DAS targeting vs radar targeting

[popcorn]

Duct tape definitely handy for securing loose stuff in flight... But comms is restricted as pointed out.. LOL

[marsavian]

We all know DAS can target for short range AA missiles. But can it target for amraam?
If yes, this will be a GAME CHANGER, for the following reason:
If you guide amraam with radar, you need to point your nose to the enemy, so you fly towards enemy, get closer to enemy, which put yourself at risk if you are out-numbered.
If you can guide amraam with DAS, you can do it even when you fly away from enemy. It is good to keep a safe distance.

I believe your supposition is very valid. Firstly EODAS is more accurate range wise than a single point IRST because the information is fused from six sources and I would expect a target to appear in at least two cameras the majority of the time. Secondly the way aamram works is you program the known target data in the missile from usually your radar or another sensor like RWR or IRST and send it on its way. When it gets to what it thinks is target range it switches on its self seeker and takes over. The fundamental point is that the F-35 can send as many mid course updates as necessary to ensure that it obtains lock, probably more than if it was just using radar and/or EOTS due to the inherently inferior range information but on the flip side angular information will probably be better.

https://www.defencetalk.com/aim-120-amraam-17061/

A scenario in which I could see this being of real value is if the F-35 is being tailchased by an interceptor who is tracking it with long range IRST (or radar if it carrying external stores in beast mode). Remembering also that missiles have three times the range heading towards a target than away so the opponent is the one in most immediate trouble over a 25+nm tailchase if aamrams are still onboard which for a strike interdiction they probably still will be. The reason you don't hear about this scenario much is that the F-35 is usually the one doing the hunting in war games and runs out of aamrams before targets. Remember also in the original DAS video the only criteria they state for the DAS cued missile is that it is a HOBS missile which the latest aamrams are.

From 2:15


Aircraft target resolution example

[rheonomic]

Or ... it could just use the lat long provided by the integrated space sensor, or ... but hey, that's not in our stove pipe sooo... and we're just wondering, what if it was an F-16 with a pod ... or so it seems to me from the conversation, so if it was an F-16 with a pod then ... pick an answer. otherwise , spud's "yes and no" works ... or actually his earlier "yes" pretty much worked the first time.


BP

Yeah, but that doesn't sell more aircraft.

Also, if you want more than a quick throwaway comment I'm gonna need a charge number...

[element1loop]

A simple google search of existing DIRCM systems eg. NG, BAE show that no ranging capability is required. The systems detect and track the IR image with sufficient accuracy to lase the incoming threat.

We're not talking about a capability for a C-17A landing or departing, it's a stealth FIGHTER.

Proactive air dominence that creates its own options, unseen.

Why not take out the opfor IR sensors before a missle leaves a rail? Or before its IRST can counter detect?

How's that for CMs?

To exploit the possibilities, DAS needs to generate precise moving aim points at range (not against a mere manpad, which will be ineffective anyway).

[gta4]

We all know DAS can target for short range AA missiles. But can it target for amraam?
If yes, this will be a GAME CHANGER, for the following reason:
If you guide amraam with radar, you need to point your nose to the enemy, so you fly towards enemy, get closer to enemy, which put yourself at risk if you are out-numbered.
If you can guide amraam with DAS, you can do it even when you fly away from enemy. It is good to keep a safe distance.

I believe your supposition is very valid. Firstly EODAS is more accurate range wise than a single point IRST because the information is fused from six sources and I would expect a target to appear in at least two cameras the majority of the time. Secondly the way aamram works is you program the known target data in the missile from usually your radar or another sensor like RWR or IRST and send it on its way. When it gets to what it thinks is target range it switches on its self seeker and takes over. The fundamental point is that the F-35 can send as many mid course updates as necessary to ensure that it obtains lock, probably more than if it was just using radar and/or EOTS due to the inherently inferior range information but on the flip side angular information will probably be better.

https://www.defencetalk.com/aim-120-amraam-17061/

A scenario in which I could see this being of real value is if the F-35 is being tailchased by an interceptor who is tracking it with long range IRST (or radar if it carrying external stores in beast mode). Remembering also that missiles have three times the range heading towards a target than away so the opponent is the one in most immediate trouble over a 25+nm tailchase if aamrams are still onboard which for a strike interdiction they probably still will be. The reason you don't hear about this scenario much is that the F-35 is usually the one doing the hunting in war games and runs out of aamrams before targets. Remember also in the original DAS video the only criteria they state for the DAS cued missile is that it is a HOBS missile which the latest aamrams are.

