Luitko esim. tätä tekstiä?
Features:
- Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar
Gripen E/F
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Huhta
- Aloitus PVM
Luitko esim. tätä tekstiä?
Features:
Niin. Tuo on F-35:n AESA-tutkan ominaisuus vihulaisen tulenjohtotutkia vastaan.
Miksi Bae sitten kehuu siten tuotettaan? Bae siis on F-35 EW-järjestelmän tekijä.
Todennäköisesti kehittelevät häirintäsäiliöitä myös. Eipä se keneltäkään pois ole.
Huhta
Greatest Leader
Väärää tietoa. IRST-sensori voi seurata useaa maalia ihan samalla tavalla kuin tutkakin. Välillä vilkaistaan toisaalle ja sitten taas vilkaistaan havaittua kohdetta, jotta seuranta pysyy laadukkaana, ja sitten vilkuillaan jälleen toisaalle.
Pirate IRST:
http://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...earch_and_Track_LQ_mm07797_.pdf?download_file
Skyward(, jonka G-versio on tulossa Gripeniin):
http://www.leonardocompany.com/docu...51/mm08130_Skyward_IRST_LQ_.pdf?download_file
fulcrum
Greatest Leader
Tuokin siis tarkoittaa sitä että tutkamoodeja (ei välttämättä kaikkia) voi käyttää yhtä aikaa ECM-moodin kanssa: mutta luonnollisesti tutkan teho tai tarkkuus kuitenkin putoaa jos osa lähetystehosta käytetään johonkin muuhun tarkoitukseen.
F-35:ssä ja muissa avioniikaltaan samansukuisissa koneissa on niin vahva sensorifuusio ettei voida oikeastaan edes puhua yhdestä järjestelmästä koska ne kaikki toimivat keskustietokoneen alaisuudessa. BAe tietysti kertoo sen mihin F-35 pystyy, ei sitä mitä järjestelmä tekisi irrallaan kaikesta muusta.
Next Generation Jammeria, jota mahdollisesti voidaan käyttää myös F-35:ssä, kehittää Raytheon. BAe yritti vängätä kontrahdin itselleen muttei onnistunut.
Tuo on ymmärrettävää, että F-35 EW järjestelmää ja AESA-tutkaa on vaikea erottaa, koska ne ovat integroituja. Lisäksi tuosta Aesa-tutkan EA-kyvystä on ollut paljon puhetta. EW AN/ASQ-239 taas on pidetty salamyhkäisenä.
Ehkä tämä auttaa erottamaan kaikista konkreettisimmin? F-35 EW järjestelmä sisältää kaiken muun lisäksi esimerkiksi ALE-70 (V) koneen rungosta ulos laskettavan tutka-jamming lähettimen (englanniksi towed decoy).
Se ei voi mitenkään liittyä tutkaan
Ehkä tämä auttaa erottamaan kaikista konkreettisimmin? F-35 EW järjestelmä sisältää kaiken muun lisäksi esimerkiksi ALE-70 (V) koneen rungosta ulos laskettavan tutka-jamming lähettimen (englanniksi towed decoy).
Se ei voi mitenkään liittyä tutkaan
IRST skannausala on erittäin laaja (laajempi kuin esim. kiinteän AESA-tutkan).
Tässä Hornetfinn F-16.netissä kertoo, miten IRST tarkkuus on merkittävästi (50x-200x) parempi kuin tutka.
Pirate IRST in Eurofighter Typhoon is said to have angular accuracy of 0.0143 degrees or 0.25 mrad. Typical angular accuracy of radars is about 50-200 times less.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=52682
fulcrum
Greatest Leader
Tuo on ymmärrettävää, että F-35 EW järjestelmää ja AESA-tutkaa on vaikea erottaa, koska ne ovat integroituja. Lisäksi tuosta Aesa-tutkan EA-kyvystä on ollut paljon puhetta. EW AN/ASQ-239 taas on pidetty salamyhkäisenä.
Ehkä tämä auttaa erottamaan kaikista konkreettisimmin? F-35 EW järjestelmä sisältää kaiken muun lisäksi esimerkiksi ALE-70 (V) koneen rungosta ulos laskettavan tutka-jamming lähettimen (englanniksi towed decoy).
Se ei voi mitenkään liittyä tutkaan
Nojoo, hinattu harhamaali unohtui. Se teknisesti laskettanee aktiivijammeriksi. Se on kuitenkin varsin heikkotehoinen, kertakäyttöinen vempele.
Einomies1
Respected Leader
Onhan ne hienoja vehkeitä joo ja niillä on osansa mutta tutkaa eivät korvaa mitenkään. Havaintoetäisyydet ja olosuhteet pysyvät IR-sensorien haittana toistaiseksi sekä etäisyyden mittaaminen suoraan ilman laseria.
Ei näköjään keskustele tutkan kanssa vielä....ei siis suoraa maalinsiirtoa tulenjohtotutkalle.
Mitä tekemistä kulman tarkkuudella on etäisyyden mittaamisessa? Selitä ole hyvä.
Sekoitin nähtävästi IRST:n FLIR- sensoriin. IRST on nähtävästi paljon parempi sensori.
Silti IP-alueen sensorit on passiivisia eivätkä kykene mittaamaan matkaa:
IRST is purely passive -- it does not "ping" anything. A laser rangefinder can be incorporated into the optical tracker-scanner system, but it is not specifically part of the IR scanner. IRST alone cannot give range information.
IRST is a considerably better tool than a FLIR -- having the ability to scan a much wider wide swath of sky. Its limit of detection in clear air at high altitude depends on the quality of the IR sensors, without regard to external factors. Modern IRST systems shutter in vertical & horizontal planes. Against subsonic targets in head-on aspect, a LOD of ~ 50km under good conditions (high & clear) & a high POD suitable for missile queuing of ~ 30km can typically be expected. That is more or less comparable to radars in 2nd & 3rd gen fighters. Supersonic targets have a higher LOD & POD because of skin-friction heat.
Rear aspect LOD is higher than forward aspect & higher yet again if afterburners are employed by the target. Obviously the quality of the sensor technology, optics and signal-processing hardware & software has a huge impact on performance. Some systems incorporate a visible-light optical scanner with the IRST to assist in resolving the target -- such systems have considerably greater effective range.is higher than forward aspect & higher yet again if afterburners are employed by the target.
https://www.quora.com/How-well-can-...t-range-without-actively-pinging-with-a-laser
Tämä linkki miljoonannen kerran:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
"As a passive system, IRST does not have inherent range data, but it can perform “kinetic ranging”—the aircraft performs a weaving maneuver and the range is determined by the change in azimuth angle to the target—or the IRSTs on two aircraft can triangulate the target over the TAU-Link. "
TAU = tactical air unit
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
"As a passive system, IRST does not have inherent range data, but it can perform “kinetic ranging”—the aircraft performs a weaving maneuver and the range is determined by the change in azimuth angle to the target—or the IRSTs on two aircraft can triangulate the target over the TAU-Link. "
TAU = tactical air unit
Huhta
Greatest Leader
Gripenissä keskustelee, jos siis uskomme toimittajaa:
http://aviationweek.com/awin/gripen-sensors-claim-counter-stealth-performance
Se quora-vastaus oli ihan hakoteillä.
Tuossa tuli jo kaksi vastausta, laitetaan vielä yksi.
https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmiomittaus
Tuossa tuli jo kaksi vastausta, laitetaan vielä yksi.
https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmiomittaus
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Bongasin saman kuin @Einomies1.
Linkittämässäsi Skyward-brosyyrissa sanoo näin:
Growth capability to extend the existing features, including
dual IR band detector and sensor fusion with radar
Huhta
Greatest Leader
Pointtisi oli?
Oma pointtini kohdistui einomiehen käyttämään termiin "vielä", jota pidin ja pidän huonona. Ihan sama mitä tapahtuu tässä ja nyt, kun tässä ketjussa keskustellaan tulevaisuuden tilasta eikä nykyhetkestä, eihän Gripen E ole vielä lähelläkään valmista. Muiden lähteiden perusteella olen jäänyt käsitykseen, tutka ja IRST keskustelevat keskenään Gripenissä. (Täysin eri asia on, miten hyvin - F-35:n tasolle tuskin päästään.)
Toisekseen tuo Skywardin esite on vuodelta 2014 (alalaidan copyright) ja geneerinen. 60 kappaleen tilaus Skyward-G:stä (huomaa eri nimike versus "Skyward" - ehkä toiminnallisuudessakin on jotakin hienoista eroa?) tehtiin nähtävästi vuonna 2015 eikä sitäkään ole mainittu esitteessä referenssinä. Tiedämme siis melkoisella varmuudella, ettei esite ole ajan tasalla kaikilta osin.
Ajattelepa aluksi miten omat silmäsi toimivat. Niissäkään ei ole laser etäisyys mittaria, mutta silti pystynet arvioimaan etäisyyksiä kohteeseen, kuten me muutkin. Jos kuitenkin suljet toisen silmäsi tai se puuttuisi kokonaan, ei etäisyyden arvioimisesta tulisi enää mitään. IRST voi siis toimia samoin kuin silmäsikin etäisyyden määrittämiseksi, kun sensoreita on useampia tai samaa sensoria käytetään eri paikassa peräkkäin liikehdintää hyödyntäen. Etäisyyden epätarkkuus riippuu myös kulman epätarkkuudesta aivan samoin kuin silmäsi tapauksessakin. Tämän ymmärtämiseksi voit ajatella miten kävisi, jos kulman epätarkkuus olisikin huomattavasti todellista suurempi, esim 45 astetta suuntaan tai toiseen. Siis tiedät että kohde on vasemmasta silmästäsi 50...5 astetta edestä vasemmalle, ja oikeasta silmästäsi 50,1...5,1 astetta edestä vasemmalle. Voisi olla aika vaikea määritellä etäisyydestä yhtään mitään tällä tiedolla. Ihmisen silmien epätarkkuus on kuitenkin huomattavasti pienempi, eli tarkkuus parempi, ja siksi etäisyyden arviointi onnistuu kohtuu hyvin varsinkin pienemmillä etäisyyksillä ja suoraan edestä.
Ketjussa oli ajatus, että F-35 ei voi olla jammereita / harhautuslähettimiä, koska se on stealth-kone. Tässä logiikassa olisi paljon pureskeltavaa, mutta ei viitsi mennä siihen, ettei kukaan innostu liikaa.
No, nyt on osoitettu, että F-35 on vedettäviä sellaisia. Joten ylläoleva ajatus joka tapauksessa ei pidä paikkaansa.
Tässä on artikkeli B-21:stä. Siihen on todennäköisesti tulossa F-35 EW järjestelmä.
Why BAE Systems is well-positioned to score big on the Air Force's secret B-21 LRS-B bomber
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ar...the-air-force-s-secret-b-21-lrs-b-bomber.html
The U.S. Air Force is building a long-range strike bomber designed to hold at risk targets anywhere in the world. Last month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James sent her own signal about who will be building the jamming and other electronic-warfare equipment on the new bomber, which has now been designated the B-21. It will be BAE Systems.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...on-the-air-forces-secret-bomber/#11b552247907
The U.S. Air Force is building a "long-range strike bomber" designed to hold at risk targets anywhere in the world -- including deep inside heavily armed countries such as China and Russia. In order to safely penetrate defended air space, the bomber will combine radar-evading low-observable ("stealth") technology with the world's most advanced electronic-warfare system. Electronic warfare uses sophisticated signal transmitters, sensitive receivers, and agile software to deceive or disrupt hostile emitters such as radars.
Last month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James sent her own signal about who will be building the jamming and other electronic-warfare equipment on the new bomber, which has now been designated the B-21. It will be BAE Systems , Inc., the U.S. arm of the big British military contractor. Inc., as it is called internally, does about $10 billion in sales annually. But the unit that builds electronic-warfare systems, headquartered in Nashua, New Hampshire, is the least visible -- even though it is the biggest manufacturer in the state.
That's emblematic of the kind of work the unit does. Although only 10% of its program mix is highly classified, the electronic-warfare business is opaque and confusing for outsiders. At its inception 60 years ago, electronic warfare was mainly about jamming the frequencies on which enemy radar and communications operated so that receivers couldn't function. But with the advent of digital technology, computer-generated algorithms and the like, EW has become a much more complicated business. And BAE Systems is better at it than any other company in the world.
Not only has Electronic Systems, the unit in question, been in the EW business longer than anyone else, but it has the biggest footprint in the marketplace. Its 11,400 employees have built radar warning receivers, jammers and related equipment for 80% of the fixed-wing aircraft operated by the U.S. military, including all of the stealthy airframes. With over 10,000 tactical EW systems installed worldwide on everything from attack helicopters to spy planes, no other supplier comes close to matching BAE's reach.
But don't expect BAE to be talking about its work on the new bomber anytime soon. The B-21 is a "special access program," meaning contractors can't discuss anything about what they are doing on the program with outsiders. When Air Force Secretary James disclosed BAE Systems was on the bomber team, she didn't spell out what the company's role will be. That's still a secret, at least for the time being. So although BAE Systems is a longtime consulting client, I didn't even try to discuss this article with them.
However, it isn't hard to figure out what BAE's role probably is, based on other things the Air Force has said about the B-21. The service has stated that it intends to hold down costs by adapting mature technology from other planes. So it was no surprise when Secretary James revealed United Technologies UTX +1.18% unit Pratt & Whitney would be building the bomber's engines, because it also builds engines for the stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighters. For the same reason, we can assume prime contractor Northrop Grumman NOC +1.81% will build the bomber's multifunction radar.
Since BAE Systems developed the electronic-warfare suites for the F-22 and F-35 and is also supplying a modernized EW system for the stealthy B-2 bomber, it's just common sense the company is adapting that technology to the needs of the new bomber. As aerospace journalist Dave Majumdar noted in The National Interest two days after Secretary James released the names of suppliers, "the B-21's electronic warfare systems are, therefore, most likely an advanced derivative of the F-35's AN/ASQ-239 system" -- the most capable EW system in the world.
---
Näin Bae kertoo tuotteestaan
AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite
The AN/ASQ-239 system protects the F-35 with advanced technology for next generation missions to counter current and emerging threats. Equipped with offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, the suite provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.
How it works
The AN/ASQ-239 system collects and processes electromagnetic energy to capture a 360-degree aerial field of view to provide a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. This provides the pilot with maximum situational awareness, helping to identify, monitor, analyze, and rapidly respond to potential threats. Using advanced avionics and sensors, the systems takes this a step further by detecting and geo-locating electronic emitters to give pilots the option to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.
Features
Offensive and defensive digital electronic warfare capabilities
Modular, scalable, open-system architecture
All-aspect, broadband radar warning and geolocation
Multispectral, radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) countermeasures
Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and radar warning receiver
Benefits
Integrates radar warning, targeting support, and countermeasures into one system
Reduces long term life cycle costs to keep the aircraft fielded
Increases situational awareness for a 360-degree view of the battlespace
Rapid response capabilities to protect the aircrew
Allows the aircraft to reach well-defended targets, even in signal-dense environments
Ja loppuun vielä Baen video tuotteestaan.
No, nyt on osoitettu, että F-35 on vedettäviä sellaisia. Joten ylläoleva ajatus joka tapauksessa ei pidä paikkaansa.
Tässä on artikkeli B-21:stä. Siihen on todennäköisesti tulossa F-35 EW järjestelmä.
Why BAE Systems is well-positioned to score big on the Air Force's secret B-21 LRS-B bomber
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/ar...the-air-force-s-secret-b-21-lrs-b-bomber.html
The U.S. Air Force is building a long-range strike bomber designed to hold at risk targets anywhere in the world. Last month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James sent her own signal about who will be building the jamming and other electronic-warfare equipment on the new bomber, which has now been designated the B-21. It will be BAE Systems.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...on-the-air-forces-secret-bomber/#11b552247907
The U.S. Air Force is building a "long-range strike bomber" designed to hold at risk targets anywhere in the world -- including deep inside heavily armed countries such as China and Russia. In order to safely penetrate defended air space, the bomber will combine radar-evading low-observable ("stealth") technology with the world's most advanced electronic-warfare system. Electronic warfare uses sophisticated signal transmitters, sensitive receivers, and agile software to deceive or disrupt hostile emitters such as radars.
Last month, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James sent her own signal about who will be building the jamming and other electronic-warfare equipment on the new bomber, which has now been designated the B-21. It will be BAE Systems , Inc., the U.S. arm of the big British military contractor. Inc., as it is called internally, does about $10 billion in sales annually. But the unit that builds electronic-warfare systems, headquartered in Nashua, New Hampshire, is the least visible -- even though it is the biggest manufacturer in the state.
That's emblematic of the kind of work the unit does. Although only 10% of its program mix is highly classified, the electronic-warfare business is opaque and confusing for outsiders. At its inception 60 years ago, electronic warfare was mainly about jamming the frequencies on which enemy radar and communications operated so that receivers couldn't function. But with the advent of digital technology, computer-generated algorithms and the like, EW has become a much more complicated business. And BAE Systems is better at it than any other company in the world.
Not only has Electronic Systems, the unit in question, been in the EW business longer than anyone else, but it has the biggest footprint in the marketplace. Its 11,400 employees have built radar warning receivers, jammers and related equipment for 80% of the fixed-wing aircraft operated by the U.S. military, including all of the stealthy airframes. With over 10,000 tactical EW systems installed worldwide on everything from attack helicopters to spy planes, no other supplier comes close to matching BAE's reach.
But don't expect BAE to be talking about its work on the new bomber anytime soon. The B-21 is a "special access program," meaning contractors can't discuss anything about what they are doing on the program with outsiders. When Air Force Secretary James disclosed BAE Systems was on the bomber team, she didn't spell out what the company's role will be. That's still a secret, at least for the time being. So although BAE Systems is a longtime consulting client, I didn't even try to discuss this article with them.
However, it isn't hard to figure out what BAE's role probably is, based on other things the Air Force has said about the B-21. The service has stated that it intends to hold down costs by adapting mature technology from other planes. So it was no surprise when Secretary James revealed United Technologies UTX +1.18% unit Pratt & Whitney would be building the bomber's engines, because it also builds engines for the stealthy F-22 and F-35 fighters. For the same reason, we can assume prime contractor Northrop Grumman NOC +1.81% will build the bomber's multifunction radar.
Since BAE Systems developed the electronic-warfare suites for the F-22 and F-35 and is also supplying a modernized EW system for the stealthy B-2 bomber, it's just common sense the company is adapting that technology to the needs of the new bomber. As aerospace journalist Dave Majumdar noted in The National Interest two days after Secretary James released the names of suppliers, "the B-21's electronic warfare systems are, therefore, most likely an advanced derivative of the F-35's AN/ASQ-239 system" -- the most capable EW system in the world.
---
Näin Bae kertoo tuotteestaan
AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite
The AN/ASQ-239 system protects the F-35 with advanced technology for next generation missions to counter current and emerging threats. Equipped with offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, the suite provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.
How it works
The AN/ASQ-239 system collects and processes electromagnetic energy to capture a 360-degree aerial field of view to provide a comprehensive picture of the battlespace. This provides the pilot with maximum situational awareness, helping to identify, monitor, analyze, and rapidly respond to potential threats. Using advanced avionics and sensors, the systems takes this a step further by detecting and geo-locating electronic emitters to give pilots the option to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.
Features
Offensive and defensive digital electronic warfare capabilities
Modular, scalable, open-system architecture
All-aspect, broadband radar warning and geolocation
Multispectral, radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) countermeasures
Simultaneous jamming without interfering with radar and radar warning receiver
Benefits
Integrates radar warning, targeting support, and countermeasures into one system
Reduces long term life cycle costs to keep the aircraft fielded
Increases situational awareness for a 360-degree view of the battlespace
Rapid response capabilities to protect the aircrew
Allows the aircraft to reach well-defended targets, even in signal-dense environments
Ja loppuun vielä Baen video tuotteestaan.
Tuossa on kaksi toisistaan riippumatonta matemaattista asiavirhettä:
1) 50...200 pienempi kuin jokin positiivinen luku on negatiivinen luku. 100 kertaa pienempi ei siis tarkoita samaa kuin sadasosa.
2) epätarkkuus ja tarkkuus eivät todellakaan tarkoita samaa asiaa. Mikäli tutkan kulma"havaintojen" epätarkkuus olisi tosiaan sadasosa IRST:n 0,0143 asteesta eli vain 0,000143 astetta, olisi tutkan tarkkuus merkittävästi parempi kuin IRST:n eikä suinkaan huonompi.
Pitäisi siis lukea Typical angular inaccuracy of radars is about 50-200 times more than IRST. Ja edellinen virke on samasta syystä pielessä.