F35 News only thread for 2013

[ff1987]

thanks

[obligatory]

In a tail chase, the range of the radar is greater than the range of the missile,
meaning it would be pointless not having it active all the way

[SpudmanWP]

Most engagements will be head-on so I used that scenario in my example.

[obligatory]

The presence or not of MAWS will make all the difference on the success rate of BVR missiles.
Something i've been wondering about:
Could the CHAMP system be used defensively in an AWAC to shut down incoming missiles ?
It really is an asset that is just too valuable not to protect,
while at the same time being one of the most vulnerable assets to be found.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=120175

[SpudmanWP]

A MAWS might get you a 5-10km heads-up to an inbound AAM coming in on a high-arching attack.

Not much time to do much.

At 10km, a descending AAM going m2 will hit you in 15 seconds.

[ff1987]

In head on engagement the IRST can act as MAWS - detect hot missile start from max range. I remember sth like that was said about PIRATE IRST, but didn't remember where I read about that.

[LowObservable]

Spud -

If the USMC is at IOC by 2015 (the date is not publicly disclosed any more) they will be flying Block 2B aircraft limited to Mach 1.2, 40000 feet and 5.5 g, and with no multi-ship fusion.

The AIM-120D is not due to complete OT until FY14 so the chance of IOC within the year is small (DOT&E report).

Fat chance on seeing a new motor any time soon. ATK won't even be re-qualled to deliver the existing motor soon, Nammo being the sole source for the foreseeable future (DOT&E again).

The obvious flip-side of the GPS and high-arching profile is that the missile needs to keep getting radar updates from the launch aircraft for a longer period after launch - on the upward trajectory the target may not even be in the seeker FOV, and the high-arch takes longer to cover the distance.

So the shooter (1) is using more radar emissions and (2) has to keep the target in its radar FOV, closing the range. Neither is an ideal stealth-type engagement.

AIM-120D may be an improvement when it eventually gets here, but it's not a super-weapon - it's a relatively cheap fix for AMRAAM's kinematic shortfalls.

And I tend to concur with ff1987 that IRST or indeed MAWS will detect launch flare at a greater range than 5-10 km. Indeed, IRST should see the upward-trajectory flare of a long ballistic profile pretty easily against a cold sky.

[Mildave]

A MAWS might get you a 5-10km heads-up to an inbound AAM coming in on a high-arching attack.

Not much time to do much.

At 10km, a descending AAM going m2 will hit you in 15 seconds.

Some modern aircraft with sensor fusion have some lvl of automated counter-measures. Also new mode are being developped for AESA radars to act as a energy directed weapons, although such a mode might not yet be mature enough for operational use.

In any case, once the IRST is linked to the main computer and the ESM system, it should mostly take software updates to improve its usability as a long range forward looking MAWS.

If the launch is detected, then tracking the missile shouldn't be too hard. If not, I guess it depends on the software sensibility and endurance VS false alarms.

[SpudmanWP]

Spud - If the USMC is at IOC by 2015 (the date is not publicly disclosed any more) they will be flying Block 2B aircraft limited to Mach 1.2, 40000 feet and 5.5 g, and with no multi-ship fusion.

None of which keep the USMC from taking it to Red Flag by 2015.

The AIM-120D is not due to complete OT until FY14 so the chance of IOC within the year is small (DOT&E report).

Read my post again. I said that it would be C7.

The obvious flip-side of the GPS and high-arching profile is that the missile needs to keep getting radar updates from the launch aircraft for a longer period after launch - on the upward trajectory the target may not even be in the seeker FOV, and the high-arch takes longer to cover the distance.

So the shooter (1) is using more radar emissions and (2) has to keep the target in its radar FOV, closing the range. Neither is an ideal stealth-type engagement.

Updates to the 120D could come from the APG-81, ESM, or EOTS from ANY F-35 in the area, not just from the shooter.

And I tend to concur with ff1987 that IRST or indeed MAWS will detect launch flare at a greater range than 5-10 km. Indeed, IRST should see the upward-trajectory flare of a long ballistic profile pretty easily against a cold sky.

To see the launch the IRST would have to be looking at that point in the sky at the right time. Don’t bet on it.

[ff1987]

To see the launch the IRST would have to be looking at that point in the sky at the right time. Don’t bet on it.

The IRST search volume of the sky like mechanically scanned radar - so it shouldn't be a problem to find hot missile in cold environment. For example - the OLS-35 provides a coverage of +/-90 in azimuth and +60/-15 in elevation:

http://www.deagel.com/Navigation-and...001926001.aspx

[obligatory]

MAWS should detect BVR rocket missiles at >100 km in normal weather,
humidity will severely impact negatively on range

[SpudmanWP]

Show me where it (IRST) is operationally used as an MLD first.

[ff1987]

MiG-35 SOAR (infrared Missile Approach Warner) system detects air-to-air missile from 30 km.

http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...ederation.html

The MiG-35/MiG-35D aircraft is provided with a defense system including in particular:
– radio electronic reconnaissance and electronic counter measures;
– optronic systems for detection of attacking missiles and laser emission;
– decoy dispensers to counteract the enemy in the radar and infrared ranges.

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_35_e.htm

I think that optronic system in MiG-35 means:
-OLS-UEM
-OLS-K
-SOAR
-SOLO
I think that all this electro-optical sensor could warn about incoming missile. Mig will have sensor fusion to integrate work of these sensors.

[SpudmanWP]

Russia claims a SOAR detection range of "< 5km" for a non-burning (read coasting) inbound AAM.

I was being generous with 5-10km.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...p?topic=1728.0 (see the attached photos at the bottom of the linked page)

[ff1987]

Russia claims a SOAR detection range of "< 5km" for a non-burning (read coasting) inbound AAM.

I was being generous with 5-10km.

According to Janes article and the forum post above:

"SOAR can detect the launch of a portable anti-aircraft missile from a distance of 10 km, air-to-air missile from 30 km and a large anti-aircraft missile at up to 50 km. "
http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...ederation.html

"It can detect Stinger/Igla from 10km, a2a missiles from 30km, big surface to air missiles from 50km."
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...p?topic=1728.0

Sorry, but I can't see the attached photos...

[SpudmanWP]

Those larger than 5km numbers are for AAMs with the motors burning. An AMRAAM launched at BVR ranges is likely well beyond that detection range.

I copied the pics from the linked site.

[Belethor]

According to Janes article and the forum post above:

"SOAR can detect the launch of a portable anti-aircraft missile from a distance of 10 km, air-to-air missile from 30 km and a large anti-aircraft missile at up to 50 km. "
http://articles.janes.com/articles/J...ederation.html

"It can detect Stinger/Igla from 10km, a2a missiles from 30km, big surface to air missiles from 50km."
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/foru...p?topic=1728.0

Sorry, but I can't see the attached photos...

The trouble with such systems is that yes they will probably detect a launch but is the launch that was detected tactically relevent to the detecting aircraft? Was that missile that was fired 25km in front of me even targeting my aircraft or was it targeting the 4-ship flying 10km to the port of me or the 3 ship flying to the starboard of me? Saying that was it even a SAM or was it perhaps a SSM? I'm sure you can see the point i'm illustrating.

Ironicly missile threat detection is one area where the F-35 has a potentially the best solution to date thanks to its 360° spherical view EODAS kit.

There's certainly lots of interesting views and opinions in this thread too, thanks to all who have contributed so far.

[ff1987]

Thanks Spud
But why do You think that incoming missile will be so hard to detect by new Eo suite.
Even when BVRAAM stop burn, the heat of the air friction in +2 Ma incoming missile will be very high.
Current IRST can detect non AB targets head on from 50km, so why it just couldn't detect much more hot missile.
I remember F-35 EO DAS detects Ballistic Missiles far away, and I think that EOTS and DAS will detect BVRAAMs far away - probably at launch point.
In worst case the IRST ( like PIRATE, EOTS, Atoll, OFS, Tiger eye ) should detect the hot plum - just when rocket motor of BVRAAM start burning. Than fighter can decided to turn away if the shoot was from further range than the NEZ of incoming AAMs. Just my 2 cents .

[SpudmanWP]

IRST detection of a head-on target is for a plane, not a missile. A plane is a MUCH larger target and heats up more due to friction.

[ff1987]

IRST detection of a head-on target is for a plane, not a missile. A plane is a MUCH larger target and heats up more due to friction.

Maybe You are right, but I though that IRST measure the range based on temperatur value - more temperature mean more range. Head on detection range for non AB fighter are 50 km, but in rear hemisphere, where the temperature is much greater due to engine exhaust - 90km.
I also thought that BVRAAMs temperature is much greater, when rocket motor start working (missile accelerate up to 4 Mach ).
Anyway this is only my speculation and I don't know the true value.

[SpudmanWP]

It's a combination of range and temp. A large cool target could be detected at greater distances than a small hot one.

[ff1987]

"With the DDM NG, the exhaust plume of an incoming missile can be detected at very long-range without any telltale emission that would betray the presence of the Rafale. The discreet missile approach warner ensures high probability of detection and low false alarm rates, even against recent and totally passive IR-guided weapons. When a missile launch is detected, the DDM NG can trigger a decoying sequence to dodge the threat"

http://www.slideshare.net/aeroplans/rafale-fox-3-n-16

Dassault state that the incoming missile can be detected at very long-range thanks to Rafale DDM-NG. I think that very long range put in this article, strongly imply BVRAAMs launch detection.

[eagle]

Seems they've lowered the performance again. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ce-bar-381031/

I would have expected more comments on this one, as the figures are absolutely appalling.
43 more seconds to accelerate from M0.8 to 1.2? That's not 43 seconds, but 43 on top of already not particularly good numbers.
Does anyone have comparable numbers for other jets, i.e. Mach 0.8 to 1.2 times?

[MSphere]

I would have expected more comments on this one, as the figures are absolutely appalling.
43 more seconds to accelerate from M0.8 to 1.2? That's not 43 seconds, but 43 on top of already not particularly good numbers.

We have the figures of the earlier F-35A (240-3 standard) with two AIM-120s carried internally; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft.

Does it mean F-35C needs 104 seconds from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 now?

Does anyone have comparable numbers for other jets, i.e. Mach 0.8 to 1.2 times?

I got this chart copied from the baseline MiG-29 manual which shows low altitude acceleration to various supersonic speeds starting at Mach 0.5, clean aircraft or with two R-60MKs. Based on pressure altitude (curves) the acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 takes between 25 and 30 seconds.

[MSphere]

This diagram illustrates the F-15C acceleration characteristics in regards to Mach over time at an altitude of 10,000 ft with maximum engine thrust. Acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 takes 26 seconds.

[Tu 160]

F-35C needs 104 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 that abyssmally bad and more than 4 times slower than Mig 29 acceleration. Based on specs Pakfa should probably acceletate even better than the Mig29.
Is F35 acceleration even slower than Mig19?
Also whats the acceleration data under same parameters for Su27,Mig31,Su15,Mig23bis and Mig21bis?

[MSphere]

F-35C needs 104 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 that abyssmally bad and more than 4 times slower than Mig 29 acceleration. Based on specs Pakfa should probably acceletate even better than the Mig29.

Yes, that is quite expected.

Is F35 acceleration even slower than Mig19?
Also whats the acceleration data under same parameters for Su27,Mig31,Su15,Mig23bis and Mig21bis?

What about trying to look them up yourself for a change?

[obligatory]

EF shouldn't be shy to show their charts ?

[MSphere]

Here the MiG-23 chart at all three VG settings.. For our comparison the only applicable setting is 72deg sweep.
The curves show different heights of 1km (3,280ft), 5km (16,400ft) and 10km (32,800ft).
Full line is MiG-23ML with two R-23R missiles, dotted line represents MiG-23UB with two R-13M missiles.

The figure we are looking for (M0.8--> M1.2 @16,400ft) is ca 34 seconds for MiG-23ML and almost 70 seconds for MiG-23UB.

[toan]

Since we have no idea for the configuration of JSF and the altitude during the acceleration test, I think it is still a little imprudent to make the conclusion that F-35 has an awful accelerating performance right now....