

Future plans mentioned at this URL from forum link below: http://news.usni.org/2014/01/17/navys-n ... #more-6107

"...Airborne AESA radars such as the Northrop Grumman APG-77 found on the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor already have an electronic attack capability. In the future, the Lockheed F-35 and Boeing F/A-18E/F and EA-18G will also receive a similar capability for the Northrop APG-81 and Raytheon APG-79 radars...." [Network Synergy for the bigger picture]

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=25031&p=264998&hilit=electronic+Majumdar+attack#p264998

From: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AIR&s=TOP

"...[Gen. Carlisle] The F-35 even outpaces its larger twin-engine cousin, the F-22 Raptor, in certain areas, including electronic countermeasures and electronic counter-counter measures. Carlisle also praised the jet's infrared sensors and air-to-ground radar as "phenomenal."..."

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15841&p=200299&hilit=electronic+Majumdar+attack#p200299

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2015, 20:42
by spazsinbad
The 'F-35 Block 4' headed thread in this forum subsection has more on the topic however this excerpt is relevant here.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27390
Billions In F-35 Mods Debated; Canada Election Fallout
22 Oct 2015 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...“We will improve electronic attack [e.g. jamming]. We will improve electronic warfare [in general]. We will improve the radar,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, speaking to reporters after the House air-land forces subcommittee hearing. “We will add many weapons in Block 4, many unique weapons that the [foreign] partners need and use.” Those first two improvements are particularly important because the Air Force has said the F-35 won’t need the help of dedicated jamming aircraft like the Navy’s EA-18G Growler...."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/bill ... n-fallout/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2016, 21:29
by milosh

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 24 Jul 2016, 22:59
by armedupdate
Does DAS have zoom in capability? I read here it does.
As of October, the Distributed Aperture System has accumulated more than 245 flight hours on various platforms. At the Paris Air Show in June, Northrop Grumman showed imagery from an IR sensor with a 24-degree field of view. DAS sensors can be zoomed electronically within their field of view to let the F-35 pilot take a closer look at a selected target.

https://vimeo.com/124614167

But in this video it seems the DAS is only a WVR sensor judging by the pilot's words.
https://vimeo.com/124614167

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 00:37
by Dragon029
Electronic zoom = digital zoom; there won't be any optical zoom via DOS.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 01:06
by popcorn
I don't see any contradiction in having zoom capability and being a WVR sensor.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 01:20
by spazsinbad
Keep One Eye Out
01 Dec 2011 Frank Colucci

"...DAS sensors can be zoomed electronically within their field of view to let the F-35 pilot take a closer look at a selected target...."

Source: http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/militar ... 75101.html

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 12:29
by quicksilver
I"ve never heard discussion of a 'DAS zoom' capability. While technically such a system can do that, I dont think it's a feature of the F-35 (regardless of what someone reported 5 years ago).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2016, 17:14
by playloud
As I understand it, if you had an optical zoom, you would lower your field of view and lose your 360 spherical coverage.

Maybe a digital zoom (if the pilot wants to blow up an image of a plane behind him). Anything in front of the F-35 can get a good zoom shot from the EOTS.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2016, 02:15
by SpudmanWP
With the EODAS "digital zoom" the pilot can "zoom" into an area that is not covered by EOTS while at the same time the F-35 is still seeing everything in 360.

Digital zoom for EODAS pixelates rather quickly though.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2016, 06:47
by krorvik
SpudmanWP wrote:Digital zoom for EODAS pixelates rather quickly though.


Yup, that's in the nature of digital information - it has a very finite resolution :)

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2016, 03:09
by popcorn

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2016, 04:37
by nutshell
The comments are among the best ever.

ALIS servers going offline -> F35 dropping like flies.

:applause:

p.s.: yeah f*ck you server redundancy and back up units!

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2016, 05:09
by popcorn
nutshell wrote:The comments are among the best ever.

ALIS servers going offline -> F35 dropping like flies.

:applause:

p.s.: yeah f*ck you server redundancy and back up units!

Of course..they saw it in Independence Day :devil:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2016, 06:55
by spazsinbad
I guess this claim should be investigated - so far this is the first report I have seen - perhaps more is on the UK MoD website - if true, however papers these days? I'm guessing this is a laser blinding issue? But that is all it is - an ill/uninformed guess. OK found so called report. Read below for more - with an explanation from UK MoD - Oz newspapers are sh*t for shore. :mrgreen:
The F-35 Strike Fighter has been declared ‘combat capable’. But is it?
03 Aug 2016 Jamie Seidel

"...CATCH IN THE FINE-PRINT?
The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence was earlier this week startled by a new rule that may have serious implications for Australia’s own force of 72 strike fighters.

They’re not allowed to use the combat jet’s electro-optical target designation system.

Without it, they can’t drop bombs or fire missiles.

This is the advanced network of lasers, infra-red sensors and computer systems that ‘paint’ a target with a laser to guide weapons with pinpoint accuracy.

The F-35’s owner’s manual apparently came with an unexpected limitation: The targeting system is only allowed to be used inside the United States — for security reasons.

Among the restrictions are a ban on anyone being within 9km of the aircraft when the system is in use, and nobody with a set of binoculars within 33km. [OR THEY WILL BE BLINDED BY THE LIGHT?]

“If these restrictions stand, then training in the UK will be almost impossible,” a Ministry of Defence meeting was told.

The same would apply to Australia. Live combat practice would be restricted to simulators. And functionality, performance and reliability assessments under Australian conditions would be curtailed...."

Source: http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadge ... 949651507b

F-35 targeting system laser will be 'almost impossible' to use in UK
It's a new system undergoing trials, give it time, groans MoD press office
01 Aug 2016 Gareth Corfield

"US restrictions on the F-35 fighter jet's targeting system will make it “almost impossible” for training to be carried out in the UK, the Ministry of Defence fears – but its press office insists the constraints are normal.

The F-35's electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) includes a target designator laser and a laser rangefinder.

According to the Defence Ranges Safety Committee, the F-35 has only been cleared to use the designator laser “in the US under very tight controls”.

These include a ban on any optic devices being within 33km of the aircraft when the designator is switched on, and no observers being allowed within 9km of an F-35 operating its designator laser.

“If these restrictions stand, then training in the UK will be almost impossible,” an MoD civil servant wrote. The MoD's F-35 project team are said to be “in discussion” with the US to have the restrictions “reviewed”.

An RAF officer told El Reg that the restrictions are normal on new equipment in its trials phase and will probably be eased as the F-35 trials programme continues. Similar laser EOTS systems are fitted to the Typhoon and Tornado, aircraft with many years of RAF service between them.

Training areas where the EOTS could be safely used in spite of the restrictions include RAF Spadeadam in Cumbria, Otterburn Training Area, and existing designated air combat areas off the coasts of Scotland and Wales.

Two years ago a US F-35B used its EOTS to drop a 500lb laser-guided bomb on a tank on a US bombing range.

The EOTS clearly works as intended, but whether an overly risk-averse approach by the Americans or another, undisclosed factor led to the severe restrictions being noted in May this year remains to be seen.

Manufactured by Italian firm Selex ES, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Finmeccanica (which recently, and completely incomprehensibly, [bah humbug - how dare they] rebranded itself as “Leonardo”), the F-35's lasers allow the aircraft's pilot to carry out precision ranging and targeting functions, according to a Selex press release. 165 of the lasers were built in Edinburgh by Selex, while 200 complete EOTS systems had reportedly been delivered to the F-35 assembly plant by February this year.

Lockheed Martin builds the complete EOTS unit, which combines forward-looking infra-red sensors, the laser targeting and designator systems, as well as offering target tracking and high-resolution imaging functions. The F-35 itself is Link 16 compatible, meaning it can send and receive data from other top-end NATO military equipment such as other fighting aircraft, warships and ground command centres."

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/01 ... t_used_uk/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2016, 10:43
by hornetfinn
EOTS uses eye-safe laser like all modern targeting pods these days do. I doubt these restrictions are a problem for combat at all. Leonardo brochures state that "We are currently under contract to develop the next generation of laser technology within the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter electro-optic targeting system". Maybe these restrictions are to avoid intelligence about the system operation going to wrong hands?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2016, 13:38
by quicksilver
ALL laser systems (LANTIRN, SNIPER, LITENING, ATFLIR etc) are subject to the same policy restrictions.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2016, 23:09
by spazsinbad
Lots of jargon/acronyms in this 'laser' PDF from UK I do not understand however it is referenced for F-35 EOTS by ALERT5:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... l_2016.pdf (9.7Mb)

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 03:04
by jetblast16
To give you an idea about military-grade laser designation considerations...

Original source: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/ ... nators.pdf

4.1 pounds with batteries
(3.6 pounds w/o)
- 40 mJ/pulse
- 10-20 Hz
- 20 nsec pulse width
- >1 hour operation per set
of batteries
-Beam Divergence < 400uRad
- Two (2) Systems Constructed


My calculations could be wrong but with the above specs, that's about 2 MWs (megawatts) per pulse, with a pulse width of 20 nanoseconds.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2016, 07:06
by hornetfinn
Very true jetblast. Even though the lasers are "eye-safe", they can still be dangerous to the eyes and there is a reason why laser protection goggles exist. Higher powered lasers emit a lot of energy and can damage the eye and the probability increases the more exposure there is like in training. EOTS likely uses something like this or something even more powerful:

http://goo.gl/hyPRRW

With up to 300 mJ of energy per pulse in tactical situations and up to 90 mJ of energy in training, means very high energies can be reached which means danger to eyes. Especially the tactical wavelength and power is bad for the eyes and I'd bet dropping real bombs means using tactical setting even in training as laser receivers in bombs might not see training wavelength. Maybe the current restrictions are based on tactical energies and wavelengths and restrictions might be lowered as more experience is gained and systems and procedures mature?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2016, 15:51
by KamenRiderBlade
Is the threat of the F-35's IR laser designator blinding people in a real issue?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2016, 18:23
by SpudmanWP
No, it's the same safety restrictions that cover Lightning ATP and Sniper ATP when they first get certified.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2016, 22:36
by count_to_10
jetblast16 wrote:To give you an idea about military-grade laser designation considerations...