From 2:15


Aircraft target resolution example

Well I am thinking What kind of aircraft can lock and tailchase F35 with long range irst. Does it exist? Maybe Only in Russia's PR brochure?

[steve2267]

Tail chasing an F-35 is a losing move -- you are most likely going to get slammered by his buddy where you're not looking.

[element1loop]

And because small fleets of 40 or so, that can't talk to an F-22A or F-15, let alone have them, or other resources readily on tap ...

Are you referring to the F-35?

If so then you may be going off of very old or just wrong info as the F-35 can both receive and transmit with Link-16. This allows it to share data (both ways) with any 4th gen jet that also has Link-16 and it can send data to F-22s via Link-16.

You've dishonestly fabricated that 'quote', are you so desperate to make a smear that you can't just discuss the topic?

Your alleged 'quote' is a lie. Anything you subsequently concoct to smear and misrepresent with, is irrevevant crap.

Real dignified.

[steve2267]

On Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm, element1loop wrote:

And because small fleets of 40 or so, that can't talk to an F-22A or F-15, let alone have them, or other resources readily on tap ...

Are you referring to the F-35?

If so then you may be going off of very old or just wrong info as the F-35 can both receive and transmit with Link-16. This allows it to share data (both ways) with any 4th gen jet that also has Link-16 and it can send data to F-22s via Link-16.

You've dishonestly fabricated that 'quote', are you so desperate to make a smear that you can't just discuss the topic?

Your alleged 'quote' is a lie. Anything you subsequently concoct to smear and misrepresent with, is irrevevant crap.

Real dignified.

But back on Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:21 pm, element1loop wrote:

When would a F-35 even be "alone" inside the Combat Cloud? I don't think it's pilot will be found wanting for range data.

Inside what? ... a concept?

And because small fleets of 40 or so, that can't talk to an F-22A or F-15, let alone have them, or other resources readily on tap ...

There was a thread a couple of days ago about how allies are developing unique tactics and methods for respective F-35 force ... know why? USAF, USN, USMC doctrinaire tactical presumptions are inadequate for context, so must explore far more viable, efficent, lower-risk ways of integrating F-35s within available force structure to evolve it.

I find that SpudmanWP accurately quoted element1loop. I do not see any smear. There is no character assassination here. element1loop, people are simply using your own words to critically judge what you write. You lose style points for accusing people of lying when they, in fact, quote you correctly. You need to pick up your game.

[element1loop]

Oooo kay ... it would have helped to sort of know what you know, and what you don't know. Clearly you don't know a few things you've posted in error ...

You assume too much which you don't follow. And btw, my comments are not focused on you, so don't be so needy.

Targeting is now done at a higher level than the sensor. What the sensors provide (including cyber/EW and space and off platform domains) is just part of that system "targeting."

You don't say!

... There is no stove pipe targeting in the F-35. I'm assuming (I have to .. need[y] to know and all) your background allows you hear what I'm saying, and tracking (pun intended) where the ... red herring.

Never said there was! ... ssheshchesh ... who's making the red kippers!

[element1loop]

I find that SpudmanWP accurately quoted element1loop. I do not see any smear. There is no character assassination here. element1loop, people are simply using your own words to critically judge what you write. You lose style points for accusing people of lying when they, in fact, quote you correctly. You need to pick up your game.

