The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

Has the UK determined what they're going to designate the F-35 yet? FG.5?
 
Lightning FA1 would follow the most recent practice.

The letters also correspond to a common quantification of the aircraft's utility. ;D
 
TCS was an ID tool rather than a detector, I believe.

I was told a long time ago that then-SecNav John Lehman, a typically modest and retiring aviator, went up for a backseat hop and combat exercise in an F-14. The adversaries were a couple of relative newbies in another F-14, with TCS, and the RoEs demanded visual ID.

The newbies called ID and splashed the SecNav before he or his pilot ever saw them, and the question of whether the F-14D would have TCS was settled.
 
Wouldn't it be Lightning FGA1 as its an RAF owned asset and would use their classification system ?

Question is would these two delivered this year and the ones due next year and maybe the next couple after it which are likley to come from LRIP batches have a different designation to full production aircraft due after 2018 as those aircraft should be at production standard and service ready ?, if the Typhoon is anything to go by.
 
Geoff_B said:
Question is would these two delivered this year and the ones due next year and maybe the next couple after it which are likley to come from LRIP batches have a different designation to full production aircraft due after 2018 as those aircraft should be at production standard and service ready ?, if the Typhoon is anything to go by.
Click to expand...


Given the first aircraft will be progressively upgraded to match latest standard (indeed, all F-35s will partake in Spiral development/upgrades throughout their lives), it hardly seems worth the trouble of having different designators.
 
LowObservable said:
TCS was an ID tool rather than a detector, I believe.

I was told a long time ago that then-SecNav John Lehman, a typically modest and retiring aviator, went up for a backseat hop and combat exercise in an F-14. The adversaries were a couple of relative newbies in another F-14, with TCS, and the RoEs demanded visual ID.

The newbies called ID and splashed the SecNav before he or his pilot ever saw them, and the question of whether the F-14D would have TCS was settled.
Click to expand...

TCS & IRST in dual pod! It's sort of amazing how much hoopla you see over the Russians (and Soviets previously) having them on the Flanker and Fulcrum, even though there around as early as I think the F-106.

http://theboresight.blogspot.com/2009/07/airborne-infrared-and-supersonic.html

^This guy makes an interesting argument over IRST and what we really lost with the retirement of the F-14D and it's dual chin pod. Makes me really wish the Super Tomcat 21 was around to this day.
 
Then you should be extremely pleased with the F-35's EOTS and EO DAS since they are much in advance of what the F-14 had.
 
FARNBOROUGH: Terma from Denmark displays F-35 multi-mission pod

Denmark’s Terma is showing off, for the first time here at the show, the multi-mission pod (MMP) it has developed for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The MMP began life as the gun pod for the F-35, which Terma designed and developed on behalf of General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, but the company has developed it into a more versatile pod that should prove attractive, in particular, to overseas operators of the JSF.
Click to expand...

Source: http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/10/fia12-f35-multimission-pod/
PDF: http://www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf
 
Not sure about that, GTX.

The issue is that IRST (F-14/now Super Hornet, Russian and Selex systems) and EOTS are two different animals.

EOTS is a thermal video camera with an optical system that projects an image on to a focal plane array. Like the imager in a targeting pod or on a UAV, it has an instantaneous field of view that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest on the ground, at acceptably high resolution, from typical slant ranges under 10 km. (Higher-altitude thermal imagers, like the Reaper's MTS-B, require some serious optics.)

An IRST is more like a telescope with a very small instantaneous field of view and a very fast and agile mechanical scanning system. (On Typhoon, it's fast enough to provide a 60 Hz raster-scanned FLIR-type image for landing guidance.) The long focal length/high magnification design is optimized for detecting point IR sources at long range (not taking detailed video images of the ground) and also profiling those sources (spectrum and edges, for instance) to reduce false alarm rates.

That's why IRST-equipped aircraft still use pods for air-to-ground and why the Super Hornet is getting an IRST, even though its targeting pod has (I believe) an IRST mode.

EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.
 
LowObservable said:
EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.
Click to expand...

And yet it gives full-spherical staring coverage. And the chin-mount almost certainly has better resolution than "half that of a cell-phone". Provided they can communicate stealthily the F-35 is going to be a data collection boone to the network, especially when it comes to theater missile defense. (Of course they better make sure the network is secure as I shudder to think the damage that could be done by an enemy who'd been able to infiltrate the network.) BTW what is the rez. of the FPA in Pirate?
 
LowObservable said:
Not sure about that, GTX.

The issue is that IRST (F-14/now Super Hornet, Russian and Selex systems) and EOTS are two different animals.

EOTS is a thermal video camera with an optical system that projects an image on to a focal plane array. Like the imager in a targeting pod or on a UAV, it has an instantaneous field of view that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest on the ground, at acceptably high resolution, from typical slant ranges under 10 km. (Higher-altitude thermal imagers, like the Reaper's MTS-B, require some serious optics.)

An IRST is more like a telescope with a very small instantaneous field of view and a very fast and agile mechanical scanning system. (On Typhoon, it's fast enough to provide a 60 Hz raster-scanned FLIR-type image for landing guidance.) The long focal length/high magnification design is optimized for detecting point IR sources at long range (not taking detailed video images of the ground) and also profiling those sources (spectrum and edges, for instance) to reduce false alarm rates.

That's why IRST-equipped aircraft still use pods for air-to-ground and why the Super Hornet is getting an IRST, even though its targeting pod has (I believe) an IRST mode.

EO-DAS, meanwhile, is essentially a glorified MAWS, with image resolution that is about half that of a cell-phone camera.
Click to expand...

The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensor
that combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)
functionality. It provides the Warfighter with an affordable, high-performance, lightweight,
multi-functional system for precision air-to-air and air-to-surface tracking in a compact
package. The pilot has access to high-resolution imagery, automatic tracking, IRST, laser
designation and rangefinding and laser spot tracking at greatly increased standoff ranges.
Integrated into the F-35 Lightning II’s fuselage with a durable sapphire window, the
low-drag, stealthy EOTS is linked to the aircraft’s central computer through a high-speed
fiber-optic interface.


• Rugged, low-profile, faceted window for
supersonic, low-observable performance
• Compact single aperture design
• Lightweight (<200 lbs), including
window assembly
• Advanced, third-generation, focal plane
array
• Air-to-surface FLIR tracker and air-to-air
IRST modes
• Modular design for two-level
maintenance to reduce life cycle cost
• Automatic boresight and aircraft
alignment
• Tactical and eye-safe diode pumped laser
• Laser spot tracker
• Passive and active ranging
• Highly accurate geo-coordinate
generation to meet precision strike
requirements

The EOTS combines a new focal plane
array with advanced sensor technology,
a low profile sapphire window design,
and advanced algorithms to provide long range
target recognition, identification, and
tracking. In the IRST mode, the EOTS will
locate and track multiple airborne threats at
extended ranges ensuring high lethality and
survivability.
The EOTS incorporates proven technology
and advances in optics, stabilization, and
processing. Its modular design and ease of
repair make it simple to support and ensure
true two-level maintenance.

From this LockMArt PDF:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/f-35-lightning-ii-electro-optical-targeting-system-etos/mfc-f-35-eots-pc.pdf
 
Of course LowObservable will claim it's LM marketing material which should be dismissed immediately. ::)
 
sferrin said:
Of course LowObservable will claim it's LM marketing material which should be dismissed immediately. ::)
Click to expand...

I think I would agree though, especially as a F-14 Tomcat fan-- There is just no topping 1989 Tech. Its all downhill from here. We peaked long, long, ago. even if the EOTS was found wanting in that area, there is just no way you can fit that onto the aircraft at a later date.
 
The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensorthat combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)functionality.
Click to expand...

What about the Eurofighter's PIRATE system? It is a FLIR and an IRST. Not all round cover, but the sentence above does not state that.

There is just no topping 1989 Tech
Click to expand...
I agree - in my day job, and in research for my books, I see lots of documents from the late 1970s onwards. It is striking how things evolve until the late 1980s, and then suddenly the systems being discussed are those we have today, albeit today's ones have faster processing of 1's and 0's. Apart from that, no fundamental change, IMHO.
 
harrier said:
The Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) is the world’s first and only sensorthat combines forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and infrared search and track (IRST)functionality.
Click to expand...

What about the Eurofighter's PIRATE system? It is a FLIR and an IRST. Not all round cover, but the sentence above does not state that.

There is just no topping 1989 Tech
Click to expand...
I agree - in my day job, and in research for my books, I see lots of documents from the late 1970s onwards. It is striking how things evolve until the late 1980s, and then suddenly the systems being discussed are those we have today, albeit today's ones have faster processing of 1's and 0's. Apart from that, no fundamental change, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Which is why things like the F-35 will change the game. Its a revolution, not an evolution.
 
Well, of course it's LM marketing material.

However, unless someone has evidence otherwise, what I have gathered is that the EOTS is, in essence, the workings of a targeting and designation pod (eg Sniper) with a different front-end mirror system that allows it to see through a semi-conformal faceted window.

What I don't see, having looked at the thing quite closely, is any sign that the optical sensor includes a massive zoom capability (very small field of view) or that the scanning mirrors could achieve a video-like scan rate.

What the EOTS has, most likely, is the ability to stare and scan ahead of the aircraft within its physical field of view (uplook being somewhat limited) and acquire an IR video image that can be digitally processed to detect and track hot-spots. (It should be noted that it's going to be doing this via a sharply slanted window, and that the best transparency isn't perfect.)

How close the performance of this system comes to a dedicated Pirate or Skyward-G type of IRST, we don't know. But it is not the same thing, hardware-wise.
 
Regardless of the capabilities, the customers (i.e. the growing number of Air Forces around the world wanting the F-35) haven't appeared to be complaining about the capability offered...maybe they know something? ::)
 
I'm still waiting for the resolution of Pirate (and the source). ;-)
 
LowObservable said:
Well, of course it's LM marketing material.

However, unless someone has evidence otherwise, what I have gathered is that the EOTS is, in essence, the workings of a targeting and designation pod (eg Sniper) with a different front-end mirror system that allows it to see through a semi-conformal faceted window.

What I don't see, having looked at the thing quite closely, is any sign that the optical sensor includes a massive zoom capability (very small field of view) or that the scanning mirrors could achieve a video-like scan rate.

What the EOTS has, most likely, is the ability to stare and scan ahead of the aircraft within its physical field of view (uplook being somewhat limited) and acquire an IR video image that can be digitally processed to detect and track hot-spots. (It should be noted that it's going to be doing this via a sharply slanted window, and that the best transparency isn't perfect.)

How close the performance of this system comes to a dedicated Pirate or Skyward-G type of IRST, we don't know. But it is not the same thing, hardware-wise.
Click to expand...

EOTS is described in a Lockheed Powerpoint as a "high magnification mid-wave IR telescope". That is quite a different thing from what you are speculating here.
 
Paul - All TDPs are relatively narrow-field-of-view telephoto devices - that's how you can see people running around from 15000-20000 feet. However, it's also important for them to have an instantaneous FOV on their focal plane array that is large enough to cover an area of tactical interest. And as you get higher (Reaper for instance) you need a bigger lens to combine aperture/array size and focal length (I think the MTS-B has a mirror lens that is almost 17 inches in diameter).

IRST as I understand it has a still smaller FOV and longer focal length, and the only way that it can provide area coverage is through mechanical raster-type scanning.

I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP. Note that I'm not saying that the IRST function on EOTS is useless, but that it does not work in the same way as an IRST. Neither can an IRST do what an EOTS/TDP does.

GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.
 
LowObservable said:
GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.
Click to expand...


Or maybe they know a little more then journalists or the general public since they are actually privy to the real information...
 