Original source: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/ ... nators.pdf

4.1 pounds with batteries
(3.6 pounds w/o)
- 40 mJ/pulse
- 10-20 Hz
- 20 nsec pulse width
- >1 hour operation per set
of batteries
-Beam Divergence < 400uRad
- Two (2) Systems Constructed


My calculations could be wrong but with the above specs, that's about 2 MWs (megawatts) per pulse, with a pulse width of 20 nanoseconds.

40 mj 10 to 20 times a second is less than 1 W.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 08:48
by krorvik
Make sure you differ correctly on Mega (M) and milli (m) - that's a whopping difference.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 08:50
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:No, it's the same safety restrictions that cover Lightning ATP and Sniper ATP when they first get certified.


While they use "eye safe" lasers, there is really no truly eye safe laser although they use wavelengths humans can not see. Modern systems use 1.54 µm wavelength in training modes with reduced output power. This wavelength is fairly safe for the eyes, but not totally without danger, so some restrictions are likely needed. 1.06 µm wavelength used for combat can be really bad for the eyes even for short exposures. Of course eye safety is not the top priority in those situations... My hunch is that those cited restrictions apply for tactical wavelength and power levels and are going to be reviewed and lowered for training wavelengths and power levels. Maybe they want to be sure that nobody accidentally uses tactical settings for training and procedures must be approved.

More about the issue:
http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles ... tions.html

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2016, 09:09
by hornetfinn
count_to_10 wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:To give you an idea about military-grade laser designation considerations...

Original source: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/ ... nators.pdf

4.1 pounds with batteries
(3.6 pounds w/o)
- 40 mJ/pulse
- 10-20 Hz
- 20 nsec pulse width
- >1 hour operation per set
of batteries
-Beam Divergence < 400uRad
- Two (2) Systems Constructed


My calculations could be wrong but with the above specs, that's about 2 MWs (megawatts) per pulse, with a pulse width of 20 nanoseconds.

40 mj 10 to 20 times a second is less than 1 W.


40 mJ 20 times a second equals 0.8 Ws (Watt Second) or 0.8 Joules as Joule equals Watt Second. That much power is sustained for one second, very small amount. 40 mJ for 20 nanoseconds however means there is 2 megawatts of energy in each pulse. Since the pulses are so very short, there is enormous amount of power in them (peak power). Average power is very low due to very long time between pulses. In this it is less than 1 Watt.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 12:15
by popcorn
So how would the F-35''s sensor suite fare against these?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 22:11
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:So how would the F-35''s sensor suite fare against these?


These decoy balloons influence imaging for prior target scheduling and deployment processes rather than actual guided targeting. In truth for tactical targeting a black box sitting like a refrigerator on the ground, with thermal management and signals emission would be more effective than the balloons during an attack.

Which sort of answers your question. While classified, the F-35's sensor fusion algorithms and sensor "data" would likely be effective against these distractions for targeting requirements. This is a strength of sensor fusion, in that the display-targeting is not "raw data" output.The weakness might be the Red October syndrome where Jonesie says, "When it gets confused it runs home to momma - magma displacement," but the system probably would NOT call it a "Mig-31," or "Missile truck" It would be "magma," worse case.

MHO
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2016, 23:48
by popcorn
Good point. Those seem more relevant vs previous gen aircraft. The F-35's fusion engine has much finer discrimination matching sensor input vs. those 600+ parameters in it's library.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 01:55
by arian
I'm not so sure about that. The radar in SAR mode would probably recognize these as real targets and ID them accordingly. You'd need a thermal sight to tell that they are decoys because usually these balloons will have a small motor providing inflation (otherwise they deflate). EOTS is not a thermal imager, correct? Also decoys can be made from wood, metal or other materials which may even fool thermal imagers. And at 100km range, I'm not sure there's a thermal imager that would work (with EOTS one could probably easily visually ID these at 100km+, judging by some of the videos of F-35 EOTS)

But you are correct, so these would be really targeted at satellite and UAV surveillance.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 03:01
by Dragon029
The decoys don't need a motor, they just need a compressed gas canister that triggers upon deployment.

EOTS also is a MWIR sensor, meaning it is a thermal imager, same as the DAS.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2016, 03:26
by arian
Dragon029 wrote:The decoys don't need a motor, they just need a compressed gas canister that triggers upon deployment.

EOTS also is a MWIR sensor, meaning it is a thermal imager, same as the DAS.


In that case, EOTS would probably recognize these as fakes. Although, at extreme ranges shown for EOTS (like that video form Las Vegas where it is looking at extremely fine detail out to 70+km), could it use its thermal sensor or simply be relying on visual?

Not an answer anyone would know, or be willing to share, I understand. But in general, I'd imagine ranges for thermal sensors will be a lot lower than ranges of visual sensors.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 04:07
by Dragon029
Again, it's a MWIR sensor; there is no visual sensing capability in it (although Advanced EOTS will add multispectral capability, which infers MWIR + SWIR + visual); the Vegas video is also at a slant range of a little over 90km.

I'm not 100% certain whether visual has a longer or shorter range than IR either; the atmosphere is more opaque to IR, but IR disperses less in the atmosphere.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 05:04
by arian
Dragon029 wrote:Again, it's a MWIR sensor; there is no visual sensing capability in it (although Advanced EOTS will add multispectral capability, which infers MWIR + SWIR + visual); the Vegas video is also at a slant range of a little over 90km.

I'm not 100% certain whether visual has a longer or shorter range than IR either; the atmosphere is more opaque to IR, but IR disperses less in the atmosphere.


OK. The Vegas video looked like it was in visual spectrum to me, that's why I asked.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 05:17
by SpudmanWP
IIR

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 05:47
by Dragon029

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 07:12
by hornetfinn
arian wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:Again, it's a MWIR sensor; there is no visual sensing capability in it (although Advanced EOTS will add multispectral capability, which infers MWIR + SWIR + visual); the Vegas video is also at a slant range of a little over 90km.

I'm not 100% certain whether visual has a longer or shorter range than IR either; the atmosphere is more opaque to IR, but IR disperses less in the atmosphere.


OK. The Vegas video looked like it was in visual spectrum to me, that's why I asked.


It's definitely made by MWIR thermal imaging system. It looks like visual spectrum because it's made with high resolution and highly sensitive MWIR thermal imaging system (EOTS) using advanced image processing. MWIR system means there is high thermal contrast which means the images have high contrast and targets can be seen very clearly from background (sky, clouds, ground, water). Thermal imaging systems see everything based on temperature differences which can be extremely small with modern systems. Then they convert that to visible spectrum images to be usable to human eyes.

Whether visual spectrum, SWIR, MWIR or LWIR has the longest range, depends on situation, environment and weather. In very clear day against clear sky background a strikingly colored target can be seen very far away with visual spectrum optical systems like binoculars. Generally IR systems outperform visual spectrum systems in most other situations like less than perfect weather, night and against most backgrounds because there is much more contrast. In most situations a fighter aicraft is used, MWIR systems have the longest range. Especially against relatively hot targets like aircraft, missiles and vehicles, modern MWIR systems will see targets at much longer ranges than visual spectrum systems. LWIR systems are best against cool targets which are viewed against very cold sky (like ballistic missile warheads at very high altitude where they are seen against space).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 18:13
by spazsinbad
For the ballonskis on previous page post photo by 'popcorn': http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... es/132350/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 23:26
by popcorn
Informative, Spaz.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 03:12
by arian
Yeah satellites should have no problem with identifying these as fake balloons. But then again, an adversary can make decoys out of realistic materials as well. For considerably more logistical costs, the Russians have thousands of decaying tanks in storage they can roll out and use as decoys.

PS: Dragon29, the video you linked to says its at 49 miles, not nautical miles. That's about 79km. Still an amazing level of detail at that range. One could probably see individual weapons carried by soldiers at that range.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 03:56
by Dragon029
arian wrote:PS: Dragon29, the video you linked to says its at 49 miles, not nautical miles. That's about 79km. Still an amazing level of detail at that range. One could probably see individual weapons carried by soldiers at that range.


The reporter says 49 miles, the screen doesn't give units but says "SLR 49.1". I could be wrong, but because this is military aviation, that should be in nautical miles. I expect that the Lockheed rep likely didn't notice the lack of "nautical" in the reporter's statement, or thought it impolite / unnecessary to correct them during the recording.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 04:53
by arian
Dragon029 wrote:
arian wrote:PS: Dragon29, the video you linked to says its at 49 miles, not nautical miles. That's about 79km. Still an amazing level of detail at that range. One could probably see individual weapons carried by soldiers at that range.


The reporter says 49 miles, the screen doesn't give units but says "SLR 49.1". I could be wrong, but because this is military aviation, that should be in nautical miles. I expect that the Lockheed rep likely didn't notice the lack of "nautical" in the reporter's statement, or thought it impolite / unnecessary to correct them during the recording.


I read 43.1, which is 49 miles.

(on second look, the video of it zooming on the houses is at 12nm, or 22km, so not as far as I had thought).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 13:35
by hornetfinn
More about how far away can you see with different systems. EODAS was able to easily detect and track SpaceX Falcon 9 space rocket from 1300 km/800 miles away. It also detected and tracked the second stage until the burn-out. All this with over 90 degree FoV which means very wide lens. Such a feat would not be possible with visual spectrum systems even in best conditions unless FoV was significantly reduced. There is just so much heat generated by rockets and missiles that it makes them far more visible in thermal wavelengths than in visual wavelengths. Of course the smoke trail can be seen far away in good conditions. Other military equipment is also generally far easier to see in IR and more difficult to counter with camouflage and paint. Of course there are situations and conditions where visual systems outperform IR systems (like looking through glass or seeing things in color).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 15:05
by Dragon029
arian wrote:I read 43.1, which is 49 miles.

(on second look, the video of it zooming on the houses is at 12nm, or 22km, so not as far as I had thought).


I think you're looking at the wrong point in time; here's an edited excerpt that shows the 49.1 figure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCbrEWUZOfA

I can see how the 9 may look a bit like a 3, but at about the 8 second mark you can see a "3" in the elevation figure (the number right above the slant range) and how it differs to the 9 in their font.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2016, 20:13
by arian
Dragon029 wrote:The decoys don't need a motor, they just need a compressed gas canister that triggers upon deployment.


BTW it turns out my initial guess was right. These things use a motor to stay inflated. So the motor would show up on thermal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZWPyy8Nfj4

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 17:23
by SpudmanWP
Found some extra info and the first "picture" of the proposed Advanced EOTS.

Lockheed Martin Unveils Advanced EOTS Development

At this year’s Air Force Association Annual Air & Space Conference and Technology Expo, Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMCO) updated on the status of its Advanced Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) development for the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft.

The baseline/legacy EOTS is a low-drag, stealthy multi-function system integrated into the F-35’s fuselage that the company touts as an affordable, high-performance, lightweight system that provides precision air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting capability. Says Lockheed Martin: “As the first sensor to combine forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality, EOTS enhances F-35 pilots’ situational awareness and allows aircrews to identify areas of interest, perform reconnaissance and precisely deliver laser and GPS-guided weapons. LMCO has delivered more than 170 EOTS units for the F-35 to date.

Lockheed Martin has now offering to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) what is calls Advanced EOTS, an evolutionary upgrade of the EOTS (completed circa 2002) that the company believes can be available for the F-35’s Block 4 development, presently scheduled to roll out in the 2019-2020 timeframe.

Designed to replace EOTS, and in response to the evolving threat, Advanced EOTS has a larger aperture and incorporates a range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared (SWIR), high-definition television, an infrared marker and significantly improved image detector resolution. These enhancements, which leverage off-the-shelf technology and DoD tech base investment including USAF investment in focal plane arrays, will increase F-35 pilots’ recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance.

Due to its similarity in shape and size to EOTS, LMCO notes that AEOTS can be installed with minimal changes to the F-35’s interface. It will be housed behind the same low-drag window (see photo, right), maintaining the F-35’s stealthy profile. Advanced EOTS production – if the F-35 program elects to procure it -- will be completed on the current EOTS line.

Don Bolling, Lockheed Martin’s Fire Control BD Director told DSJ that the AEOTS system, funded over the past five years via internal LMCO and supplier investment, is now at a Technology Readiness Level of 4 (i.e., component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment), with a demonstration planned to move the AEOTS system from TRL 4 to TRL 6 (representative system flying on a surrogate aircraft) in early 2017.

LMCO sees AEOTS as being “cost neutral” – that is, costing no more than EOTS as presently provided. Bolling notes that Lockheed Martin is proposing that the F-35 program take up funding the system’s advanced development so that AEOTS is prospectively ready for inclusion into the early Block 4 F-35 in the 2019-20 timeframe, should EOTS be a systems identified for improvement within Block 4, a development that LMCO believes to be likely.

Bolling adds that the U.S. Government will decide whether/when the capability provided in AEOTS will be fully releasable to the eight F-35 partner nations.



http://www.dsjournal.com/aeots.html

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 17:31
by talkitron
Does the internal, F-35 Advanced EOTS correspond to a particular announced version of the external Sniper targeting pod?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 17:43
by SpudmanWP
Not that I am aware of but it likely contains the sensors form the latest SniperXR pod build or maybe a new sensor for both of them.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 11:24
by cavok
talkitron wrote:Does the internal, F-35 Advanced EOTS correspond to a particular announced version of the external Sniper targeting pod?

Sniper XR afaik, i may be wrong. (not ATP SE)

No SWIR capability yet???

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 11:26
by cavok
cavok wrote:
talkitron wrote:Does the internal, F-35 Advanced EOTS correspond to a particular announced version of the external Sniper targeting pod?

Sniper XR afaik, i may be wrong. (not ATP SE). And no laser marker is there?

No SWIR capability yet???

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 14:40
by playloud
cavok wrote:
talkitron wrote:Does the internal, F-35 Advanced EOTS correspond to a particular announced version of the external Sniper targeting pod?

Sniper XR afaik, i may be wrong. (not ATP SE)

No SWIR capability yet???

"The Advanced EOTS is a further evolution of the EOTS electro-optical targeting system intended for the F-35 Block 4 stealth fighter. Advanced EOTS incorporates a wide range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared, high-definition television, an infrared marker and improved image detector resolution. These enhancements increase the F-35s recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance. Lockheed Martin announced the Advanced EOTS in September 2015."

http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/Ad ... 41002.aspx

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 17:01
by cavok
playloud wrote:
cavok wrote:
talkitron wrote:Does the internal, F-35 Advanced EOTS correspond to a particular announced version of the external Sniper targeting pod?

Sniper XR afaik, i may be wrong. (not ATP SE)

No SWIR capability yet???

"The Advanced EOTS is a further evolution of the EOTS electro-optical targeting system intended for the F-35 Block 4 stealth fighter. Advanced EOTS incorporates a wide range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared, high-definition television, an infrared marker and improved image detector resolution. These enhancements increase the F-35s recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance. Lockheed Martin announced the Advanced EOTS in September 2015."

http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/Ad ... 41002.aspx


Yes. Block 4. Ty.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 17:44
by talkitron
[quote="playloud"
"The Advanced EOTS is a further evolution of the EOTS electro-optical targeting system intended for the F-35 Block 4 stealth fighter. Advanced EOTS incorporates a wide range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared, high-definition television, an infrared marker and improved image detector resolution. These enhancements increase the F-35s recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance. Lockheed Martin announced the Advanced EOTS in September 2015."[/quote]

Thanks playloud. Here is Lockheed's infographic about new features for Sniper, which is very sparse but does mention short-wave infrared.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... raphic.jpg

Some background that helped me sort through internet links: I suspect Sniper ATP and Sniper XR are the same product, just different abbreviations for branding. ATP seems to be part of the name for several pods competing around 2001 for a USAF contract. The term ATP-SE (for sensor enhancement) refers to a USAF competition around 2010. There was a split by with IOC in 2014 for the Sniper ATP-SE.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... ility.html

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 05:53
by Dragon029
Can we get an AWIN subscriber to expand on this story?

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/loc ... as-upgrade

Lockheed Picks Raytheon For F-35 DAS Upgrade
Mar 1, 2018 James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Raytheon won Lockheed's internal Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture Systems competition over incumbent Northrop Grumman and an alternative bid by L3 Technologies: U.S. Marine Corps

Raytheon has been selected by Lockheed Martin to produce electro-optical distributed aperture systems (EO-DAS) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, besting incumbent Northrop ...

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 08:14
by citanon
I wonder if you can combine DAS with a 360 degree radar using little apertures like those you have on automobile self driving systems. Since DAS already provides angular information, you just need the radar to give you range and you have a weapon quality track on anything wvr 360 degree around the aircraft.

Since you can use das to turn on and cue the beam, you avoid giving away your position with specious emissions.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 08:55
by element1loop
citanon wrote:I wonder if you can combine DAS with a 360 degree radar using little apertures like those you have on automobile self driving systems. Since DAS already provides angular information, you just need the radar to give you range and you have a weapon quality track on anything wvr 360 degree around the aircraft.

Since you can use das to turn on and cue the beam, you avoid giving away your position with specious emissions.


Or a .. LIDAR ... ?

\/\/\/\/\/
∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

Footnote:
There are those who assert single aircraft sensors are more-or-less irrelevant now, it's all out-moded 4th-gen blah-blahs, yet fail to take on board that aggregate netted data is only as good as the quality of the contributions of the indivudual sensors, on individual aircraft. Improve the sensors and their tracking, and you need less data transfer or fusion crunching triangulations to know exactly where something always is. In a world of exploding EM spectrum battles, and EA and cyber unknowns, sensor quality and active ranging of individual sensors, on individual aircraft, will very much matter. They are in fact innate 5th-gen enablers, the better they track, the better 5th-gen systems-of-systems work, the more the fog of war is cleared.

√√√

Excuse me ... I need to go rinse out the heresy.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 09:05
by Dragon029
citanon wrote:I wonder if you can combine DAS with a 360 degree radar using little apertures like those you have on automobile self driving systems. Since DAS already provides angular information, you just need the radar to give you range and you have a weapon quality track on anything wvr 360 degree around the aircraft.

Since you can use das to turn on and cue the beam, you avoid giving away your position with specious emissions.


Theoretically it'd be possible with the MADL arrays, but as has already been discussed in other threads there's nothing suggested it's been implemented on the F-35 (yet).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 17:17
by blindpilot
Dragon029 wrote:
citanon wrote:I wonder if you can combine DAS with a 360 degree radar using little apertures like those you have on automobile self driving systems. Since DAS already provides angular information, you just need the radar to give you range and you have a weapon quality track on anything wvr 360 degree around the aircraft.

