Of DAS, EOTS etc..

Cockpit, radar, helmet-mounted display, and other avionics
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4800
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 01:56

Good lord. even if we assume the pilot was only 15,000ft, which I think is way too low, to have the spherical system detect a thermally insulated biologic that is underwater is crazy!
"Spurts"

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

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 02:09

Now F-35 pilots must learn Submarinese :

"Conn, sonar: Master 2 is classified as Biologic." :twisted:
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1414
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 07:29

Amazing stuff Doge, what a shocker for the pilot, thanks for posting.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24417
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 09:42

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Good lord. even if we assume the pilot was only 15,000ft, which I think is way too low, to have the spherical system detect a thermally insulated biologic that is underwater is crazy!

Probably the whale was just near the surface - during a transit perhaps - this is a quote:
"...I’m getting this really fuzzy image of a boat down below me out in the Pacific’. And he goes: ‘Oh, wait. The boat jumped out of the water. It was a whale!’ He was looking at underneath the water with the system.”..."
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post29 Sep 2019, 12:00

doge wrote:“The first pilot that did it was complaining up a storm saying, ‘I’m not sure the system’s working all that well. I’m getting this really fuzzy image of a boat down below me out in the Pacific’. And he goes: ‘Oh, wait. The boat jumped out of the water. It was a whale!’ He was looking at underneath the water with the system.”



WOW, simply WOW :shock:

Now it's time to equip the F-35 with Torpedoes as well and add it another role - ASW :mrgreen:

I'm joking of course (or maybe not :wink: ) but and continuing with joking:
- I'm sure that Giovanni de Briganti will come up with an article saying that this once again proves the failure of the F-35 since it shouldn't be detecting underwater whales :mrgreen: :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3094
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 08:27

taog wrote:Image quality and resolution difference between EOTS and Advanced EOTS

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019-09 ... evelopment

Image


Just looked at the YouTube version of that video and what's the description there. It says:

Shows the capabilities captured by EOTS Mid-Wave IR camera (left) and Advanced EOTS Short-Wave IR camera (right) looking at a building.


Another similar video from LM. Also showing difference between SWIR and MWIR imagery.


Of course MWIR would have superior range performace against hot or warm targets. But in resolution and contrast SWIR is definitely better when there is at least some light available.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 16:09

hornetfinn wrote:
taog wrote:Image quality and resolution difference between EOTS and Advanced EOTS

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019-09 ... evelopment

Image


Just looked at the YouTube version of that video and what's the description there. It says:

Shows the capabilities captured by EOTS Mid-Wave IR camera (left) and Advanced EOTS Short-Wave IR camera (right) looking at a building.



Thanks for the heads up hornetfinn :thumb:

I'm glad to know that my impressions/opinion on the subject were correct.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 10:50

A question:

Has DAS System from F-35 attack capability by itself? i think each sensor of the system has laser rangefinder, or not?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 11:21

falcon.16 wrote:A question:

Has DAS System from F-35 attack capability by itself? i think each sensor of the system has laser rangefinder, or not?


DAS or more precisely each sensor of DAS (6 in total if my memory isn't failing me) doesn't have any laser rangefinder or designador "per se".
But and technically DAS should be able to range "by itself" via triangulation (although not nearly as precise as a laser rangefinder) and/or the F-35 sensor fusion engine can cue the EOTS laser rangefinder/designador (or other sensors such as the AESA radar) at each of the targets detected by DAS in order to have a more accurate range reading.

When the capabilities above are shared by and merged using the sensor fusion data from more than one (1) F-35 than these same capabilities will grown exponentially!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 11:26

ricnunes wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:A question:

Has DAS System from F-35 attack capability by itself? i think each sensor of the system has laser rangefinder, or not?


DAS or more precisely each sensor of DAS (6 in total if my memory isn't failing me) doesn't have any laser rangefinder or designador "per se".
But and technically DAS should be able to range "by itself" via triangulation (although not nearly as precise as a laser rangefinder) and/or the F-35 sensor fusion engine can cue the EOTS laser rangefinder/designador (or other sensors such as the AESA radar) at each of the targets detected by DAS in order to have a more accurate range reading.


I understand, but i talked about dont use the radar. Technically it is possible, thanks.

Maybe using Barracuda system too.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1381
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 12:06

The F-35's DAS can provide some rudimentary level of rangefinding, at least against surface threats or surface-launched missiles through trigonometry, but against airborne targets that are just a single pixel or few it's not really going to have an capability to determine range.

Instead, this is where sensor fusion comes into play, with the F-35 getting range data from things like its ESM suite, or from its radar or EOTS if it's within their field of view, or it can get data from other platforms reporting a sighting of a threat.

