Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Good Is The World's Most Expensive Fighter Jet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Are you sure those rocket tracking systems are not radar-based or at least assisted? Perhaps transponder-based as well? If I need to track a rocket, my #1 choice is going to be radar. We track satellites via radar. Given X, Y, and Z coordinates of the rocket, the TV camera can be pointed and focused.

    I don't want to break OPSEC, but we knew of, and practiced, methods to break an IR lock. It wasn't hard to do. It was MUCH harder to break or spoof a good X-band radar.

    Overall, you make some fine points. All I can say in conclusion to IR as a tool designed to detect, track, and eventually engage the enemy, is that the USA has tried it, rejected it, tried it again, ad infinitum, as the technology progresses. And in the end, we've rejected it in favor of active and passive RF systems that don't care about weather, smoke, or dust.

    I think that an updated system based upon acoustics has a good chance of success, more so than IR.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Chogy View Post
      Are you sure those rocket tracking systems are not radar-based or at least assisted?
      Not sure, probably, but equally not needed.

      Perhaps transponder-based as well?
      doubtful.

      If I need to track a rocket, my #1 choice is going to be radar. We track satellites via radar. Given X, Y, and Z coordinates of the rocket, the TV camera can be pointed and focused.
      Radar can only tell you where something is at and where it appears to be going. NASA has used thermal imaging to observe where the rocket is going and what it is doing in addition to where it appears to be going.

      I don't want to break OPSEC, but we knew of, and practiced, methods to break an IR lock. It wasn't hard to do. It was MUCH harder to break or spoof a good X-band radar.
      But for stealth it is reversed. FLIR technology has radically advanced since we were in.

      Overall, you make some fine points. All I can say in conclusion to IR as a tool designed to detect, track, and eventually engage the enemy, is that the USA has tried it, rejected it, tried it again, ad infinitum, as the technology progresses. And in the end, we've rejected it in favor of active and passive RF systems that don't care about weather, smoke, or dust.
      Tackling stealth means looking at these technologies again. I assume you've seen the IRST picture of the B2 taken by a Eurofighter Typhoon?

      I think that an updated system based upon acoustics has a good chance of success, more so than IR.
      High sub sonic targets wont provide much warning though and the faster the target the less warning until at the point of the sound barrier you here the boom without any aids and then the acoustic system chirps and lets you know what you already know.

      Comment


      • #48
        It's almost as if solely relying on one detection technology is a bad idea...

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
          It's almost as if solely relying on one detection technology is a bad idea...
          Well the side that can detect the best across the widest number of spectrums has an advantage on a stealthed battlefield. There are now at least 3 manned non-US stealth platforms flying if not yet in serial production. There are several non-US stealthed UAV's in the air (US is actually behind the curve here). Conventional radars days as the dominant or most effective means of detecting an incoming threat seem to be numbered as stealth technology spreads.

          On the ground the move will be for non-FLIR detection methods as ground stealth on the ground seems to be focused on managing the thermal signature.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Conventional radars days as the dominant or most effective means of detecting an incoming threat seem to be numbered as stealth technology spreads.
            This is a process that will take about 60 years, and even then radar won't go away it just won't be the primary.

            Comment


            • #51
              Z, I rarely do point by point debates. I find them tedious. but...

              I assume you've seen the IRST picture of the B2 taken by a Eurofighter Typhoon?
              I have. And not knowing the exact circumstances, my guess is, that image was taken AFTER the Typhoon located the B-2 by some other means. Either visually, or he knew of a specific altitude and rough location of the bomber.

              Again, I cannot go into what OPSEC on what little I know about IRST. It (my knowledge) is dated. But I know the AIM-9M intimately, and the Mike is still in use. Its successor, the AIM-9X, uses a different methodology for tracking. It's not pure IR. Ask yourself why; and the answer is not flares. If IR is such a potent technology, why does the X use something different?

              I'll simply repeat (again) that environmental issues affect IR sensing, often badly, and even under ideal circumstances, range is very poor, and there is no ranging. Why do Patriot batteries use this radar (pictured below) instead of an optical assembly?



              IR has tremendously important uses in the military. But consider where they are most important... short range, night encounters, usually in the land battle. That is where IR tech shines.

              Consider the ranges involved in air combat. Anything less than 10 miles is very short-ranged indeed. Look at an airliner passing far overhead. That huge 767 is a speck, and he is only 6 miles away. Turn it into a tiny fighter, make the range 60 miles instead of 6, and he is invisible to eye and to IR, even on a crystal clear day. Unfortunately, he can see and engage you with ease using radar.
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Radar can only tell you where something is at and where it appears to be going. NASA has used thermal imaging to observe where the rocket is going and what it is doing in addition to where it appears to be going.
                No, IR sensor lacks range determination capability. NASA has insane amounts of telemetry instrumentation on anything they launch. IR systems are easy enough to point at something and keep on that something if said something is being a cooperative target.

                But for stealth it is reversed. FLIR technology has radically advanced since we were in.
                No, it isn't reversed at all. The best you can do with most IRST's against a head-on non-afterburning fighter sized target is about 30km, and that's with modern kit. You can do a bit better against bombers ... but that is until we instroduce active cooling and silhouette break-up systems, and it all goes bad for the IRST again.

                Tackling stealth means looking at these technologies again. I assume you've seen the IRST picture of the B2 taken by a Eurofighter Typhoon?
                ... at what distance? This is a pretty big deal, because IRST's have a very narrow FoV and they don't have the same ability to scan airspace volume as a radar. There's a reason why they are the backup sensor.

