AN/AAQ-37 = wow!
10-11-2011 | 10:08 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
AN/AAQ-37 = wow!
Everything, Everywhere, All the time........... (5+ min video)
I don't know - seems that worming to the merge and rolling in for the gun run might be a thing of the past
I think the technology of this man's game as left me behind a long time ago.
I'm barely learning ForeFlight!
Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the F-35 - Video
USMCLFYR
I don't know - seems that worming to the merge and rolling in for the gun run might be a thing of the past
I think the technology of this man's game as left me behind a long time ago.
I'm barely learning ForeFlight!
Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS) for the F-35 - Video
USMCLFYR
10-11-2011 | 11:58 AM
#2
Custom User Title
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,274
Likes: 0
Wow, seriously impressive! Don't want to be a bad guy.
Watching the part about the ability to immediately retaliate on an offensive threat made me wonder if the pilots will have to deal with commanders/modern politics denying such an immediate response to an attacker.
I would just hope that the pilots will be granted authority to make that decision for themselves when such a situation arises.
Watching the part about the ability to immediately retaliate on an offensive threat made me wonder if the pilots will have to deal with commanders/modern politics denying such an immediate response to an attacker.
I would just hope that the pilots will be granted authority to make that decision for themselves when such a situation arises.
10-23-2011 | 08:39 AM
#3
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Clearance Sale on 2011 Models
AZ/USMC:
Standard Manufacturer's hype. While impressive (and, I'm sure at an impressive cost), the manufacturer never mentions the weaknesses in their product.
Not mentioned:
1. IR sensors are always VMC-only. They bragged about day/night, but not clouds/precip/battlefield explosions. USMC: ever played with IIR-Maverick?
2. Just like AMRAAM and AIM-7s before, it is great to have long-range shot capability (BVR)....IF you have the Rules of Engagement to employ it. Hasn't happened much in the last 30 years. Same principle to fratricide on the ground? Same thing, not "Oh my goodness, an SA-4 is shooting at me, let me (and my wingman in a non-tactical formation) take it out immediately."
3. There are numerous deceptive tactics that could be used to fool a system such as this. I'm not even talking hardware, but will keep this discussion unclassified.
4. I particularly enjoyed the part with the SU-27s and the narrator: "With highly maneuverable adversaries, the F-35 with DAS can choose to exit the fight...and let its missiles do the work."
(That was the same design philosophy as the original Phantom...before they put in the gun and leading-edge slats for turning fights!!)
5. Finally, who does Northrop Grumman think we will be fighting over the next 20-30 years? Apparently, they think a first-world adversary with 5th-gen fighters.
I think more likely a third-world dirt-hole where the greatest technological achievement is a 1999 Toyota 4-wheeldrive with a 27mm mounted in the back, and one house with a flush-toilet.
Standard Manufacturer's hype. While impressive (and, I'm sure at an impressive cost), the manufacturer never mentions the weaknesses in their product.
Not mentioned:
1. IR sensors are always VMC-only. They bragged about day/night, but not clouds/precip/battlefield explosions. USMC: ever played with IIR-Maverick?
2. Just like AMRAAM and AIM-7s before, it is great to have long-range shot capability (BVR)....IF you have the Rules of Engagement to employ it. Hasn't happened much in the last 30 years. Same principle to fratricide on the ground? Same thing, not "Oh my goodness, an SA-4 is shooting at me, let me (and my wingman in a non-tactical formation) take it out immediately."
3. There are numerous deceptive tactics that could be used to fool a system such as this. I'm not even talking hardware, but will keep this discussion unclassified.
4. I particularly enjoyed the part with the SU-27s and the narrator: "With highly maneuverable adversaries, the F-35 with DAS can choose to exit the fight...and let its missiles do the work."
(That was the same design philosophy as the original Phantom...before they put in the gun and leading-edge slats for turning fights!!)
5. Finally, who does Northrop Grumman think we will be fighting over the next 20-30 years? Apparently, they think a first-world adversary with 5th-gen fighters.
I think more likely a third-world dirt-hole where the greatest technological achievement is a 1999 Toyota 4-wheeldrive with a 27mm mounted in the back, and one house with a flush-toilet.
10-23-2011 | 11:10 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 13,843
Likes: 1
From: FAA 'Flight Check'
AZ/USMC:
Standard Manufacturer's hype. While impressive (and, I'm sure at an impressive cost), the manufacturer never mentions the weaknesses in their product.
Not mentioned:
1. IR sensors are always VMC-only. They bragged about day/night, but not clouds/precip/battlefield explosions. USMC: ever played with IIR-Maverick?
2. Just like AMRAAM and AIM-7s before, it is great to have long-range shot capability (BVR)....IF you have the Rules of Engagement to employ it. Hasn't happened much in the last 30 years. Same principle to fratricide on the ground? Same thing, not "Oh my goodness, an SA-4 is shooting at me, let me (and my wingman in a non-tactical formation) take it out immediately."
3. There are numerous deceptive tactics that could be used to fool a system such as this. I'm not even talking hardware, but will keep this discussion unclassified.
