By: EELightning
- 24th September 2009 at 14:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The drop tank is merely the housing for the IRST and does not reflect on the actual quality of the IRST itself which should be an advancment from current systems in use.
Quite. Would have just thought they copuld've come up with something more subtle to house the IRST in.
Leave it to the damn Super Hornet to screw it up.
Would you, or anyone else think it would be possible to remove the gun on the F/A-18 & replace it with an IRST? Then that way at least you'll have an extra hard point to have weapons on then. You'll be minus a gun, but hey what can you do.
By: sferrin
- 24th September 2009 at 14:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm surprised they never developed a big eye IR-homing missile that could dump it's information to the IRST to double it's effort. That could be like carrying two. But even now, with the existing Sidewinders it would add some serious situation awareness. If you had four external that would be that many more eyes looking out there for threats.
During Desert Storm A-10s were using Maverick IIR seekers like nightvision scopes. (One at a time of course.)
By: Jason Simonds
- 24th September 2009 at 15:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite. Would have just thought they copuld've come up with something more subtle to house the IRST in.
Would you, or anyone else think it would be possible to remove the gun on the F/A-18 & replace it with an IRST? Then that way at least you'll have an extra hard point to have weapons on then. You'll be minus a gun, but hey what can you do.
I doubt every SH in the USN will be equipped with the IRST/fuel tank combination. More likely one or two aircraft in a package will be fitted with such a capability whilst others are not.
It seems to me, that USN wants a long ranged IRST in-service before F-35C becomes operational to boost it's passive detection and tracking capability from some of it's fighters.
Every F-35C will have an internally mounted IRST capability for A2A from Block 3 onwards and full A2A and A2G IRST capability from Block 5 onwards, so the USN will be getting the capability you seem to think they should have eventually. A major re-design of the front fuselage of the Supers to accommodate an internal IRST seems to me to be a most unnecessary and costly option to obtain the capability.
The downside is of course, that the Super so equipped could most likely not "punch off" the tank equipped with the IRST and it will carry a bit less fuel. However how realistic is it, that SH's will need to "punch off" tanks on a regular basis?
With the CEC environment the USN Supers operate in, cueing the IRST should not be a huge problem, nor should sharing the IRST data, so a "service wide" IRST capability is not really needed on the Supers, when compared to the cost of introducing such a capability, moreso with the less than optimal installation choice.
I don't see that the fuel tank installation is the worst idea ever. It will be comparatively cheap nad quick to introduce, especially given they are using existing systems that are being upgraded, rather than a new system designed from scratch and the IRST sensor itself should have a good FOV and an excellent view of below the aircraft. It will be blocked looking directly above, but there's always some compromise involved in these things...
By: SpudmanWP
- 24th September 2009 at 17:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Every F-35C will have an internally mounted IRST capability for A2A from Block 3 onwards and full A2A and A2G IRST capability from Block 5 onwards, so the USN will be getting the capability you seem to think they should have eventually.
It's better than you think.
In a recent article, it was confirmed that Blk 3 will have full A2A IRST and EODAS integration. The Blk5 IRST reference is an A2G mode, not A2A.
By: MadRat
- 25th September 2009 at 02:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Back in the years just prior to the first desert storm the brass were largely unfamiliar with the capability of office powerpoint, spreadsheets and databases. The air force used the tools, but the bosses didn't realize the raw power of the tools. An enlisted man asked why they didn't dump all the different information from the various office programs into a single system. All it took was an okay, one programmer, and a couple weeks; they had a crude working tool that allowed them to reinvent their situation awareness at that point in time.
It is something of a mystery why they don't try to squeeze more uses out of their solid state parts. The first television guided bombs came about because some civilian engineers asked their military buddies "why don't you..." and they began to ask themselves "is that possible?" Actually, most of the best innovation in weaponry have came from the civilian world.
The air force and navy both have all this technology built around the term "imaging infrared" which is now to the point where an AI makes awfully good educated guesses based on outward appearances to be rather broad assumptions. With the wide aspect of today's sensors they no longer are confined to an aimpoint near the pip. I am willing to bet that they could teamwork the sensors already built into their existing gcu/electronic eyes - mavericks, sidewinders, have nap, aaq-26, asq-228, etc. - with some AI and today's computer chips into some very powerful ground and air scanning tools. Situation awareness is about the best defense the pilot has left that offers him control in an emergency. They might have always wanted those tools but somebody up until this point in time just hasn't asked the right person the right question or permission.
New
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog
- 25th September 2009 at 03:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By: SpudmanWP
- 25th September 2009 at 05:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I am willing to bet that they could teamwork the sensors already built into their existing gcu/electronic eyes - mavericks, sidewinders, have nap, aaq-26, asq-228, etc. - with some AI and today's computer chips into some very powerful ground and air scanning tools.
This is one of the benefits of the F-35 system... EVERYTHING is integrated in one system, sans weapons of course.
By: Racomm
- 4th February 2010 at 16:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure you know it but the ROE's at Cope india, or do you mean they are capitalizing on the percieved failings and subsequent fallout from Cope India?
Yeah, Yeah this is just wishfull thinking, (to assume the USAF purposly lost to get more funding for F-22) they really lost to those Su-30's, AND in the past the USAF has also lost to Canadian/Israeli pilots in mock battles, guess those were also "purpose failings" to get funding for the F-22 also right?;)
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 4th February 2010 at 17:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If that is true and USAF was losing onj purpose, then they should start winning all over because Raptor propject is dead, anyway. Guess what, I don't think this will happen.
New
Posts: 38
By: Black_Cat
- 5th February 2010 at 15:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may come as a shock to some but it's not like the US has never had IRSTs in the proper location. The F-8 Crusader, F-101, F-102, F-106, F-4, and F-14 come to mind. Hell, the YF-12A had TWO. Leave it to the damn Super Hornet to screw it up.
Its a shock..... shocking to see that they did not use their IRST to newer a/c...maybe the Amrikkan IRST was at the best USELESS?? I don't see any other reason for the yanks to drop the IRST from their a/c and also not going with LOUDSPEAKER with their "invention" they hardly forget to do.
By: SpudmanWP
- 5th February 2010 at 17:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OR... Our radar and defensive electronics have progressed faster than optics thereby negating the need for IRST.
Now, with the advent of VLO fighters and the ROW catching up with radar tech and defensive electronics, we have decided that an advanced IRST would be a good addition to have.
I still think they should have included the F-22's AIRST. Damn bean counters!!
Posts: 1,838
By: over G - 24th September 2009 at 06:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wonder if fitting such electronic device on a fuel tank is safe.
Is that abomination already certificated for the US Navy /USAF?
Posts: 1,366
By: aurcov - 24th September 2009 at 07:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US Navy only.Posts: 2,631
By: EELightning - 24th September 2009 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite. Would have just thought they copuld've come up with something more subtle to house the IRST in. Would you, or anyone else think it would be possible to remove the gun on the F/A-18 & replace it with an IRST? Then that way at least you'll have an extra hard point to have weapons on then. You'll be minus a gun, but hey what can you do.Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 24th September 2009 at 14:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
During Desert Storm A-10s were using Maverick IIR seekers like nightvision scopes. (One at a time of course.)
Posts: 434
By: Jason Simonds - 24th September 2009 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I doubt every SH in the USN will be equipped with the IRST/fuel tank combination. More likely one or two aircraft in a package will be fitted with such a capability whilst others are not.
It seems to me, that USN wants a long ranged IRST in-service before F-35C becomes operational to boost it's passive detection and tracking capability from some of it's fighters.
Every F-35C will have an internally mounted IRST capability for A2A from Block 3 onwards and full A2A and A2G IRST capability from Block 5 onwards, so the USN will be getting the capability you seem to think they should have eventually. A major re-design of the front fuselage of the Supers to accommodate an internal IRST seems to me to be a most unnecessary and costly option to obtain the capability.
The downside is of course, that the Super so equipped could most likely not "punch off" the tank equipped with the IRST and it will carry a bit less fuel. However how realistic is it, that SH's will need to "punch off" tanks on a regular basis?
With the CEC environment the USN Supers operate in, cueing the IRST should not be a huge problem, nor should sharing the IRST data, so a "service wide" IRST capability is not really needed on the Supers, when compared to the cost of introducing such a capability, moreso with the less than optimal installation choice.
I don't see that the fuel tank installation is the worst idea ever. It will be comparatively cheap nad quick to introduce, especially given they are using existing systems that are being upgraded, rather than a new system designed from scratch and the IRST sensor itself should have a good FOV and an excellent view of below the aircraft. It will be blocked looking directly above, but there's always some compromise involved in these things...
Posts: 880
By: Peter G - 24th September 2009 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Centreline tank doesn't reduce the agility that much, especially if the fuel as already been used.
They plan on 150 tank/pods.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 24th September 2009 at 17:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's better than you think.
In a recent article, it was confirmed that Blk 3 will have full A2A IRST and EODAS integration. The Blk5 IRST reference is an A2G mode, not A2A.
Posts: 553
By: Kapedani - 24th September 2009 at 18:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can the Sniper pod serve a similar function?
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 24th September 2009 at 18:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, the wavelengths are different and the Sniper ATP is a FLIR with limited IRST functions.
Posts: 4,951
By: MadRat - 25th September 2009 at 02:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Back in the years just prior to the first desert storm the brass were largely unfamiliar with the capability of office powerpoint, spreadsheets and databases. The air force used the tools, but the bosses didn't realize the raw power of the tools. An enlisted man asked why they didn't dump all the different information from the various office programs into a single system. All it took was an okay, one programmer, and a couple weeks; they had a crude working tool that allowed them to reinvent their situation awareness at that point in time.
It is something of a mystery why they don't try to squeeze more uses out of their solid state parts. The first television guided bombs came about because some civilian engineers asked their military buddies "why don't you..." and they began to ask themselves "is that possible?" Actually, most of the best innovation in weaponry have came from the civilian world.
The air force and navy both have all this technology built around the term "imaging infrared" which is now to the point where an AI makes awfully good educated guesses based on outward appearances to be rather broad assumptions. With the wide aspect of today's sensors they no longer are confined to an aimpoint near the pip. I am willing to bet that they could teamwork the sensors already built into their existing gcu/electronic eyes - mavericks, sidewinders, have nap, aaq-26, asq-228, etc. - with some AI and today's computer chips into some very powerful ground and air scanning tools. Situation awareness is about the best defense the pilot has left that offers him control in an emergency. They might have always wanted those tools but somebody up until this point in time just hasn't asked the right person the right question or permission.
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 25th September 2009 at 03:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Japanese F-15 have IRST
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 25th September 2009 at 05:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is one of the benefits of the F-35 system... EVERYTHING is integrated in one system, sans weapons of course.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 25th September 2009 at 05:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting. Learn something new every day.
By: Anonymous - 25th September 2009 at 05:36 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
Well, it's not operational (yet), sofar it is being tested for a possible upgrade which has been a long time coming.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 25th September 2009 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's not operational?
By: Anonymous - 25th September 2009 at 18:15 Permalink - Edited 22nd October 2019 at 22:29
Sorry, I was talking about the Japanese IRST - should have quoted the appropriate post, my bad.
Posts: 26
By: Racomm - 4th February 2010 at 16:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, Yeah this is just wishfull thinking, (to assume the USAF purposly lost to get more funding for F-22) they really lost to those Su-30's, AND in the past the USAF has also lost to Canadian/Israeli pilots in mock battles, guess those were also "purpose failings" to get funding for the F-22 also right?;)
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 4th February 2010 at 17:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If that is true and USAF was losing onj purpose, then they should start winning all over because Raptor propject is dead, anyway. Guess what, I don't think this will happen.
Posts: 38
By: Black_Cat - 5th February 2010 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its a shock..... shocking to see that they did not use their IRST to newer a/c...maybe the Amrikkan IRST was at the best USELESS?? I don't see any other reason for the yanks to drop the IRST from their a/c and also not going with LOUDSPEAKER with their "invention" they hardly forget to do.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 5th February 2010 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OR... Our radar and defensive electronics have progressed faster than optics thereby negating the need for IRST.
Now, with the advent of VLO fighters and the ROW catching up with radar tech and defensive electronics, we have decided that an advanced IRST would be a good addition to have.
I still think they should have included the F-22's AIRST. Damn bean counters!!