One capability that was undergoing testing just a few months ago was F-35 multi-ship IRST, where multiple F-35s are able to triangulate the location of a threat by comparing the bearing and elevation that each F-35's IR sensors (it's unclear if this is just for the EOTS, or just for the DAS, or both, but I'd expect it's both), and comparing the 3D position of each F-35 relative to each other. Through that method, you can have 3D tracking of airborne threats just using (presumably) DAS sensors, but with requirement that multiple F-35s have line of sight to the target.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 12:07

falcon.16 wrote:Maybe using Barracuda system too.


Yes, that too as well. Of course that for this, the enemy aircraft (radar) must be emitting.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 12:32

Dragon029 wrote:The F-35's DAS can provide some rudimentary level of rangefinding, at least against surface threats or surface-launched missiles through trigonometry, but against airborne targets that are just a single pixel or few it's not really going to have an capability to determine range.


I would say that it's quite possible to have DAS figuring out a range solution against an airborne target "by itself" even if it appears as a single or few pixels size or else how would DAS figure out/detect and alert the pilot from incoming missiles?
Imagine all sorts of false alarms or probably worse even, no alerts at all regarding several missiles flying around the airspace/battlespace that the F-35 pilot would get or not get?

Yes, against a distant airborne target a range solution gathered by DAS wouldn't be nearly as accurate as other means/sensors such as Radar, Laser or even the EOTS/IRST (without using the laser) and its range figure/solution would probably fail by a few/some kilometers but I would say that DAS "by itself" could gather a roughly approximate range/distance of a target.

Dragon029 wrote:Instead, this is where sensor fusion comes into play, with the F-35 getting range data from things like its ESM suite

I would say that if the ESM can get a range solution/figure than DAS would also be able to do the same.


Of course that I fully agree that with sensor fusion and F-35 multi-ship, DAS will be able to get a much more precise and accurate range figure/solution.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1381
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 15:38

ricnunes wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:The F-35's DAS can provide some rudimentary level of rangefinding, at least against surface threats or surface-launched missiles through trigonometry, but against airborne targets that are just a single pixel or few it's not really going to have an capability to determine range.


I would say that it's quite possible to have DAS figuring out a range solution against an airborne target "by itself" even if it appears as a single or few pixels size or else how would DAS figure out/detect and alert the pilot from incoming missiles?
Imagine all sorts of false alarms or probably worse even, no alerts at all regarding several missiles flying around the airspace/battlespace that the F-35 pilot would get or not get?

The DAS would be detecting missiles based on radiance, position relative to the horizon and its apparent path; again, if it's launching from the ground, DAS does have launch-point detection, so it could estimate time until intercept, but if a missile is launched by an unseen platform and is gliding in after a minute or so of lofted flight, I wouldn't be surprised if the DAS isn't capable of providing a reliable range estimate. Monitoring a DAS track over time, combined with F-35 navigation data, you could start to build an estimate, but while a target is still just a pixel or few, and you don't have any other sensors providing data, there's going to be multiple possible targets, each with very different flight paths.

If you see a dot moving across the horizon, you don't know if it's an F-35 cruising at subsonic speeds 100km away, or an F-22 flying at supersonic speeds 200km away - the amount of IR energy that arrives at your sensor can be the same if the F-22's higher IR output is matched by the inverse-square law delivering less of that energy to your sensor.

ricnunes wrote:I would say that if the ESM can get a range solution/figure than DAS would also be able to do the same.

The biggest difference here is that DAS doesn't have much overlap between the sensors, whereas the ASQ-239 has multiple apertures (and potentially multiple antennas in an array for each aperture). If you have two arrays that (for example) determined a target bearing using phase-shift detection or time of arrival, then you suddenly have 2D triangulation of bearing and range (to within a limited resolution).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2698
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Apr 2020, 16:24

Dragon029 wrote:The biggest difference here is that DAS doesn't have much overlap between the sensors, whereas the ASQ-239 has multiple apertures (and potentially multiple antennas in an array for each aperture). If you have two arrays that (for example) determined a target bearing using phase-shift detection or time of arrival, then you suddenly have 2D triangulation of bearing and range (to within a limited resolution).


Well, with DAS you also have multiple sensors. It has 6 sensors around the aircraft so some or many of the times you can have two (2) DAS sensors looking at the same target which would allow for the same 2D triangulation (between 2 DAS sensors and the target). But even if it doesn't then I believe you could still build a fairly approximate range solution (nothing too precise, of course) using data such as a generic target/aircraft size, position relative to the own aircraft (F-35), current own aircraft (F-35) speed and heading, apparent target path, gathering if the target getting closer or getting away (could be done by an increase or decrease in pixels) which helps calculate the apparent target path, etc... (not to dissimilar to what happen with passive-sonar tracking on Submarines).

If the target is too far away and as such represented by a single pixel then I guess that a triangulation together with EOTS would be perfectly feasible (since the target would be too far away thus greatly increasing the chances of being within the EOTS field of view) and this with all the advantages that EOTS/IRST brings.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests