By: garryA
- 6th December 2016 at 18:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
EOTS allow you to ID the fighter, DAS does not have that ability at any range
DAS can ID the target
Thanks for that. Any specs on it? AN/ALR-94 is said to have a range greater than 250 nmi. I've heard when the F-22 is flying a certain altitude the AN/ALR-94 range is much higher
There is no max range for a passive system. It all depending on transmitting power of the radar. Then coding and what not.Obviously the range will be higher at higher altitude due to radar horizon
There were rumors sometime back that the AN/ALR-94 can provide an AIM-120 with most of the information it requires with fairly good accuracy
lacks range and velocity
Journal of Electronic Defense; Bill Sweetman
The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target.
High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM)
By: SpudmanWP
- 6th December 2016 at 18:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course you have specific information to support this claim no?
Because they've already stated that the shape recognition algorithms allow for that very thing at ranges that would make visual ID impossible.
Not only that but once the target is being tracked, EM emissions from it will also help to ID it. This is one of the reasons why the F-35 has 3 times the parameters to ID a target than the F-22.
By: Yama
- 6th December 2016 at 19:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TBH, There is no real evidence as to why EOTS should be inferior to others IRST like OLS-35 or FSO.. etc in air to air role.
IR systems are optics, and laws of optics are pretty ruthless: if you want great resolving power, you are forced to sacrifice field of view, and if you want good field of view, there goes resolving power. Attack pods are designed for identifying ground targets, and generally have good resolving power but poor FoV and scan rates. A2A IRST systems by contrast need to find aerial targets preferably before they find you, and need high scan rates and largish FoVs, similar to radar in A2A mode.
Of course, there is nothing to stop you from putting multiple lenses into system which provide you both capabilities, but that costs you weight & bulk. This is why only few IR systems are designed to work as both FLIR and IRST.
All that said, LockMart claims that in A2A mode, EOTS has scan rates similar to radar, so it remains to be seen what exactly are its a2a capabilities.
By: garryA
- 6th December 2016 at 19:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IR systems are optics, and laws of optics are pretty ruthless: if you want great resolving power, you are forced to sacrifice field of view, and if you want good field of view, there goes resolving power. Attack pods are designed for identifying ground targets, and generally have good resolving power but poor FoV and scan rates. A2A IRST systems by contrast need to find aerial targets preferably before they find you, and need high scan rates and largish FoVs, similar to radar in A2A mode
Not really , you can choose your momentary FoV depending on the focal length. That the whole point of optical zoom. Moreover, no IR system can actually come close to scan rate of an electronic scanned array
By: Yama
- 6th December 2016 at 19:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not really , you can choose your momentary FoV depending on the focal length. That the whole point of optical zoom.
Yes, in theory. And to some extent in practice too, but you will end up having bulky optical system with inferior optical quality. There is a reason why photographers generally carry a bag of different lenses and change them depending on their needs, instead of one zoomable lens which does everything.
By: garryA
- 6th December 2016 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, in theory. And to some extent in practice too, but you will end up having bulky optical system with inferior optical quality. There is a reason why photographers generally carry a bag of different lenses and change them depending on their needs, instead of one zoomable lens which does everything.
I dont think you realise how big those thermal system are. More than enough space to change the focal length around
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th December 2016 at 20:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"that fluffy thing in the middle of the ocean surely has got to be a boat ?
i'll better have a look outside the window and see what it is !"
“It’s got limited utility, it’s for general awareness only…
You can’t really target with it unless it’s something really big,
or if it’s like a boat on the water you can see that…
It’s just for general awareness, what’s underneath me, what’s around me…
It’s cool, to be honest with you I don’t really use it all that often,
the reason being is that if I really want to see what is underneath me I will just look outside,
I will just roll up. It doesn’t take that much longer for me to just bank up there airplane and look…
Because I can see it with greater clarity…
It’s just an added benefit. That is not the primary function of those cameras.”
By: Yama
- 6th December 2016 at 21:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont think you realise how big those thermal system are. More than enough space to change the focal length around
If it was trivial as you suggest, then we wouldn't see specialized IR systems at all. In fact often attack pods have multiple separate cameras. LANTIRN, for example, has FLIR in two separate pods - one with fixed wide FoV field, other with zoomable optics for narrow view. LITENING has two TV cameras and one FLIR sensor, and so on. They wouldn't bother with multiple cameras if they could just do all that with zoomable optics.
By: Armed Update
- 6th December 2016 at 21:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. When has Major John Wilson ever said you can't ID with DAS? He said the infrared cameras can't really judge range, aspect, closure etc.(like any IR camera) Green and Grey imagery is funky compared to human colored vision.
2. He clearly says there will be newer cameras coming out. That's a Gen II helmet he says. The EODAS was always been designed to be like an IRST to lock on to targets. (An solution to find range, aspect, closure is to fly two ship, for TDOA.)However I don't expect it to ever be good in a dogfight as Mk1 Eyeballs.
By: SpudmanWP
- 6th December 2016 at 21:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Once again, the EODAS's primary responsibility is to track an object. Other sensors will ID it.
Once ID'd, the F-35's sensor fusion will continue to label the object and share that info.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th December 2016 at 21:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if he really wanted to know whats outside the window, he wouldnt have look outside if the quality of the camera
was up to snuff to ID, but alas...its just to notify 'there's an IR source in that direction"
i think its doable to distinguish rocket engines from other sources due to the intense heat,
so false rate shouldnt be that much worse than standard MAWS
By: Armed Update
- 6th December 2016 at 21:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if he really wanted to know whats outside the window, he wouldnt have look outside if the quality of the camera was up to snuff to ID
You are not listening. He said he needs his eyes to judge range, aspect, closure, NOT ID.
It's like playing football with a black and green vision camera strapped to your helmet vs your own eyes. Sure you can identify big guys coming at you, just it will be super headache looking at the screen all day.
Look at the footage, it can clearly ID F-16.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250118[/ATTACH]
Attachments
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th December 2016 at 21:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if I really want to see what is underneath me I will just look outside
By: Vnomad
- 6th December 2016 at 21:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty much all of the issues with the helmet have been identified, we've got a path forward and it looks like we're headed in the right direction. From my perspective, the helmet is.. I wouldn't say its a success yet. It looks like its going to be a success. I really enjoy flying with it. Its very different flying with the Helmet Mounted Display, even with experience in the F-18 using the JHMCS. Its a very different concept to not have that Heads Up Display. It took me about 50 hours to really dial myself in to be able to use that system. But now I absolutely love it.
- LCDR Michael Burks, USN
San Diego 2014
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 6th December 2016 at 21:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no arguing about EOTS, about time it comes as standard equipment, cant believe it took this long,
rafale scored a lot of points on this camera.
also agree an indication of an IR source in a direction is a whole lot better than nothing
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th December 2016 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DAS can ID the target
There is no max range for a passive system. It all depending on transmitting power of the radar. Then coding and what not.Obviously the range will be higher at higher altitude due to radar horizon
lacks range and velocity
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 6th December 2016 at 18:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It does not have to ID at long range, just track already ID's targets or alert to new targets.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 6th December 2016 at 18:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course you have specific information to support this claim no?
Because they've already stated that the shape recognition algorithms allow for that very thing at ranges that would make visual ID impossible.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 6th December 2016 at 18:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not only that but once the target is being tracked, EM emissions from it will also help to ID it. This is one of the reasons why the F-35 has 3 times the parameters to ID a target than the F-22.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 6th December 2016 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oops. I meant EOTS+ :)
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 6th December 2016 at 19:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IR systems are optics, and laws of optics are pretty ruthless: if you want great resolving power, you are forced to sacrifice field of view, and if you want good field of view, there goes resolving power. Attack pods are designed for identifying ground targets, and generally have good resolving power but poor FoV and scan rates. A2A IRST systems by contrast need to find aerial targets preferably before they find you, and need high scan rates and largish FoVs, similar to radar in A2A mode.
Of course, there is nothing to stop you from putting multiple lenses into system which provide you both capabilities, but that costs you weight & bulk. This is why only few IR systems are designed to work as both FLIR and IRST.
All that said, LockMart claims that in A2A mode, EOTS has scan rates similar to radar, so it remains to be seen what exactly are its a2a capabilities.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th December 2016 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not really , you can choose your momentary FoV depending on the focal length. That the whole point of optical zoom. Moreover, no IR system can actually come close to scan rate of an electronic scanned array
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 6th December 2016 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, in theory. And to some extent in practice too, but you will end up having bulky optical system with inferior optical quality. There is a reason why photographers generally carry a bag of different lenses and change them depending on their needs, instead of one zoomable lens which does everything.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th December 2016 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I dont think you realise how big those thermal system are. More than enough space to change the focal length around
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th December 2016 at 20:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"that fluffy thing in the middle of the ocean surely has got to be a boat ?
i'll better have a look outside the window and see what it is !"
Posts: 621
By: Yama - 6th December 2016 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was trivial as you suggest, then we wouldn't see specialized IR systems at all. In fact often attack pods have multiple separate cameras. LANTIRN, for example, has FLIR in two separate pods - one with fixed wide FoV field, other with zoomable optics for narrow view. LITENING has two TV cameras and one FLIR sensor, and so on. They wouldn't bother with multiple cameras if they could just do all that with zoomable optics.
Posts: 127
By: Armed Update - 6th December 2016 at 21:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. When has Major John Wilson ever said you can't ID with DAS? He said the infrared cameras can't really judge range, aspect, closure etc.(like any IR camera) Green and Grey imagery is funky compared to human colored vision.
2. He clearly says there will be newer cameras coming out. That's a Gen II helmet he says. The EODAS was always been designed to be like an IRST to lock on to targets. (An solution to find range, aspect, closure is to fly two ship, for TDOA.)However I don't expect it to ever be good in a dogfight as Mk1 Eyeballs.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 6th December 2016 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Once again, the EODAS's primary responsibility is to track an object. Other sensors will ID it.
Once ID'd, the F-35's sensor fusion will continue to label the object and share that info.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th December 2016 at 21:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if he really wanted to know whats outside the window, he wouldnt have look outside if the quality of the camera
was up to snuff to ID, but alas...its just to notify 'there's an IR source in that direction"
i think its doable to distinguish rocket engines from other sources due to the intense heat,
so false rate shouldnt be that much worse than standard MAWS
Posts: 127
By: Armed Update - 6th December 2016 at 21:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are not listening. He said he needs his eyes to judge range, aspect, closure, NOT ID.
It's like playing football with a black and green vision camera strapped to your helmet vs your own eyes. Sure you can identify big guys coming at you, just it will be super headache looking at the screen all day.
Look at the footage, it can clearly ID F-16.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250118[/ATTACH]
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th December 2016 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if I really want to see what is underneath me I will just look outside
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 6th December 2016 at 21:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just plain no.
EODAS is much better than "standard MAWS" and anyone with eyeballs can tell the difference.
The Major's "look outside" quote has to do with the whole "see through the floor" feature which is a tertiary feature at best.
Posts: 127
By: Armed Update - 6th December 2016 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Once again Wilson said this a GEN II Helmet with older cameras:sleeping:
How about you come up with newer sources
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 6th December 2016 at 21:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pretty much all of the issues with the helmet have been identified, we've got a path forward and it looks like we're headed in the right direction. From my perspective, the helmet is.. I wouldn't say its a success yet. It looks like its going to be a success. I really enjoy flying with it. Its very different flying with the Helmet Mounted Display, even with experience in the F-18 using the JHMCS. Its a very different concept to not have that Heads Up Display. It took me about 50 hours to really dial myself in to be able to use that system. But now I absolutely love it.
- LCDR Michael Burks, USN
San Diego 2014
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 6th December 2016 at 21:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no arguing about EOTS, about time it comes as standard equipment, cant believe it took this long,
rafale scored a lot of points on this camera.
also agree an indication of an IR source in a direction is a whole lot better than nothing