Since you can use das to turn on and cue the beam, you avoid giving away your position with specious emissions.


Theoretically it'd be possible with the MADL arrays, but as has already been discussed in other threads there's nothing suggested it's been implemented on the F-35 (yet).


That's certainly true, as well as many options for upgrades, (or for all we know undisclosed EW type capabilities). Most of the F-35 systems are mostly software not hardware (even the radios). Black Boxes have become lines of code. We need to keep in mind however, the continuum of value/risk in stealth platforms with active sensors. The F-117 was basically blind (which bit it in Kosovo). The theory was no emissions made it hard to find, but they found you do need to have some sensors. A Growler with extra pods etc. etc. would (does) have a great view of the spectrum around it, but it also lights up like a lighthouse at sea, and Air Force officers have said they don't want a Growler in the same area with an F-35 deep strike mission. Radars with LPI features (directional/frequency agile) help but if you emit much beyond a short burst, you risk being detected. The advantages of stealth bring their own enhancement to getting the "God's Eye" view of the battle space.

It all boil down to, "do you need it? how often or how critically if rarely?" and "how much does it cost for the value added?" (in $$ and risks) Those answers will likely vary over the next 50 years, as the environment changes.

MHO,
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2018, 00:29
by energo
So we have new EOTS and DAS, which is very exciting in particular if it means increased spatial resolution and reduced latency. Is AESA CNI (or MADL) arrays next? Now that would be a formidable sensor. :wink:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2018, 00:47
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:Can we get an AWIN subscriber to expand on this story?

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/loc ... as-upgrade

Lockheed Picks Raytheon For F-35 DAS Upgrade
Mar 1, 2018 James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Raytheon won Lockheed's internal Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture Systems competition over incumbent Northrop Grumman and an alternative bid by L3 Technologies: U.S. Marine Corps

Raytheon has been selected by Lockheed Martin to produce electro-optical distributed aperture systems (EO-DAS) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, besting incumbent Northrop ...

This quote at KeyPubs from 'bring_it_on': https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthr ... sion/page3
"...Lockheed received proposals from several electro-optical imaging firms. Northrop presumably put forward a proposal, but sources say L3 Technologies, Northrop’s key infrared camera supplier for the AAQ-37, also put forward a standalone bid.

It is not clear what got Raytheon’s proposal across the line, since the company has referred all questions about the EO-DAS victory to the prime contractor, Lockheed. Northrop declined to comment publicly, also referring all questions to Lockheed."

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 08:19
by Dragon029
Article is now unlocked:

http://www.aviationweek.com/program-man ... as-upgrade

Lockheed Picks Raytheon For F-35 DAS Upgrade
Mar 1, 2018 James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Raytheon has been selected by Lockheed Martin to produce electro-optical distributed aperture systems (EO-DAS) for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, besting incumbent Northrop Grumman.

Northrop is the sole supplier of the infrared AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, which provides F-35 pilots with 360-deg., spherical situational awareness, including missile launch point detection and target tracking, weapons cueing, and day/night navigation.

Lockheed is under intense pressure to reduce the cost and improve the quality of the Joint Strike Fighter, with F-35 Joint Program Office head Vice Adm. Mat Winter telling reporters this week that the price is not coming down fast enough.

To meet the demands of its government and international customers, Lockheed is shaking up its supply base to meet cost and performance targets, and Northrop appears to be one of the first high-profile casualties. Sources say Lockheed recently concluded an internal competition for alternative EO-DAS suppliers, with Raytheon emerging as the winner.

Lockheed received proposals from several electro-optical imaging firms. Northrop presumably put forward a proposal, but sources say L3 Technologies, Northrop’s key infrared camera supplier for the AAQ-37, also put forward a standalone bid.

It is not clear what got Raytheon’s proposal across the line, since the company has referred all questions about the EO-DAS victory to the prime contractor, Lockheed. Northrop declined to comment publicly, also referring all questions to Lockheed.

Lockheed first revealed that it had identified an alternative supplier during an interview at the Singapore Airshow in early February, but the firm declined to say who.

The company would not confirm the selection of Raytheon or provide an anticipated schedule for the EO-DAS transition, saying it is not ready to share specific information.

“We are constantly looking for ways to reduce costs of the F-35, as well as enhance capability,” a spokesman for the company said in an email. “While we have conducted a competition related to the next iteration of our DAS system, it is premature to discuss specifics.”

Industry sources say the switch to Raytheon’s distributed aperture system is not expected to happen any time soon. Northrop probably will continue supplying the current version of the EO-DAS until about 2023, at which point Raytheon will be cut into the production process.

Whatever Raytheon has proposed will need to be flight tested and qualified to ensure it meets all of the F-35’s mission requirements. Each F-35 is equipped with six EO-DAS infrared cameras, which allow the pilot to see through the skin of the airframe by digitally stitching the video feeds together.

Lockheed already has delivered more than 265 F-35s to the U.S. government and international customers, and that number will grow to about 900 by 2022 based on the current production ramp. To date, Northrop has supplied well more than 2,000 DAS cameras.

The fifth-generation fighter platform is at the tail end of its development program and is about to head into operational testing in the Block 3F configuration. Going forward, Lockheed will update the F-35 through what is being called the Continuous Capability Development and Delivery, or C2D2, program.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Lockheed Martin.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 11:27
by ricnunes
So this means that the current DAS built by Northrop Grumman will soon be "replaced" by a new DAS system built by Raytheon?

And speaking of DAS, I still can't understand why are you (or apparently most of you) assuming that DAS "alone" cannot range to target.
Most high quality IR sensor can range to target without the need to secondary sources such as Lasers, Radars, etc... For example the Apache TADS can range to target without using the Laser Designator/Rangefinder. But is the TADS ranging precision as good when compared to using a Laser Designator/Rangefinder? Of course not.

And the same I strongly believe, also applies to DAS.
Is DAS "lone" ranging precision as good when compared to using the Radar, Laser (EOTS) or a combination of DAS tracks shared thru MADL? Of course not!
But then again, this doesn't mean that DAS cannot come up range solution by itself (although and again, less precise).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 12:07
by element1loop
ricnunes wrote:So this means that the current DAS built by Northrop Grumman will soon be "replaced" by a new DAS system built by Raytheon?

And speaking of DAS, I still can't understand why are you (or apparently most of you) assuming that DAS "alone" cannot range to target.
Most high quality IR sensor can range to target without the need to secondary sources such as Lasers, Radars, etc... For example the Apache TADS can range to target without using the Laser Designator/Rangefinder. But is the TADS ranging precision as good when compared to using a Laser Designator/Rangefinder? Of course not.

And the same I strongly believe, also applies to DAS.
Is DAS "lone" ranging precision as good when compared to using the Radar, Laser (EOTS) or a combination of DAS tracks shared thru MADL? Of course not!
But then again, this doesn't mean that DAS cannot come up range solution by itself (although and again, less precise).


ric, I don't remember dragon or anyone else asserting a single DAS, or a single IR sensor, could not produce a dynamic range estimate, but with accuracy, not precision.

Electing to forgo single-sensor precision ranging, in DAS, seems a far-fetched proposition to me, when it is entirely achievable and simplifies much data sharing and number crunching, and provides for a far more graceful drop in capabiliy, in the event EA and cyber are more or less effective, in battle, at attriting Data-Power.

Not going to speculate what the new DAS version will bring. But I hope it includes single-sensor precision ranging.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 12:26
by gideonic
Considering how far the wingmen are in a F-35 4-ship formation, I can't see why one cannot just use multiple aircraft to passively range enemies.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 12:34
by hornetfinn
I'd say this new EO DAS probably includes mostly sensor upgrade with software (which actually does most of the work) being pretty much the same. Of course it will have to be changed to take into account likely differences in sensor specs and any possible new features it might allow. This is the beauty of having most things done with software, although it's probably not just trivial change from one supplier to another.

I see it will likely be higher resolution sensor for increased range and fidelity. Of course it might also have very similar performance to current one but with improved maintenance specs and lower lifetime costs. That would be very good too in service, although not very sexy for tech geeks like me... :wink:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 13:33
by element1loop
gideonic wrote:Considering how far the wingmen are in a F-35 4-ship formation, I can't see why one cannot just use multiple aircraft to passively range enemies.


THIS:

"... and simplifies much data sharing and number crunching, and provides for a far more graceful drop in capabiliy, in the event EA and cyber are more or less effective, in battle, at attriting Data-Power. ... "

You wan't to put all your eggs in the network basket? And hope the network is not degraded or data flow tacticaly constricted or slowed?

Seems like a really bad idea to me. Tactical digital stovepiping.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 15:28
by ricnunes
gideonic wrote:Considering how far the wingmen are in a F-35 4-ship formation, I can't see why one cannot just use multiple aircraft to passively range enemies.


Well I believe that we all agree that capability exists even because this seems to be confirmed by "official sources".

The situation with DAS being able to estimate the range to target (alone) would be for worse case scenarios like for example element1loop mentioned with the network being for some unforeseen reason, degraded or also for some unforeseen reason a (single) F-35 ends up being alone.
I would say that anyone should prepare to unforeseen reason even if they are unlikely to happen.

If you look at the business world, almost every computer/IT/Software system is networked however the majority of these system do and will still work even if for some reason the network goes down. In the military world such capability (working alone when the network is "down") is definitely a must/mandatory!

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 19:31
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:...
"... and simplifies much data sharing and number crunching, and provides for a far more graceful drop in capability,[sic] in the event EA and cyber are more or less effective, in battle, at attriting Data-Power. ... "

You wan't to put all your eggs in the network basket? And hope the network is not degraded or data flow tacticaly constricted or slowed?

Seems like a really bad idea to me. Tactical digital stovepiping.


This is certainly true in hub and spoke, critical point of failure type of systems. Here the adversary simply targets weak links in the kill chain.

What the F-35 (and other 5th gen nodes) brings to the table is a mesh network, like a fishing net, where there is no there there, at the individual knots of the net. But if a hole is punched it still functions to catch all the fish, though perhaps with some "leakage" where the failure is.

Now the F-35 takes this mesh view a step further. It empowers the node (a single aircraft) to connect and rebuild its own net environment as links are denied. It acts like a net, but when a hole is punched ... there is also a "there there." There is no stove piping, digital or otherwise. Think the Stargate replicators. That's the fifth gen goal. It's tough to find a spot to shoot at when there really isn't a kill chain.

An example might be in the deployment of the Bee by the Marines. An enemy can use long range capabilities to attack Air Refueling, AWACS, carriers, runways, bases, ... hoping to break the kill chain. But the Marine unit is a "collections of ants."

It moves the V-22 austere field package off of the "about to be sunk" LHD, changing it's support base to an ESB or LSD or ... and sets up a refueling/rearming station in a forest, on a deserted island, with a couple of F-35s that didn't make it back because the tanker went down. It spawns a mini air base in the middle of no where. And the rest of the Marine unit does that all over the battle space. The F-35 refueling hot on the ground gets battlefield data from the airborne F-35 that is as good as the AWACS, that was shot down. The challenge becomes a "Whack-a-Mole" game for the adversary.

That is not a stove pipe.

MHO,
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 16:52
by doge
Air-to-air with EOTS! :D
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/a ... zUEtD15sQ/
F-35 Air-to-Air Missiles Hit 2 Drones at Once in Test - Fighter Enters New Era
by Warrior Maven 11 hrs -edited
F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at once
F-35 Mini-Series Part I
By Kris Osborn

When a single F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at the same time with air-to-air missiles, the emerging 5th Gen fighter transitioned into a new era for offensive attack missions.

An F-35 pilot fired two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles at maneuvering drones in the air, brining synchronized attack to a new level for the aircraft, using an integrated targeting sensor, called the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).

“Two AMRAAMs had multiple targets - to shoot two airborne targets simultaneously. It was a complex set up that happened over the Pacific. They were shooting at drones,” Lt. Col. Tucker Hamilton, F-35 Test Director, Edwards AFB, told reporters.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 21:10
by blindpilot
doge wrote:Air-to-air with EOTS! :D
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/a ... zUEtD15sQ/
F-35 Air-to-Air Missiles Hit 2 Drones at Once in Test - Fighter Enters New Era
by Warrior Maven 11 hrs -edited
F-35 Mini-Series Part I
By Kris Osborn
When a single F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at the same time with air-to-air missiles, the emerging 5th Gen fighter transitioned into a new era for offensive attack missions...

While actually quite amazing, it gets even better if you think about it. The pilot of the test F-35, if in a real world battlespace ... wouldn't even know that the targeting data came from his EOTS! ... It's all fused virtuality. He never set his system to "search mode." He didn't "switch over to his EOTS" for fine targeting. He didn't "Program the missiles" for their specific assignment. He didn't do anything except see the battlespace, select an action, and "let it happen."

Yes the sensors and weapons are quite impressive, but what happens in a fused SA battlespace is more than just that. There is no reason you can't identify (see in the battlespace SA presentation) all targets, make available (arm) all weapons, and manage the battle from that same God's eye view of everything else. "Targeting" and "shooting" two targets at the same time is trivial in that context ... amazing as it is on its own.

MHO,
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 16:41
by steve2267
Magazine depth may become an issue. SACM (CUDA) can't get hear fast enough.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 16:50
by steve2267
Thinking about this concept of the system engaging / deploying / guiding munitions onto targets...

I'd hate to see a ton of $$$ flushed down a rabbit hole if the technology is not there, but given the demonstration Sandia Nat'l Labs conducted whereby they "guided" or "steered" a .50 caliber round onto a target, if a reliable and economical 25mm "smart" shell could be developed whereby it could be guided onto a target within a certain target area or volume, most probably via laser, then I could see a case where the F-35, with pilot's permission, fires a burst, of say 5 shells, which could be guided onto a ground target either via EOTS or a drone in the area or a FAC on the ground. Or a burst of 15 shells could be fired into a volume of space to be guided onto enema drone(s) in the area with EOTS (or EOTS from another F-35). In these scenarios, an optional bursting fuze would be handy.

The possibilities for some really precise direct fires CAS would be enormous.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 18:30
by cheese_e
doge wrote:Air-to-air with EOTS! :D
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/a ... zUEtD15sQ/
F-35 Air-to-Air Missiles Hit 2 Drones at Once in Test - Fighter Enters New Era
by Warrior Maven 11 hrs -edited
F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at once
F-35 Mini-Series Part I
By Kris Osborn

When a single F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at the same time with air-to-air missiles, the emerging 5th Gen fighter transitioned into a new era for offensive attack missions.

An F-35 pilot fired two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles at maneuvering drones in the air, brining synchronized attack to a new level for the aircraft, using an integrated targeting sensor, called the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).

“Two AMRAAMs had multiple targets - to shoot two airborne targets simultaneously. It was a complex set up that happened over the Pacific. They were shooting at drones,” Lt. Col. Tucker Hamilton, F-35 Test Director, Edwards AFB, told reporters.


There are some false statements in that article, and it appears some quotes were taken out of cotext and used to make some assumptions that are not true.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 18:35
by SpudmanWP
And those "false" and "out of context" statements would be?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 18:41
by wrightwing
cheese_e wrote:
doge wrote:Air-to-air with EOTS! :D
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/a ... zUEtD15sQ/
F-35 Air-to-Air Missiles Hit 2 Drones at Once in Test - Fighter Enters New Era
by Warrior Maven 11 hrs -edited
F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at once
F-35 Mini-Series Part I
By Kris Osborn

When a single F-35 used sensors, on-board computers and targeting systems to find, track and destroy two airborne drones at the same time with air-to-air missiles, the emerging 5th Gen fighter transitioned into a new era for offensive attack missions.

An F-35 pilot fired two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles at maneuvering drones in the air, brining synchronized attack to a new level for the aircraft, using an integrated targeting sensor, called the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).

“Two AMRAAMs had multiple targets - to shoot two airborne targets simultaneously. It was a complex set up that happened over the Pacific. They were shooting at drones,” Lt. Col. Tucker Hamilton, F-35 Test Director, Edwards AFB, told reporters.


There are some false statements in that article, and it appears some quotes were taken out of cotext and used to make some assumptions that are not true.


Thrill us with your acumen, Clarice.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 18:54
by cheese_e
There is no evidence to suggest that EOTS was used to cue AMRAAMs. And just because drones were shot at does not mean that they were destroyed.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 19:02
by SpudmanWP
cheese_e wrote:There is no evidence to suggest that EOTS was used to cue AMRAAMs

um, did you miss this?

An F-35 pilot fired two Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles at maneuvering drones in the air ... using an integrated targeting sensor, called the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS).


cheese_e wrote: just because drones were shot at does not mean that they were destroyed.


You missed this too?

track and destroy two airborne drones at the same time with air-to-air missiles

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 19:32
by wrightwing
We'll wait patiently, while you provide contrary evidence.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 19:57
by cheese_e
No, I read those, which is why I decided to point out they are not true. The author of the article made those claims, none of the quoted reference material backs it up.

It appears like embellished journalism to me, I challenge anyone to find other credible sources that back it up.

I dont have any contrary evidence, I just suggest that articles like this not be taken at face value.

I enjoy browsing this forum, and occasionally point out when I see thigs that are not true, so take it for what its worth to you.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 20:18
by SpudmanWP
Given that it was an article that included quotes from multiple DoD personnel... It's up to you to prove that it did not happen.

Just saying that it not being a direct quote is enough to claim that it did not happen is ludicrous.

Also, given that there were multiple reporters present, if it did not happen then we will be hearing as much.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 20:46
by wrightwing
You're using an interesting standard for truth/evidence. You question the veracity of statements in the article, as not having supporting evidence, but state that they're unequivocally false, without supporting evidence. There's nothing in the article that offers contradictory evidence. Summarizing the results, doesn't require a direct quote. It clearly stated "The test, which of course brings substantial tactical implications, was referenced as a decisive element of the Pentagon’s now completed multi-year System Development and Demonstration (SDD) test phase for the F-35."
The type of test was mentioned. The type of missile was mentioned. SDD would still be going on, had the results been anything other, than what was written.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 20:52
by SpudmanWP
The DOT&E report makes references to multiple 2xAMRAAM test events but does not state the setup.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 21:00
by juretrn
The author of the article is easily one of the best sources on developments in US military, if not somewhat dry and not particularly interested in giving his personal opinion of things.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 21:09
by blindpilot
SpudmanWP wrote:And those "false" and "out of context" statements would be?


^^^ This ^^^^
not BS, not your opinion, not your feelings, but answer Spud's question - you identify the statements that you are referencing - in quotes.

I'm still waiting for you to post the specific statements in quotes. Then we can see if we agree. I'm not very Impressed with "I dont have any contrary evidence, I just suggest .. "

So without evidence you wish to assert Kris either "embelished" or perhaps you want to go further and say "lied?" I mean "false" is half way there.

Hey you could be right, ... but if you wish to challenge the author you'll at least have to bring your credentials to the table as a start, or quote a reliable proof source, or at least show where the author might have done so in the past.(with evidence) to challenge his journalism.