EXCEPT ... it was taken from another CONTEXT and meaning ... and inserted into THIS discusson to insinuate that it meant something ELSE ... within ANOTHER context.


*** Steve, if you insert yourself with nothing to say, but to shit-stir, disrupt or troll, it will be reported ***

[SpudmanWP]

EXCEPT ... it was deliberately taken from ANOTHER thread ... OUT of its' original CONTEXT and meaning ... and inserted into THIS thread ... to insinuate that it meant something ELSE ... within ANOTHER context.

How are we supposed to know WHERE you come up with what you say?

All we can do is discuss what we SEE.

[spazsinbad]

'element1loop ' unless I'm hallucinating (and that is quite possible with the powerful drugs I take for double-sided heart failure) here in the middle of page three of this thread is your quote/sentence: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=53816&p=387298&hilit=resources#p387298

"...And because small fleets of 40 or so, that can't talk to an F-22A or F-15, let alone have them, or other resources readily on tap ..."

[element1loop]

'element1loop ' unless I'm hallucinating (and that is quite possible with the powerful drugs I take for double-sided heart failure) here in the middle of page three of this thread is your quote/sentence: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=53816&p=387298&hilit=resources#p387298

"...And because small fleets of 40 or so, that can't talk to an F-22A or F-15, let alone have them, or other resources readily on tap ..."

Yeah, sorry Spud (and Steve), I really thought it was from another thread.... stuffed that up, humble apologies.

[element1loop]

It will be a * pre-requisite * laser-ranger capability in DAS/IRST that cues a DIRCM in order of tell the DIRCM precisely where to point in the sky.

An (allegedly) "passive" DAS/IRST system is NOT going to suffice for this (due to the need for vector, for this system and others)

Do you think laser would need to lead the target? The ranges and speeds involved are far too small for range data to be of any use. DIRCM would know very well where to precisely point in the sky by only knowing the target direction and no range data. Laser would hit the target no matter what it did as even the fastest target could move just some centimeters during the time laser needs to travel from DIRCM to target and because laser travels in perfectly direct line.

That's the text book reply, that I could also have written, HF, but wouldn't.

Don't get me wrong, I like your technical takes, but I want to think about the implications, its use, the practical part, and its options and tactical dynamics.

I am not talking about manpads, or usual gbad threat, as F-35 will typically be well above and off-set via standoff, when needed (not always, but it's not the main threat).

And also, where is it mounted? Dorsal, ventral? Both? Doubt it.

If contact is an AAM, it could be launched 20 to 45 km away, you need to know the location and vector. You need to know if you have 15 sec or 45 sec ... you need to know NOW! ... to trigger a whole bunch of systems, and actions, for best effect and best efficiency.

Slewing EOTS will never do, it's a non-starter.

But DAS, with ranging, will tell you ... NOW!

And doesn't the EOTS have its own important tasks? Must it be perpetually interrupted, cued, doing menial work (as some seem to expect , as a shallow sort of opportunistic 'solution' to difficulties within their own proposition)?

If DAS/IRTS also has rangers, EOTS won't have to be slewed. Nor will the jet have to change vector, OR its LO aspect, to range a contact out of EOTS view.

Yes, if you think it through, precise ranging by DAS, is a tactical prerequisite to make FIGHTER level applications of a DIRCM to work as efficiently as it must.

[botsing]

If DAS/IRTS also has rangers, EOTS won't have to be slewed. Nor will the jet have to change vector, OR its LO aspect, to range a contact out of EOTS view.

I think you should let go of the "one lonely fighter on it's own" idea.

F-35 is developed as a part of a much bigger integrated system of systems. This means you can perform optimizations on single nodes (e.g. only frontal sphere EOTS) due to redundancy with other nodes (e.g. Other F-35, UAV, satellites that can cover the other parts).

Advantages are the removal of single point of failures, redundancy, lower weight, distributed sensor coverage and so on.

If DAS has no laser rangefinder then I think it is more oppertune to theorize why that decision was made, instead of using limited information to criticize the designers.