4. I particularly enjoyed the part with the SU-27s and the narrator: "With highly maneuverable adversaries, the F-35 with DAS can choose to exit the fight...and let its missiles do the work."
(That was the same design philosophy as the original Phantom...before they put in the gun and leading-edge slats for turning fights!!)
5. Finally, who does Northrop Grumman think we will be fighting over the next 20-30 years? Apparently, they think a first-world adversary with 5th-gen fighters.
I think more likely a third-world dirt-hole where the greatest technological achievement is a 1999 Toyota 4-wheeldrive with a 27mm mounted in the back, and one house with a flush-toilet.
Standard Manufacturer's hype. While impressive (and, I'm sure at an impressive cost), the manufacturer never mentions the weaknesses in their product.
Not mentioned:
1. IR sensors are always VMC-only. They bragged about day/night, but not clouds/precip/battlefield explosions. USMC: ever played with IIR-Maverick?
2. Just like AMRAAM and AIM-7s before, it is great to have long-range shot capability (BVR)....IF you have the Rules of Engagement to employ it. Hasn't happened much in the last 30 years. Same principle to fratricide on the ground? Same thing, not "Oh my goodness, an SA-4 is shooting at me, let me (and my wingman in a non-tactical formation) take it out immediately."
3. There are numerous deceptive tactics that could be used to fool a system such as this. I'm not even talking hardware, but will keep this discussion unclassified.
4. I particularly enjoyed the part with the SU-27s and the narrator: "With highly maneuverable adversaries, the F-35 with DAS can choose to exit the fight...and let its missiles do the work."
(That was the same design philosophy as the original Phantom...before they put in the gun and leading-edge slats for turning fights!!)
5. Finally, who does Northrop Grumman think we will be fighting over the next 20-30 years? Apparently, they think a first-world adversary with 5th-gen fighters.
I think more likely a third-world dirt-hole where the greatest technological achievement is a 1999 Toyota 4-wheeldrive with a 27mm mounted in the back, and one house with a flush-toilet.
Yes.
Don't be fooled by my initial post.
You have to give me some credit after being in the business for 20 years that I know manufacturer's hype when I see it! If not, then you might as well send me out to the looney bin a little sooner than advertised!
Now that we know that Afghanistan would back the Pakistanis if we ever went to war (today's Yahoo news), then I guess it could be a mixture of 4th-5th generation threats all the way to insurgent tactics.
USMCFLYR
10-24-2011 | 10:58 AM
#7
Custom User Title
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,274
Likes: 0
Is it not possible to put this type of sensory technology into a new build Viper/Eagle/Hornet, etc? Our 4th gen fighters are far more affordable than the F-22/35. Against 3rd world nations/insurgent arms, these aircraft are more than capable, are they not?
Admittedly, it might not be as ideal for conflicts with China or Russia, etc.
I just can't help in being disappointed at how long it takes us now to put a new manned combat aircraft into service and at how much it ends up costing to build it compared to previous generations.
Admittedly, it might not be as ideal for conflicts with China or Russia, etc.
I just can't help in being disappointed at how long it takes us now to put a new manned combat aircraft into service and at how much it ends up costing to build it compared to previous generations.
10-24-2011 | 12:02 PM
#8
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Systems Integration
AZ:
Up through about 4th-gen fighters, the navigation system, radar, RWR (Radar Warning Receiver; the thing that tells you if someone is looking at you or shooting a radar-shot at you), weapons (bombs, missiles, gun, targetting pod) and countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) were each developed separately, and mounted in the aircraft independently.
The system integrator was the fighter pilot.
Late-model F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s have this to a degree through (as I understand it) add-on systems, such as tactical data-link.
Starting with the F-22 for us, they have attempted to merge all of these features into one system. No more looking at multiple scopes to see radar, navigation, and threats....they are all on one display. Scopes---how open-cockpit biplane-ish. Helmet-mounted sight. Weapons envelopes, too (theirs and yours). Need defensive measures? It does it for you, or shows you what it can do.
This means the manufacturers of all these components have to work with each other to make the systems compatible. It also means the airframe must have a specific type of electrical/data network to connect the computers. All that "cooperation" takes time, effort, delays....and more money.
You could put new stuff like this in older jets, but would cost about as much as the F-35. Why?
The two most expensive components in a jet aircraft are the engines and avionics. It used to be that engines were more expensive...now, I believe that is reversed.
As to why new aircraft cost so much? Once they have the contract, is there any incentive to make it cheaper, or finish them quickly? The sooner the contract is finished, the sooner the manufacturer starts laying-off the engineers and technicians (the aerospace industry has been described as a high-tech migrant worker industry---and I've seen it to be true). And as was a pet-peeve of John Boyd, Generals love to add one more gizmo to a new jet to give it one more capability. But, in so doing, they make it heavier, lower performance....and more costly.
Up through about 4th-gen fighters, the navigation system, radar, RWR (Radar Warning Receiver; the thing that tells you if someone is looking at you or shooting a radar-shot at you), weapons (bombs, missiles, gun, targetting pod) and countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) were each developed separately, and mounted in the aircraft independently.
The system integrator was the fighter pilot.
Late-model F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s have this to a degree through (as I understand it) add-on systems, such as tactical data-link.
Starting with the F-22 for us, they have attempted to merge all of these features into one system. No more looking at multiple scopes to see radar, navigation, and threats....they are all on one display. Scopes---how open-cockpit biplane-ish. Helmet-mounted sight. Weapons envelopes, too (theirs and yours). Need defensive measures? It does it for you, or shows you what it can do.
This means the manufacturers of all these components have to work with each other to make the systems compatible. It also means the airframe must have a specific type of electrical/data network to connect the computers. All that "cooperation" takes time, effort, delays....and more money.
You could put new stuff like this in older jets, but would cost about as much as the F-35. Why?
The two most expensive components in a jet aircraft are the engines and avionics. It used to be that engines were more expensive...now, I believe that is reversed.
As to why new aircraft cost so much? Once they have the contract, is there any incentive to make it cheaper, or finish them quickly? The sooner the contract is finished, the sooner the manufacturer starts laying-off the engineers and technicians (the aerospace industry has been described as a high-tech migrant worker industry---and I've seen it to be true). And as was a pet-peeve of John Boyd, Generals love to add one more gizmo to a new jet to give it one more capability. But, in so doing, they make it heavier, lower performance....and more costly.
10-24-2011 | 01:50 PM
#9
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,912
Likes: 694
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
AZ:
Up through about 4th-gen fighters, the navigation system, radar, RWR (Radar Warning Receiver; the thing that tells you if someone is looking at you or shooting a radar-shot at you), weapons (bombs, missiles, gun, targetting pod) and countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) were each developed separately, and mounted in the aircraft independently.
The system integrator was the fighter pilot.
Late-model F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s have this to a degree through (as I understand it) add-on systems, such as tactical data-link.
Starting with the F-22 for us, they have attempted to merge all of these features into one system. No more looking at multiple scopes to see radar, navigation, and threats....they are all on one display. Scopes---how open-cockpit biplane-ish. Helmet-mounted sight. Weapons envelopes, too (theirs and yours). Need defensive measures? It does it for you, or shows you what it can do.
This means the manufacturers of all these components have to work with each other to make the systems compatible. It also means the airframe must have a specific type of electrical/data network to connect the computers. All that "cooperation" takes time, effort, delays....and more money.
You could put new stuff like this in older jets, but would cost about as much as the F-35. Why?
The two most expensive components in a jet aircraft are the engines and avionics. It used to be that engines were more expensive...now, I believe that is reversed.
As to why new aircraft cost so much? Once they have the contract, is there any incentive to make it cheaper, or finish them quickly? The sooner the contract is finished, the sooner the manufacturer starts laying-off the engineers and technicians (the aerospace industry has been described as a high-tech migrant worker industry---and I've seen it to be true). And as was a pet-peeve of John Boyd, Generals love to add one more gizmo to a new jet to give it one more capability. But, in so doing, they make it heavier, lower performance....and more costly.
Up through about 4th-gen fighters, the navigation system, radar, RWR (Radar Warning Receiver; the thing that tells you if someone is looking at you or shooting a radar-shot at you), weapons (bombs, missiles, gun, targetting pod) and countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming pods) were each developed separately, and mounted in the aircraft independently.
The system integrator was the fighter pilot.
Late-model F-16s, F-15s, and F-18s have this to a degree through (as I understand it) add-on systems, such as tactical data-link.
Starting with the F-22 for us, they have attempted to merge all of these features into one system. No more looking at multiple scopes to see radar, navigation, and threats....they are all on one display. Scopes---how open-cockpit biplane-ish. Helmet-mounted sight. Weapons envelopes, too (theirs and yours). Need defensive measures? It does it for you, or shows you what it can do.
This means the manufacturers of all these components have to work with each other to make the systems compatible. It also means the airframe must have a specific type of electrical/data network to connect the computers. All that "cooperation" takes time, effort, delays....and more money.
You could put new stuff like this in older jets, but would cost about as much as the F-35. Why?
The two most expensive components in a jet aircraft are the engines and avionics. It used to be that engines were more expensive...now, I believe that is reversed.
As to why new aircraft cost so much? Once they have the contract, is there any incentive to make it cheaper, or finish them quickly? The sooner the contract is finished, the sooner the manufacturer starts laying-off the engineers and technicians (the aerospace industry has been described as a high-tech migrant worker industry---and I've seen it to be true). And as was a pet-peeve of John Boyd, Generals love to add one more gizmo to a new jet to give it one more capability. But, in so doing, they make it heavier, lower performance....and more costly.
The most expensive part of a 5th generation fighter is the whole fighter...it has to be massively integrated in every possible aspect, including stealth and extremely optimized airframe utilization.
If you wanted the most bang for the buck, keep everything else and give up stealth...but not sure you can get away with that 10-20 years from now.
10-24-2011 | 02:54 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: PPL, Engineer
How long (if at all) do you think it will be before the US gov't includes the AN/AAQ-37 with the FMS F-35's?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