LowObservable said:
I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP.
Click to expand...

At some point what is being viewed is converted to digital data by something. Since you've already admitted you don't know at what resolution the data is converted to how can you compare the effectivity?
 
http://defense-update.com/features/2010/november/02112010_das_missile_track.html
 
GTX said:
LowObservable said:
GTX - Since most of the AFs involved in the program believed the original cost and schedule numbers, their authority in this case is not absolute.
Click to expand...


Or maybe they know a little more then journalists or the general public since they are actually privy to the real information...
Click to expand...
Looking at their track record, the AFs are either reticent in sharing their true views, or the accuracy of their views leaves something to be desired. So whatever they publicly state seems less than totally reliable. With hindsight, judging their statements should be easier. To do that, we'll have to wait and see.
In the meantime, LO offers some observations on possible limitations of the F-35's EOTS.
 
Arjen said:
Looking at their track record, the AFs are either reticent in sharing their true views
Click to expand...


Only if you don't speak to them directly or don't have appropriate security clearances.


It has also been my experience that many journalists only care about the story especially if they can spin it as a scandle...don't worry if the facts get in the way of that and the best way to avoid facts is to avoid pursuing or even talking to those who might have facts!
 
GTX said:
Only if you don't speak to them directly or don't have appropriate security clearances.
Click to expand...
I have no security clearance, I am in no position to speak to them directly. I have to rely on what government officials are willing to share publicly, what manufacturers are willing to tell about their hard-won projects and on what journalists are able to dig up. Government officials are concerned with loss of face, manufacturers are considering their income, journalists are looking for a story. So far, I have been thoroughly disappointed by the forecasts provided by governments and manufacturers. So I turn to journalists, some of whom I trust more than others.

GTX said:
It has also been my experience that many journalists only care about the story especially if they can spin it as a scandle...don't worry if the facts get in the way of that and the best way to avoid facts is to avoid pursuing or even talking to those who might have facts!
Click to expand...
I have some bad experiences with a few very inaccurate journalists. Obviously I don't trust them any more. Some other journalists I do trust, because their stories were confirmed by what happened next. The Dutch government seems to be willing to swallow anything stated by the US government. I am not. As for manufacturers' claims: I trust those as far as I can throw them.
 
F-35 Pilots and the F-35: A Discussion at Farnborough Air Show 2012

http://vimeo.com/46435390
 
JSport - A Falcon 9 at boost has a rather large IR signature, possibly connected with the 3000 lb of flaming RP and LOX coming out of its rear end every second. The DAS did supposedly track the colder upper stage, but that might well be a question of cranking the gain and having a very cold background.

GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.

No, I don't trust the professionals. Mostly because there is a long history of professional insider forecasts of the wonderful progress to be made by the JSF, many of which were rendered obsolete by reality within months. So either the briefers were dismally unaware of what was happening inside their own program, or they were telling porkies, or there's a mixture of both.

Sferrin - I'm not comparing the "effectivity" of the EOTS in IRST mode and the purpose-built IRST, just pointing out that they are not the same thing. However, I would point out that the USN appears to regard an old-and-updated IRST as being able to do something that the relatively modern TDP on the Super Hornet can't.
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
I'm not sure that the rez of the Pirate or Skyward-G sensors has been disclosed, but remember it's not an FPA like your digital camera or the TDP.
Click to expand...

At some point what is being viewed is converted to digital data by something. Since you've already admitted you don't know at what resolution the data is converted to how can you compare the effectivity?
Click to expand...

Because he has a cell phone with a camera in it?

LowObservable said:
GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell that is pretty much the one and only test. (And even if you can't that is what editors are for) ;)
 
LowObservable said:
JSport - A Falcon 9 at boost has a rather large IR signature, possibly connected with the 3000 lb of flaming RP and LOX coming out of its rear end every second. The DAS did supposedly track the colder upper stage, but that might well be a question of cranking the gain and having a very cold background.