MHO
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 21:14
by blindpilot
This is actually a pretty silly assertion. This was a test point. The F-35 completed SDD. Until we get a report of any test point failures, that completion alone implies the test point - "simultaneous targets" - succeeded... even if there was no article or story by any journalist.

MHO,
BP

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 21:46
by spazsinbad
IIRC - and boy my memory is just mush at moment searching for NorskMen F-35 stuff - a similar test has been reported here some years ago with a lot of supporting info/articles - but REMEMBER - IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY - IIRC. Capiche?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 11:42
by ricnunes
cheese_e wrote:No, I read those, which is why I decided to point out they are not true.


LOL, that's hilarious - so you get to decide what is true and what is not :doh:

Lets try this "philosophy" of yours:
- I decide to point out that the Earth is flat (and not round)!

For all Earthlings out there, beware that the Earth is now flat because I said it so :mrgreen:

And as opposed to cheese_e, I provide here an evidence that what I decided became the truth:

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 03:01
by lrrpf52
steve2267 wrote:Thinking about this concept of the system engaging / deploying / guiding munitions onto targets...

I'd hate to see a ton of $$$ flushed down a rabbit hole if the technology is not there, but given the demonstration Sandia Nat'l Labs conducted whereby they "guided" or "steered" a .50 caliber round onto a target, if a reliable and economical 25mm "smart" shell could be developed whereby it could be guided onto a target within a certain target area or volume, most probably via laser, then I could see a case where the F-35, with pilot's permission, fires a burst, of say 5 shells, which could be guided onto a ground target either via EOTS or a drone in the area or a FAC on the ground. Or a burst of 15 shells could be fired into a volume of space to be guided onto enema drone(s) in the area with EOTS (or EOTS from another F-35). In these scenarios, an optional bursting fuze would be handy.

The possibilities for some really precise direct fires CAS would be enormous.

I've been thinking about the same thing for A2A with the gun.

No countermeasures if you're being gunned from near-BVR, especially on a convergent intercept you didn't know you were on. Combine kinematics with quad-redundant super computing for the gun mode, plus the HMD, EOTS, and AESA, and I'm thinking of some very nasty gun mode possibilities with this thing.

MV for the GAU-22/A-
HEI: 3560fps / Mach 3.16
API: 3400fps / Mach 3.02
PGU-47/U: 3182fps / Mach 2.82

PGU-47/U combines HEI and API so you can cover both A2A and A2G targets. It has a tungsten penetrator with a radial blast fragmentation profile that shreds light skinned vehicles like aircraft. The tests they did on an RF-5 target with it are pretty impressive. Its effects on the fuel tanks, cockpit, wings, and vertical stab show substantial primary and secondary damage that would be catastrophic for an aircraft in flight.

When you consider the evolution of radar ranging gunsight technology from the F-86, to the F-15 and F-16, then factor in AESA, EOTS, super computing, passive ranging, all sensor-fused through the fire control algorithms, I think there are possibilities for gun use that have never existed before. Not out of nostalgia or trying to make a gun relevant, but out of the natural systemic capabilities of this aircraft.

There's no launch warning for guns....especially when someone is merging with you unseen from off-axis, at a much higher speed than you. Imagine a 2-ship slash strafe pass that is integrated via MADL, with solutions driven by the CPU, assessed by the sensors, and adjusted with follow-on burst.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2018, 20:30
by stevedapirate
lrrpf52 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I've been thinking about the same thing for A2A with the gun.


I suspect that guided bullets are going to have a range and ∆v problem when it comes to A2A. The AIM-9 can reach out ~20 miles compared to the GAU-22 or even GAU-8 that list ~4000 yards as the max range.

What I don't know is if that max range figure is due to dispersion or loss of bullet velocity. Maybe both? Guidance can only help with the former while probably harming the latter due to additional drag created during any course corrections.

While it isn't a straight forward comparison .50 BMG fired at 2820 ft/sec is subsonic by ~2300 yards. I would assume that 25mm is going to carry velocity a bit better, but you can see how quickly it bleeds off. Maybe RAP rounds would make the most sense if you're going to go to the expense of putting a guidance system into a bullet anyway.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2018, 23:25
by steve2267
I believe the "effective" range of the gun for most A2A shots is 1-2000', closer being better. The test program that was implemented on the F-15 (back in the 80's, if memory serves) whereby the aircraft flew a closed-systems solution to put rounds on target I think extended that out to 4000' (6000' at the absolute max).

At 1000-2000ft, the round may be moving too quickly, and the time-of-flight too short to make any auto-guiding/homing cannon shells worth the trouble. I dunno if this is worth the $$ to investigate. Technically it might be doable, but not sure it is cost effective. I was thinking with the keyboard at the time I posited those earlier thoughts.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 02:33
by madrat
Since the function of the gun is diminished, why not go with a legacy round, more compact M61 derivative, and fewer rounds so that you save significant weight and space? It's only there as insurance.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 13:27
by steve2267
madrat wrote:Since the function of the gun is diminished, why not go with a legacy round, more compact GAU-8 derivative, and fewer rounds so that you save significant weight and space? It's only there as insurance.


Changed your quote up a bit. 20mm not so good on armor. I suppose it's ok for BMPs / APCs etc. But if you want something with a little more punch, and you change your statement to a "more compact GAU-8 derirvtive", then that is what you got with the GAU-22/A. While it is correctly a GAU-12 derivative (4 barrels vs 5), one could argue the 25mm round is a slightly smaller derivative of the 30x173 round. It gives more "pop" against armored targets.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 14:50
by mixelflick
How much more pop though?

Enough to punch a hole in a tank? Not questioning what you're saying, just curious..

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 16:46
by steve2267
I dunno Mixel, I'm not an aircraft cannon expert. Ever heard of Google? It's this really kewl thing of which you can ask it anything and it spits back answers atchya! :doh: (Sorry, just had to rib ya a bit.)

In short: 25x137 (GAU-12/A, GAU-22/A) appears to have roughly twice as much "pop" on a shell by shell basis compared to 20x102 (M61 Vulcan) and half as much "pop" compared to a 30x173 (GAU-8/A -- A-10).

25x137 appears to have no issue with 8mm - 12mm RHA plate at tactically significant ranges (out to 9000', perhaps? That's a LONG shot). 25x137 APEX also appears to be able to handle 20mm RHA plate @ 45° (not sure of the range) and 50mm RHA plate @ 0° (i.e. perpendicular impact). 20x102 seems to handle 8-12mm RHA OK. Not sure how it does with 20mm armor plate.

Am guessing this means M61 Vulcan may be getting a little long in the tooth for the newest armored personnel carriers, but that the GAU-22/A should not have an issue with them. GAU-22/A may be able to handle older tanks, dunno. I read somewhere that even the GAU-8/A may not be quite up to snuff against the very latest tanks. If true, then dropping to 25mm didn't lose much. On the other hand, maybe the 25x137 round may be able to disable an MBT from the side / rear top if it can disable the engine. I don't know how much armor tanks have there. They can't have 500mm of armor everywhere.

After googling a bit, my overall impression is that the GAU-22/A offers roughly comparable (perhaps slightly better?) performance to the M61 Vulcan. The 20mm Vulcan spits out roughly 81% more shells per second, so perhaps slightly better chance of getting a hit from more BBs. But each 25mm shell packs more wallop. So maybe a single 25mm will do in a fighter, whereas a single 20mm will only damage it (badly?). I can's speak to TOF (time of flight), range, or accuracy. Both the 20x102 shell (Vulcan) and 25x137 (GAU-22/A) have similar muzzle velocities. TOF to 1000' is probably negligibly different. The 25x137 *may* retain velocity better at longer ranges. But that's a swag on my part. On the other hand, one parameter I have seen discussed as an air-to-air gun factor is "throw weight" which is total mass a gun system can project in one second. The M61 spits out 100 100g 20mm shells a second for a total throw weight of 10kg. Using a Nammo PGU-47/U 25mm round (222g) for ammunition, a GAU-22/A will dispense 12.2kg per second. So a slight "throw weight" advantage to the GAU-22/A.

One web page, Modern Fighter Gun Effectiveness blah blah's on about a bunch of stuff, throwing out some numbers that I don't know how accurate or meaningful they are. However, they suggest the following:

30mm (30x173) == 2 x 25mm (25x137) == 4 x 20mm (20x102).

That is, the 30mm shell the A-10 fires is roughly twice as powerful as the 25mm shell the AV-8B / F-35 / AC-130 fires, which is roughly twice as powerful as the 20mm shell the M61 Vulcan (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22) fires.

I am attaching below some Nammo PDF's I found. One I've seen before. The other appears to be the Nammo 2016 catalog. You can browse it for all sorts of munitions & projectiles. 25x137 APEX is on p. 89. 30x173 begin around p. 100. Happy surfing.

Some suggested Google search strings:

25mm apex armor penetration
armor penetration 20x102 25x137 30x173
20x102 25x137 30x173 compared
20x102 vs 25x137 vs 30x173

In my opinion, the F-35 possesses a gun system that is roughly equivalent to the M61 20mm cannon for air-to-air work, but offers roughly double the effectiveness in the air-to-ground role. A pilot with a good trigger finger will get 2-3 squirts with the -A model, and maybe 3-4 squirts with the -B and -C. The fat fingered pilot may only get 2 squirts out of each. However, comments by someone else in another thread a while back suggested the F-35 may be able to be programmed to fire precise round counts settable by the pilot via his gee whizzery flat panel display. The mental picture I have is that the pilot may be able to select a 10rd burst, or 20, or 30 etc. Combined with the JTAC wizardry being built in, it may be possible that the F-35 pilot can get / confirm target coordinates from the JTAC, and then have the aircraft fly a closed-system gunnery solution whereby the F-35 fires the gun with a commit authorization from the pilot. Then 10 or 20 or 30 rounds are precisely dispensed on the target. If true, IMO this would be an awesome CAS capability that no other aircraft possesses and could result in some truly special CAS abilities.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 16:57
by steve2267
I forgot to throw up this image I found here: http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... annon.html

While this image is comparing APDS (armor piercing discarding sabot) performance between three different rounds used by cannons on APC's, I think it can give you a general, qualitative performance comparison between the 30x173 (A-10) and the 25x137 (F-35) rounds. This image suggests the 25mm gets you about 2/3 of the wallop of the 30mm.

Image

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 17:25
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:How much more pop though?

Enough to punch a hole in a tank? Not questioning what you're saying, just curious..

Remember that the much vaunted DU rounds for the GAU-8 are a thing of the past. 25mm APEX is going to do better against armor than 30mm HE.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 09 May 2018, 22:26
by marauder2048
stevedapirate wrote:
lrrpf52 wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I've been thinking about the same thing for A2A with the gun.


I suspect that guided bullets are going to have a range and ∆v problem when it comes to A2A. The AIM-9 can reach out ~20 miles compared to the GAU-22 or even GAU-8 that list ~4000 yards as the max range.

What I don't know is if that max range figure is due to dispersion or loss of bullet velocity.


Some high explosive rounds need sufficient impact velocity to initiate the fuze.

IIUC, some of the guided rounds that are being investigated can be command detonated via the datalink
so that could be less of an issue. For A2A, I tend to think the main utility of guided cannon rounds
would be in the C-UAS/counter-cruise missile role.

The company is also investing in advanced ammunition, such as programming 30mm rounds to be airburst rounds, which has great utility in countering unmanned aircraft systems, for example.

Orbital has a deployed a counter-UAS system with ground forces, but has ways to convert it to be used on ships or at sea ports.

And Orbital has also developed a way to guide small ammunition to hit even moving targets, Kahn noted.

The company took a 50-caliber round with precision guidance and hit moving targets in tests through the EXACTO program with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency several years back, Olson said.

Advanced ammunition has great utility for programs like the F-35, Kahn said, because instead of shooting 30 or 40 rounds to hit a target, a guided round can take out a target in one or two shots. An F-35 is limited to carrying roughly 200 rounds.


https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/04/11/orbital-atk-expansions-anticipate-surge-in-dod-advanced-munitions-technology-needs/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2018, 21:32
by stevedapirate
I think that if you're going the route of guided gun ammunition you're probably going to want to go bigger but with a slower RoF. (Especially at $25k per shot!)

The GAU-8 has a max range of 1220 m where a 40mm Bofors has 10x the range and can reach out to 12,500 m. This should allow for a lot more flexibility in both A2A and A2G. With that kind of range you should be able to engage ground targets with guided gun fire from 40k ft. where manpads are a lot less problematic.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2018, 01:31
by madrat
If you go bigger it's more stress per round unless you bleed off significant energy in a recoilless system.

It's probably easier to integrate guided rockets into a small stealthily pod. How far can you reach with a 70mm-ish folding fin rocket?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2018, 06:39
by marauder2048
DoD FY2018 Rapid Innovation Fund

U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
Requirement #: SOCOM-18-BAA-RIF-0001
Title: Guided 30MM Ammunition Capability
Military System or Acquisition Customer: Program Executive Office (PEO) – Fixed Wing
(FW)
Description: Provide an enhanced accuracy, guided 30MM ammunition capability that is
compatible with current AC-130 W/J platforms’ Mk 44 Bushmaster II (GAU-23) automatic
cannon weapon systems. Deliver a 30MM round capable of receiving and responding to
externally provided post launch course corrections to accurately engage designated moving and
stationary ground targets, with guidance systems that are compatible with current Precision
Strike Package (PSP) on the AC-130 W/J aircraft configurations with little or no hardware
modifications. Proposed software modifications should lead to demonstrable capability by minor
additions to PSP software in about six months with full capability fitting in the annual PSP
software release cycle. The guided 30MM round target circular error probability (CEP) must be
predictable and provide considerable improved accuracy over standard unguided 30MM
ammunition. The guided 30MM round must operate within the operating envelope of the
AFSOC AC-130 W/J, altitudes (15,000 – 25,000’ MSL), ranges (1.0 - 10.0nm) and slant ranges
(2.5 – 3.0nm). Use of high fidelity modeling throughout development is encouraged to
determine the optimal munition configurations, characteristics and maximize the value of range,
ground, and flight testing. The initiative will conclude with a guided 30MM ammunition round
design, guidance and control system, and tracking system that has been demonstrated in a nearfinal
and realistic configuration.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2018, 17:37
by talkitron
Raytheon will replace Northrop as the supplier of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) in 2023, corresponding to block 15. Raytheon did not bid as they apparently did not see much profit; Raytheon's price will be lower. Also, the Raytheon system should have performance enhancements.

Here is a press release and a news article.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockhee ... 0002750882

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06 ... 35-system/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2018, 18:17
by sprstdlyscottsmn
2x increase in performance huh? Even if that really means twice the number of pixels per sensor for a ~40% increase in range that is very significant. The system already is credited with tracking orbital class launch vehicles from 800nm. A more dubious claim of detecting an AIM-120 launch from 1,200nm has been made, but I would be concerned about that claim at 10% of that range.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2018, 21:54
by spazsinbad

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 02:36
by smsgtmac
talkitron wrote:Raytheon will replace Northrop as the supplier of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) in 2023, corresponding to block 15. Raytheon did not bid as they apparently did not see much profit; Raytheon's price will be lower. Also, the Raytheon system should have performance enhancements. ...


I'm sure you meant Northrop Grumman did not bid. In any case the article you referenced stated:

Northrop chose not to bid for future DAS production after deciding that it was no longer an attractive business opportunity, said Kathy Warden, the company’s president and chief operating officer, in an April earnings call.

On Wednesday, Northrop spokesman Brian Humphreys elaborated, saying that the company “applied the same disciplined approach we use when considering all business pursuits and concluded that it wasn’t the right business deal for us.”


This could have been for a variety of reasons up to and including the program was viewed as unexecutable due to either the terms and conditions (schedule, guarantees,etc.), price point, or tech maturity. If NG found the risk not acceptable, I would tend to believe them, as their track record in sidestepping disastrous programs is pretty good lately. It could have been simple timing: the risk in this program may have been acceptable if NG wasn't already stretching their wings elsewhere (B-21, GBSD). Watch for issues regarding cost, schedule or performance, or combination of any of the above to manifest itself down the line.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 04:05
by Corsair1963
What's the latest on the APEX Round??? (PGU-47/U) Is the F-35 still going to get it???

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 07:25
by marauder2048
From Armaments 2018

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 07:28
by marauder2048
continued

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 07:51
by weasel1962
The mainstay of the USAF F-35As is still PGU-48 at least until FY 2019.
No news on the USN qualifying any round beyond the PGU-32.

The Norwegians and likely the Australians are the users of Nammo PGU-47.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 11:56
by hornetfinn
If Raytheon can make the DAS system 5 times more reliable and have twice the performance while being significantly cheaper to buy and operate, that's really awesome. I think the improved reliability is likely the biggest thing really, even though improved performance is also nice. Of course saving money is great too as it can be spent elsewhere to improve other areas. I wonder if EOTS can be similarly improved (like the planned Advanced EOTS)?

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 15:35
by viper12
I wonder why they decided in the NDIA Armaments Forums slides to study the shells' effects with FORTY-SIX people stacked in a 16x16ft room. That's basically the density of a crowded elevator...

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 18:10
by wrightwing
I'd be curious to know what upgrades the F-22 is getting to its AAR-56 (or follow on sensors.)

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 04:33
by charlielima223
wrightwing wrote:I'd be curious to know what upgrades the F-22 is getting to its AAR-56 (or follow on sensors.)


I would like it to be more "DAS-ish" in nature. It doesn't need to provide imagery for the pilot but it would be very awesome if it could provide cueing and ID.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 05:44
by hornetfinn
charlielima223 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:I'd be curious to know what upgrades the F-22 is getting to its AAR-56 (or follow on sensors.)


I would like it to be more "DAS-ish" in nature. It doesn't need to provide imagery for the pilot but it would be very awesome if it could provide cueing and ID.


I think it would be relatively easy to show the interesting imagery (like ID'd target) in the cockpit displays. There seems to be interest for upgrading the system:
https://www.themaven.net/warriormaven/air/air-force-preps-f-22-for-2060-new-sensors-radar-avionics-ai-BMw9vbS3xk2dymJlS4PW2g/

Specifically, Merchant said, F-22 engineers were already exploring a lightweight DAS-like sensor system for the F-22, able to bring advanced tech to the F-22 without compromising stealth advantages or maneuverability.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 07:19
by weasel1962
Last I heard, it was supposed to be SAIRST lite with increment 3.3. Not sure the status of 3.3. Likely into the next decade.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 18:31
by marauder2048
viper12 wrote:I wonder why they decided in the NDIA Armaments Forums slides to study the shells' effects with FORTY-SIX people stacked in a 16x16ft room. That's basically the density of a crowded elevator...


IIUC, ( per the "WarheadView Analysis Interpretation of Results" slide) that just represents the
possible single personnel positions in a room which are then used compute an average and
maximum probability of incapacitation for a single personnel target in the room.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2018, 22:26
by viper12
That would indeed be legit for computing averages ; the one thing I'm unsure after re-reading these slides is whether these 46 mannequins were physical or imaginary. If they were physical (and made of something relatively dense and solid), they may have impeded the fragments' flight.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 01:53
by marauder2048
viper12 wrote:That would indeed be legit for computing averages ; the one thing I'm unsure after re-reading these slides is whether these 46 mannequins were physical or imaginary. If they were physical (and made of something relatively dense and solid), they may have impeded the fragments' flight.


I think they are computer simulated personnel targets but the fragment velocities/trajectories/sizes are
computed or inferred from the actual test firings.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 11:36
by hornetfinn
Really interesting regarding DAS and EOTS capabilities:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=397268&hilit=Verification+3519#p397268

Dragon029 wrote:Air System Design Papers:
F-35 Mission Systems Design, Development, and Verification 6.2018-3519.pdf



The EOTS’s functionality consists of a TFLIR image, laser range finder/designator, laser spot tracker, and IRST,
as shown in Fig. 11. The EOTS uses low-profile gimbals with an optical system that maintains boresight accuracy
between the forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and laser functions. Precise stabilization of the EOTS’s line of sight is
achieved by gyro-controlled AZ and EL gimbals, and fine stabilization is achieved through a fast-steering mirror.
Equipped with a staring 1024-by-1024-element MWIR focal plane array, the EOTS is a dual-FOV system. The narrow
FOV is optimized for targeting functions, and the wide FOV is developed to maximize search performance.


So it seems like EOTS is technologically pretty much on par with latest operational podded targeting systems (save for SWIR and/or EO channels in some very latest pods) and clearly superior to any fielded fighter IRST system. Pretty impressive for built-in and fully integrated system.

Interesting things about DAS:

The program required a 360-degree spherical coverage missile warning system. The EO DAS consists of six identical
MWIR sensors distributed on the aircraft, each with a corresponding airframe window panel. The sensors are installed
such that their respective FOVs (95-degree AZ and EL) overlap to provide total spherical coverage. This EO DAS
subsystem provides the pilot with both an MWIR tracking capability and FLIR visual scene, but its FLIR is more
comprehensive. In legacy FLIR systems the pilot’s visual scene was limited to the forward sector. With the F-35’s EO
DAS, the pilot has a 360-degree spherical view of the environment. This allows for a true synthetic vision system, with
the image displayed on the pilot’s helmet-mounted display (HMD).


So this seems to confirm some earlier statements about 95-degree coverage by each sensor. Nothing about resolution though.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:05
by sprstdlyscottsmn
hornetfinn wrote:So this seems to confirm some earlier statements about 95-degree coverage by each sensor. Nothing about resolution though.

So, does it make more or less sense to put a better resolution array on a wide angle staring unit than one with adjustable FOV? No reason for it to be less than what is used on EOTS, and having the coverage confirmed is awesome. These are a gold mine.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 15:43
by Dragon029
It does certainly bolster the previous data that indicated that the DAS sensors are 1k x 1k arrays.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2018, 01:27
by madrat
With mirrors and crystal prisms you can have multiple focal arrays fed off one port. With stealth being critical, it's truly the port size, not the focal array density, that is your definitive technological limitation. If this was 1980 you wouldn't have the optics to even see at today's ranges or with anywhere near the available spectrum. It's already amazing what the original F-35 optics began. Now think how exciting it would be to see what they aren't revealing in public sources.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2018, 07:17
by hornetfinn
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:So this seems to confirm some earlier statements about 95-degree coverage by each sensor. Nothing about resolution though.

So, does it make more or less sense to put a better resolution array on a wide angle staring unit than one with adjustable FOV? No reason for it to be less than what is used on EOTS, and having the coverage confirmed is awesome. These are a gold mine.


IMO it'd be really strange if the EODAS resolution was less than in EOTS. If I had to bet, it likely has equal resolution due to timeline of their development and imagery seen in public. It could also be possible that EODAS uses higher resolution (2Kx2K) detector as such detectors were available over a decade ago. This was the state of the art ten years ago:
https://www.raytheon.com/news/rtnwcm/gr ... g_pdf2.pdf

Those documents definitely are a goldmine of information regarding F-35. :drool:

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2018, 08:53
by hornetfinn
madrat wrote:With mirrors and crystal prisms you can have multiple focal arrays fed off one port. With stealth being critical, it's truly the port size, not the focal array density, that is your definitive technological limitation. If this was 1980 you wouldn't have the optics to even see at today's ranges or with anywhere near the available spectrum. It's already amazing what the original F-35 optics began. Now think how exciting it would be to see what they aren't revealing in public sources.


This is very true. That kind of concept has been used in ARGUS-IS and Gorgon Stare system before albeit using visible light and not IR. Using IR sensors instead would be pretty straightforward and AFAIK there is also ARGUS-IR which works in IR. Of course such mosaic of FPAs needs processing power to stitch the images together but that's not much of a problem anymore. I think we might well see some future EODAS sensor with such a sensor when that technology is mature and becomes cheap enough. It's not that easy though and will take time as evidenced by the fact that there aren't more of this kind of systems outside of astronomical sensors.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 21:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Just a thought, if the DAS can provide 20/40 display to the visor then the largest possible degrees per pixel would be 0.03333, which at 95deg FOV corresponds to a 2,850x2,850 array. Corresponds to a 35ft pixel coverage at 10nm which is plenty for frontal aspect detection of a fighter.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2018, 22:34
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Just a thought, if the DAS can provide 20/40 display to the visor then the largest possible degrees per pixel would be 0.03333, which at 95deg FOV corresponds to a 2,850x2,850 array. Corresponds to a 35ft pixel coverage at 10nm which is plenty for frontal aspect detection of a fighter.

What's the pixel size for 20/20? Most of the claims I've seen are "near 20/20 acuity."

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 00:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Over 5k x 5k. So a 4k x 4k would be "near"

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 06:33
by marauder2048
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Over 5k x 5k. So a 4k x 4k would be "near"


Consider that at 16 Megapixels, 12-bits per pixel and 30 Hz you could very easily
saturate the available fiber channel bandwidth.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2018, 16:27
by SpudmanWP
Given that each EODAS unit is connected via fiber optics to the avionics bay, it's just a matter of upgrading the transceivers to handle the bandwidth as capacities increase. Besides 4k * 30hz * 12 bit = Bandwidth Per Channel of 6.72 Gbps which is perfectly fine for fiber.

Https://k.kramerav.com/support/bwcalculator.asp

However, 8Gbps FC was not available in the early 2000's (2Gbps in 2001, 4Gbps in 2004, etc).

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_Channel

The workaround would obviously be only streaming data that is needed (eg hi-res data of area of interest, relevant view for HMDS, etc).

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 02:27
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:Given that each EODAS unit is connected via fiber optics to the avionics bay, it's just a matter of upgrading the transceivers to handle the bandwidth as capacities increase. Besides 4k * 30hz * 12 bit = Bandwidth Per Channel of 6.72 Gbps which is perfectly fine for fiber.

Https://k.kramerav.com/support/bwcalculator.asp

However, 8Gbps FC was not available in the early 2000's (2Gbps in 2001, 4Gbps in 2004, etc).


There's ~ 20% encoding overhead so even 8 Gbps couldn't handle it. That changed with 10 GFC though.

SpudmanWP wrote:The workaround would obviously be only streaming data that is needed (eg hi-res data of area of interest, relevant view for HMDS, etc).


There was a suggestion in at least one article that they do some processing (possibly compression) at the sensor front-ends.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 10:52
by spazsinbad
Raytheon’s DAS Sensor: Weighs Less, Uses Less Power, Lockheed Says
16 Jul 2018 Colin Clark

"...Greg Ulmer, the new head of Lockheed’s F-35 program, describes here why the company went with Raytheon’s sensor. He offered new details about it, noting it weighs less than Northrop’s and uses less power than does the current version."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/ray ... heed-says/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 16:30
by SpudmanWP
I would sure hope so given the last 15+ years of component miniaturization and power improvements. It makes complete sense that it would be smaller along with cheaper, more durable, and more powerful to boot.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2018, 19:54
by SpudmanWP
Ulmer highlighted the recent award to Raytheon of a contract to replace Northrop Grumman as the supplier of the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) on future F-35 production aircraft. Raytheon’s product is twice as capable and five times more reliable, while saving 10 to 15 pounds (4.5 kg to 6.8 kg) of weight, he said.


https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ustainment

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2018, 14:49
by taog
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:2x increase in performance huh? Even if that really means twice the number of pixels per sensor for a ~40% increase in range that is very significant. The system already is credited with tracking orbital class launch vehicles from 800nm. A more dubious claim of detecting an AIM-120 launch from 1,200nm has been made, but I would be concerned about that claim at 10% of that range.


5 times the resolution → ~2.23 times the detection range.
So 2x increase in performance refers to the detection distance ?

Northrop’s contract to supply the DAS only extends through 2023, but the company declined to compete for a follow-on contract. Raytheon won the contract beginning with Lot-15 F-35 DAS, which Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works head and former F-35 lead Jeff Babione said will have five times the resolution of the current DAS at a lower cost.

http://interactive.aviationtoday.com/av ... -learning/

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 13:36
by taog
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.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/loc ... grade-f-35

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 17:16
by element1loop
Plus potential for significant sensitivity improvement given the time/tech period since the initial sensor.

Re: Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2018, 19:55
by castlebravo
marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Over 5k x 5k. So a 4k x 4k would be "near"


Consider that at 16 Megapixels, 12-bits per pixel and 30 Hz you could very easily
saturate the available fiber channel bandwidth.


Wouldn't 12-bits per pixel be a bit extreme for gray-scale?