                High sub sonic targets wont provide much warning though and the faster the target the less warning until at the point of the sound barrier you here the boom without any aids and then the acoustic system chirps and lets you know what you already know.
                Depends on how you set up your acoustic network. You might be able to cover a fairly significant area (think SOSUS) for a reasonable price.

                Comment


                • #53
                  You guys are missing the point. I am not arguing that FLIR will replace radar, but that it might be a useful supplement to it. Chogy, that great big patriot phased array radar will be vastly degraded by a stealthed target. I don't know but I assume even the navy's aegis systems have a hard time with stealth. A large FLIR system sweeping a section of sky wont be perfect, any system facing East/West will have periods of time when it is useless because of the rising or setting sun for example. But if under normal conditions it can detect a stealthed target at say 30 miles where a radar can only detect the target at 10 miles. That might be enough lead time to spin up the missiles so that when the radar does get a lock it can fire fast enough to actually engage the target. It also buys the interceptors an extra minute or two to scramble.

                  Yes all of this is easily countered. But most of the counters come with a price in fuel which means either reduced range or reduced bomb load. For example, lets say some new Chinese FLIR system is reasonably thought to be able to detect an F-35 sized target at 30km. If it can detect an F-35 it can detect a B-2. However both of the US platforms could fly under the horizon just like non-stealth planes did during the cold war. But this costs range. This might not impact a B-2 too much. But for a carrier borne aircraft it slices off huge areas of China that might have been in reach if the F-35 had been able to cruise in at 60,000'

                  Cure all- NO

                  Viable way to potentially degrade stealth, either ours if used against us, or to use against those who would make war on us- possibly and worth looking into.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Stealth isn't magic and it doesn't mean it can't be detected or tracked. It's more difficult and the real hard part is getting a solid enough track to actually shoot at before he kills you.

                    Edit: For day 1 of the war it's not a big deal if your multiroles aren't loaded to the gills with bombs.
                    Last edited by Jimmy; 29 Jan 13,, 07:17.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      You guys are missing the point. ....

                      ....

                      But if under normal conditions it can detect a stealthed target at say 30 miles where a radar can only detect the target at 10 miles. That might be enough lead time to spin up the missiles so that when the radar does get a lock it can fire fast enough to actually engage the target. It also buys the interceptors an extra minute or two to scramble.
                      Such a system exists. It's capability is around 15nm, IIRC it is an Israeli naval system. 15nm for a high subsonic fighter is 90 sec. Fine for missiles I suppose, assuming his attack range is around 5nm (otherwise you're dealing with his missiles, not the aircraft). It's useless against anything that'll throw weapons at you well outside that range (just about every stealth airframe out there).

                      30nm isn't enough to launch interceptors. You need 10min, 30nm won't give you that.


                      Yes all of this is easily countered. But most of the counters come with a price in fuel which means either reduced range or reduced bomb load.
                      Neither is an issue.

                      For example, lets say some new Chinese FLIR system is reasonably thought to be able to detect an F-35 sized target at 30km. If it can detect an F-35 it can detect a B-2.
                      Not a problem ... both aircraft can deploy weapons at or beyond that range as necessary. B-2's have it a bit harder, but that'll be dealt with as needed (ie. they need to certify dropping glide bombs instead of just JDAMs).

                      However both of the US platforms could fly under the horizon just like non-stealth planes did during the cold war. But this costs range. This might not impact a B-2 too much. But for a carrier borne aircraft it slices off huge areas of China that might have been in reach if the F-35 had been able to cruise in at 60,000'
                      The F-35 can potentially drop munitions from 40-60nm away. Even if it has to get as close as 15-20nm though, it works out just fine.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
                        30nm isn't enough to launch interceptors. You need 10min, 30nm won't give you that.
                        et al.

                        The FLIR systems (our or theirs) would be used most effectively [for interceptors] to cover the best ingress routes, again to impose a few penalty on the attacker.

                        Locally FLIR systems covering the best local routes would still be several miles from the target so 40 miles on a glide bomb may not be enough.

                        Again not fool proof, it just makes attacks more difficult to pull off without loss.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I'm more worried about the use of hyperspectral imaging to locate stealth fighters.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by zraver View Post
                            A large FLIR system sweeping a section of sky wont be perfect, any system facing East/West will have periods of time when it is useless because of the rising or setting sun for example. But if under normal conditions it can detect a stealthed target at say 30 miles where a radar can only detect the target at 10 miles.
                            But a 'large FLIR system' will itself be easily detectable, even by satelite imagery. And the range of a JSOW launched at high altitude is about 70 nm.
                            The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
                            Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
                            - The Eagles

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Major Dad View Post
                              But a 'large FLIR system' will itself be easily detectable, even by satelite imagery. And the range of a JSOW launched at high altitude is about 70 nm.

                              say it can be detected as it watches the most likely ingress routes to a strategic target. What do you do about it? Take it out from a distance and alert everything behind it. Avoid it and incur the fuel penalty, delay your attack until you have weather cover, or only attack when its facing the sun. Plenty of work arounds but they all have associated problems that attacker has to over come.

                              And what if its not just a FLIR but a radar, lidar, acoustic and passive system like the Kolchuga all tied in together etc with AEW flying to cover the gaps. No detection system is perfect, not even a multi-technology system would be perfect but they impose additional costs on the attacker.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The cost is imposed on the defender, actually. Now that they've invested in this huge umbrella of sensors that apparently not even a stealth mosquito can't penetrate, what have they left undefended in order to accomplish this?

                                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                And what if its not just a FLIR but a radar, lidar, acoustic and passive system like the Kolchuga all tied in together etc with AEW flying to cover the gaps. No detection system is perfect, not even a multi-technology system would be perfect but they impose additional costs on the attacker.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X