If the light wave hits the sensor and the processing technology continues to evolve you are again way off in the capabilities just the DAS has let alone EOTS. rumour of mansized resolution at over 50 miles...

credible unclassified military aviation publishing..ghosts in a fistfight.
Click to expand...
 
LowObservable said:
GTX - You have to be able to spell "scandal" to join the club.
Click to expand...

Oh damn! I guess I miss out then... ;D


LowObservable said:
No, I don't trust the professionals. Mostly because there is a long history of professional insider forecasts of the wonderful progress to be made by the JSF, many of which were rendered obsolete by reality within months. So either the briefers were dismally unaware of what was happening inside their own program, or they were telling porkies, or there's a mixture of both.
Click to expand...


...or they simply don't tell you the doom and gloom stories you want to hear.


In the real world, things change! Having worked on complex technical projects for a number of years I can tell you from experience that you plan/think that something is going to happen a certain way and then, despite your best efforts, careful risk mitigations and the like, something else happens. That's what happens in the real world as opposed to the fantasy perfect world that many live in! When it does, especially on a highly politicised project or one under great scrutiny, it is hardly helpful or appreciated to then have some goon on the outside who knows nothing and has never experienced what you are trying to do throwing stones at you! ...Oh that's right, it's keeping us honest isn't it...and if someone sells a few more magazines or gets a snazzy headline to boot then that's ok!
 
TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.

DAS is a simpler case.

Six sensors to cover a sphere = 90 deg X 90 deg field of view. The array is about 1 MP. A cellphone has 5MP to cover about 60 deg x 60 deg. DAS is therefore quite low-rez, hence the use of a supplemental helmet-mounted low-light sensor to overlay a higher-rez pic in the pilot's central field of view.

JSport - Mansized resolution at 50 miles? Interesting story, but you're getting into LOROP territory there. And processing technology? Can you explain why the size of the FPA (in pixels) is not a hard limit?
 
LowObservable said:
TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.

DAS is a simpler case.

Six sensors to cover a sphere = 90 deg X 90 deg field of view. The array is about 1 MP. A cellphone has 5MP to cover about 60 deg x 60 deg. DAS is therefore quite low-rez, hence the use of a supplemental helmet-mounted low-light sensor to overlay a higher-rez pic in the pilot's central field of view.

JSport - Mansized resolution at 50 miles? Interesting story, but you're getting into LOROP territory there. And processing technology? Can you explain why the size of the FPA (in pixels) is not a hard limit?
Click to expand...

FPA's etc's hard limits.. this presents some question..please notice the main spokesmen's experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkBh71zZKrM&feature=player_embedded
 
Most of us don't have a free hour to listen to a lecture - interesting as it may be - about imaging technology. I might take a look at it later in case it says something about physical limits to FPA element size.

Meanwhile, can you give us a clue as to when in the tape someone explains how a pixelated sensor can have resolution smaller than one pixel? Because the point concerning EO-DAS is that one of a million pixels is really looking at quite a large area, at a range of tens of miles and with a 90 x 90 deg field of view.
 
Overall DAS surveilance with multiple sensors is 360 degrees and is cued by etc.... The single sensor does not need to surveil all at all times so not sure what we are talking about. The number of pixels in final config might not well be revealed and as stated before if the light is there a series of technologies can be brought to bare to increase resolution so cell phone res is nowhere near where it is and will likely go. The original question.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10652020
43miles
for the time or ... challenged..
if this is now combined w/ where pixelation etc. goes the 2010 Falcon test maybe only be the beginning.
 
LowObservable said:
TT - I was talking (as I think Sferrin was) about EOTS versus IRST.
Click to expand...

Yep. Any idea what the rez of the sensor in Pirate is?
 
The FOV of the DAS sensors is known. The pixel count can't be made greater without either a bigger FPA, optics and aperture, or smaller pixels, which is running up against an edge-diffraction limit.

So the result is that nobody knows how to make a higher-rez DAS sensor, and that limits its effectiveness.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom