Of DAS, EOTS etc..

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 11:56

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)?
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 15:35

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...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2723
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post14 Jun 2018, 18:10

I'd be curious to know what upgrades the F-22 is getting to its AAR-56 (or follow on sensors.)
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 04:33

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.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2362
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 05:44

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.
Offline

weasel1962

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 07:19

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 18:31

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.
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 189
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post15 Jun 2018, 22:26

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post16 Jun 2018, 01:53

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.
Previous

Return to F-35 Avionics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests