F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Palnatoke]

Yes, speed does have a role, but not the one referenced above. The duration of a missile's flight is determined by the range to the target. It is not a direct correlation to the speed of the target aircraft.

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
Iniially there is distance D between shooter and target, in the time span, t, that it takes the missile to cover the distance d, the target vill have moved s=v_t*t, where v_t is the speed of target. So the missile will have to also cover distance s which it will do in s/v_m, where v_m is the speed of missile.... etc (becarefull that you don't end up ith Zenon's paradoks )
If you do it the correct way you end up with a system of differential equations, where the important parameters is d,v_t and v_m, and if I am not much mistaken you can recast that only to depend on d and R where R is the ratio between v_m and v_t. So the point is proven if the ratio between v_t and v_m is significant. Without knowing the specs of a modern long range air to air missile I think it's fair to assume that the speed of the missile is less than, say, three times greater than the speed of target, in other words the ratio significant.
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"

The max speed of an aircraft (and its ability to sustain that speed) determine an aircraft's ability to close with, or possibly escape from, an engagement or target. That may, or may not matter depending on the engagement. For example, Fighter A has a lock on and shoots an AIM-120C-7AMRAAM at Fighter B from a range of 30 n miles... Whether Fighter B's max speed if Mach 2.5, or 'only' Mach 1.6 does not really matter. Either way, Fighter B still cannot effectively outrun the inbound missile.

Yes, if you recast the question in such away that no matter what the target is within the envolope of the missile, distance is irrelevant and hence the relative speeds are irrelevant. Though - everything equal - in such a scenario you end up with a high probability of a "kill-kill" (both planes destroy each other).

The poster seems to be ignoring the significant amount of work done in a number of discplines to allow the F-35 to achieve information/situational dominance. The is a combination of changes to and developments in sensors to provide more all-aspect information, changes to avionics in how information is both processed, as well as how the pilot will interaction with the avionics.

If you carefully read what I write I am not ignoring it. I am acknowledging the cutting edge electronics of the new plane, though I add that, that those electronics are not cutting edge in the near future. This plane will, just like any other plane need constant updates to stay cutting edge.

Lastly, there is the work done to reduce the signature of the JSF so that it is LO.

Yes. That's the interesting question vis a vis the F35.

Taking the above example of Fighter A vs. Fighter B, even if the range is increased to a much greater degree... The max speed of Fighter B again becomes moot if Fighter A can detect and engage Fighter B without Fighter B becoming aware of it. Speed allows one to act, but if one is ignorant of the need to act, it does no good.
-Cheers

Agreed.

 

[Scorpion82]

That was my only point. We are in agreement then that speed is tactically relevant, but is not the decisive feature.



To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

It was stated in a recent interview with someone from the engine manufacturer Saturn. 29th december to be exactly.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
........SNIP.....
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"

I have to agree with this. We need to remember the missile is not flying at an aircraft, its flying at a piece of sky that off board sensors are saying the aircraft will be at a certain point in the future. Thus the effective engagement envelope of a missile is significantly effected by the targets course and speed; a head-on shot with both shooter and target at high speed and altitude (shooter) will significantly increase the missiles maximum range.

Tod's point about a NEZ/V is indeed true; if a target is within that range it cannot out run the missile. However the target's top speed and acceleration partially determine the size of the NEZ. In simple terms the faster the other guy can move the closer you have to be to prevent him from outrunning your shot. The other critical element in determining the NEZ is information. If the target does not know he has been fired upon he cannot utilise his speed advantage to outrun the missile. Having a top speed of Mach 2 won’t do squat if you are in a low energy state and the first sign of a missile shot is your RWR goes off and the incoming's seeker has acquired you. This is why the F-35’s speed “disadvantage” will not really be relevant vs. 4th gen fighters in the BVR regime, the level of information dominance will mean that most targets will be engaged without even knowing it.

Yes, if you recast the question in such away that no matter what the target is within the envolope of the missile, distance is irrelevant and hence the relative speeds are irrelevant. Though - everything equal - in such a scenario you end up with a high probability of a "kill-kill" (both planes destroy each other).

That is entirely dependant on countermeasures.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Opinions based on a lack of understanding and research...



What "standard" configuration?

F-35 will have the ability to carry 4x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally at Block III and have a defined growth path to 6x AIM-120C/D AMRAAM internally for F-35 Block IV/V depending on customer requirements.

If air to ground payloads are carried internally, BOTH aircraft feature reduced air to air payloads, the difference being that F-35A/C can carry 2000lbs class munitions (and obviously smaller ones) internally whereas F-22 can only carry 1000lbs JDAM and SDB.



Me? I've never heard of the director of Vympel...



Please note the F-22's 1600nm range is ONLY achieved with the addition of external drop tanks. This is a ferry configuration, NOT a combat configuration for the F-22A.

It's range on internal fuel only is less impressive. F-35A/C's range is always measured on internal fuel only since external fuel tanks were dropped for integration in the SDD phase.

However, I did mention range/payload rather than simply range, so whilst I do firmly believe the F-35's range exceeds the F-22's on internal fuel alone, the performance I was referring to was a combination of range AND payload.

No fighter on earth besides the F-35 can carry 5000lbs+ of weapons internally AND carry it's sensors internally AND carry 18500lbs+ fuel internally.




Very easy to announce things. Much more difficult to design, build and test an ACTUAL 5th Generation fighter. Something L-M has done twice now and no other manufacturer in the world has yet achieved.

I'll believe Pogosyan's claims when I see PAK-FA make it's first flight. You know, that flight that was meant to take place in June, then August, then November and now apparently it's December 2009???



They should care. By the time F-35 is finished production, the USA will have a fleet of 2600 5th generation fighter aircraft in-service. Even the most ardent critic should be prepared to admit that, this presents a rather large threat to ANY force...




No, I mentioned quite clearly that supersonic speeds ARE regularly achieved by tactical fighters. What is not regularly achieved are M2 + speeds and the reasons are because of how long it takes to get there, how much fuel it burns and it's operational utility in ANY scenario except fleeing a fight trying to save one's own skin...



Google. It's your friend...



You seem fixated on maximum speed. It is almost entirely irrelevent, for the majority of combat roles. If pure speed was the most important factor for a tactical fighter, every fighter would be built like the MiG-25 Foxbat.

As should be patently obvious they are not. Not even Russian and Chinese fighters, so perhaps you could draw an inference or 2 from this, eh?



T/W. Really in what configuration, the usual 50% internal fuel rubbish? A REALLY useful metric. Do you comprehend that at 50% fuel a fighter is either on the way home OR on the way to the tanker? It is NOT a combat configuration that a fighter would WANT to be in, if a fight was likely, so why it's considered useful for thrust to weight comparisons baffles me a little bit, however it is popular, so I'll use it too.

Please bear in mind also that 50% fuel for the F-35A/C is more than 9200lbs of fuel. That is greater than the total internal fuel capacity of some current tactical fighters including the F-16, Rafale and Gripen and very close to being the same as the total internal fuel load of fighters including F/A-18 Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon.

If you want to compare T:W ratios, perhaps you could try it at the same fuel weights and see how F-35 goes? You'll see it stacks up VERY well...

Or perhaps we could just compare the F-35 to a modern "threat" fighter - the SU-30Mk. (This is done not to try and prove which is better in a pi**ing contest but rather to illustrate that the F-35's physical characteristics is not as bad as some like to make out. I will NOT discuss a comparison between the 2 any further in accordance with the rules of the board).

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)

Your turn...

Damn AD, you didn't leave much for the rest of us?!

 

[Palnatoke]

I don't agree that the electronics systems can be discounted from the equation because "we can expect that from any new fighter". The F-35's electronic systems are a level above anything being demonstrated by other manufacturers and countries

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".

so I don't think it's fair to treat it as though it's merely a typical development rather than something exceptional.

Well, perhaps I am not so easely impressed.

Remember too that low observability/signature management isn't a static thing. The capability of detection systems will increase, but the capability of technology to respond to those systems will increase also.

I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".

The bulk of the F-35's new capability lead is in its "electronics", and it's been the lions share of the R&D too. The F-35 is miles ahead of the competition in this respect, and the fact is avionics are the most readily upgraded element of the platform i.e. the F-35 is miles ahead of the competition and this lead is not entrenched in the design. It CAN and WILL be upgraded constantly. Just look at the evolution of the F-16 family, it still offers avionics options that even the Typhoon and Flanker family do not. I doubt anyone will "catch up" ever.

I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

Electronics are a critical part of "stealth". LPI sensors/comms and countermeasures are just as important to maintaining an F-35 information dominance as airframe materials and plan form alignment. Anyway the F-35 of 2030 WILL have a smaller RCS than the F-35 of 2015 simply throught improvements in signature management tech.

 

[fltworthy]

To the best of my knowledge it's still supposed to fly this month. Do you have a source stating otherwise?

According to latest edition of Jane's Defence Weekly, in speaking with Russian engineers involved with the program, Jane's was told that the PAK-FA would most likely be ready for flight in March 2010. They expect that there will still be a roll-out ceremony in December, however, as a face-saving measure.

 

[Bonza]

Well, demonstrated, that's propably correct. That'll be, it's correct for now. Just like other airplanes also demonstrated superiority when they where new and fresh out of the "design office".

Granted - although if you can name another "design office" that has the kind of money and expertise flowing through it as can be found in the US, I'm all ears. Such a thing becomes relevant when discussing the timescale of a similar system being fielded.

Given the ever increasing pace of technological advancement however I take your point that such systems will proliferate, but I don't think it's going to be soon given the lead time the US have, and given the ease with which the F-35 can incorporate new developments (which I mention in more detail below).

Well, perhaps I am not so easely impressed.

Perhaps.

I am not so certain that you can improve stealth in the same order as electronics are improved. And certainly, the builded plane, can only marginally be improved in a number of the factors that add up to the stealthy characteristics of the plane.

As Ozzie said, electronic systems are a significant part of signature management, it's not just RAM and fuselage shaping and all that. If you can coax GF into a response on signature management he'd probably be the best person to ask about this, I'll freely admit to having pretty limited knowledge of the topic.

As far as improvements of the completed platform go, the software architecture of the F-35 - being all C++ - is specifically intended to allow for future developments and ease of upgrading. This is one of the issues the F-22 has - it's architecture isn't nearly so easily modified, so upgrades become (from some accounts) extremely problematic. I know this isn't the point you were addressing specifically but as electronics improvements came up I thought it was relevant (you may already know though).

I appreciate that you were referring specifically to RCS reductions, and as I said I have limited knowledge so I don't know what degree of change would be expected over the next few decades.

 

[Palnatoke]

That is entirely dependant on countermeasures.

Notice the "Everything equal". But yes.

Both Bonza and OB

I think that the argument, "Well this is the US and therefore the electronics are beyound other people" is not only dangerous but is also becoming quickly outdated, if it is not outdated. You can't rest on your laurels. While I am inclined to agree that there is a good chance that certain american aviation companies are a "horse head ahead", I don't think it's a very sound nor fruitfull way of argumenting.

In respect to stealth. As I understand it, structual "stealth" (reflection) as well as subression of radar ressonance are pretty well understood and not something one would expect big breakthroughs in. The dissipation of energy in material (the coating, I think it's called RAM) is probably something that holds a larger potential for improvements as do different techniques for always presenting the optimal angle to attacking radar, or mangement of EM radiation etc.
The last areas are btw not techs that are specific to F35, but could in principle be applied to any airplane's update cycle.

 

[Palnatoke]

As far as improvements of the completed platform go, the software architecture of the F-35 - being all C++

I am happy to learn that they didn't do it in visual basic

 

[Palnatoke]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

 

[Scorpion82]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

 

[Grand Danois]

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

From what I can deduce from how modern MAWS works, you would get a half of dozen seconds warning before the seeker goes active. An UV based system like that currently employed on the Gripen wouldn't detect a missile like AIM-120C before it going active. Don't know the potential range of the RF system on the EF, though.

 

[Scorpion82]

From what I can deduce from how modern MAWS works, you would get a half of dozen seconds warning before the seeker goes active. An UV based system like that currently employed on the Gripen wouldn't detect a missile like AIM-120C before it going active. Don't know the potential range of the RF system on the EF, though.

For passive systems the range much depends on the weather conditions as well, but according the russians a BVR AAM could be detected 30 km away with the SOAR for example and the technology is further evolving in that area.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is wrong, it's a simple question of math, but without doing the equation(s) of motion, think of it in this (incorect, though instructive) way:
Iniially there is distance D between shooter and target, in the time span, t, that it takes the missile to cover the distance d, the target vill have moved s=v_t*t, where v_t is the speed of target. So the missile will have to also cover distance s which it will do in s/v_m, where v_m is the speed of missile.... etc (becarefull that you don't end up ith Zenon's paradoks )
If you do it the correct way you end up with a system of differential equations, where the important parameters is d,v_t and v_m, and if I am not much mistaken you can recast that only to depend on d and R where R is the ratio between v_m and v_t. So the point is proven if the ratio between v_t and v_m is significant. Without knowing the specs of a modern long range air to air missile I think it's fair to assume that the speed of the missile is less than, say, three times greater than the speed of target, in other words the ratio significant.
In the comparative analysis between a faster and a slower jet, it will only be the difference of speed between them that's interesting. Let's say that the difference is 0.5M, then I will guess (from the top of my head) that the faster yet holds some 15% range advantage in the above example.
This is ofcourse "everything equal". I am not saying that the above is crucial or make or break - I am just saying that there is an not-insignificant effect of higher speeds, but ofcourse "everything is seldomly equal"

What I was attempting to do was keep the explanation simple, without digging out one of my physics books, since the equation is actually a bit more complicated than the above. Some of the other factors which needs to be taken into account is the headings to the shooter and target relative to each other, as well as the initial energy state of the shooter, the initial energy state of the target and the target's ability to accelerate. In addition to the max speed of the target...

Please note the quoted text which I highlighted in bold. As has been noted, most air-to-air engagements will occur when both target and shooter are at high subsonic speeds. Having checked, the main western BVR missiles (AMRAAM and Meteor) are both listed with speeds in excess of Mach 3, which would mean that the missile once fired is moving at greater than three times the initial engagement speed of the target aircraft.

Due to this speed difference, it becomes difficult for a targeted aircraft to get to a safe area outside the range of the incoming air-to-air missile unless the aircraft was already close to that range limit. Naturally, the faster the targeted aircraft is, the greater the distance it can be and still be 'close' to the edge of the missile envelope, but I would expect that pilots as a rule would only take shots when then are confident of achieving success, or they have no other alternative.

As for the avionics of the F-35 being designed to be superior to what else is currently available... Yes, considerable effort has been made to achieve that and I consider it likely to be a success. Additionally, part of the design effort has been to not only have the avionics package be superior to other aircraft, but also be easy to maintain and update, to maintain that superiority over time. What also is apparently being overlooked are systems like EO DAS, which is not something which can just be added onto an aircraft as part of an upgrade programme and other work done on F-35 systems to integrate the aircraft into a system wide response.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

To make my self clear on electronics;

Having cutting edge electronics today, is not a stand alone argument why we should buy it with a view for use the next 30 years.
Also the comparison of electronics of a brand new aircraft or recently updated aircrafts with electronics of older aircrafts is not very usefull, since the older aircrafts might be up for updates in a few years that will make them more cuting edge at that point in time.

Certainly, but then how do you integrate a system as complex as the DAS into an older aircraft? Do older aircraft even have the architecture or computing power to make such upgrades practical?

I think that the argument, "Well this is the US and therefore the electronics are beyound other people" is not only dangerous but is also becoming quickly outdated, if it is not outdated.

I know what you mean, but it's not some innate cultural expectation I have, I just find it difficult to argue with the numbers. I'd expect the same thing of anyone with a long history of successful application of air power and that many zeroes in their defence budget.

Edit: Just to reinforce, I'm not trying to push some pro-US agenda for the sake of it. In terms of pursuing information dominance, the F-35's systems are a remarkable achievement - and would be just as impressive regardless of what platform on which they appeared.

The use of object-oriented code in the F-35 software shouldn't be discounted, as it allows for tremendous flexibility in future systems integration - however I take your point on this one Palnatoke as I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of this in new aircraft, given the extremely widespread commercial base available for such software development.

Of course, it's not just a matter of putting a shiny new system into a warplane. You need the battle doctrine and information sharing systems in place to support the system before you can make full use of it. I'm not sure what other nation's priorities are in this regard, but they aren't necessarily going to be the same as that of the US. Not to say that such a system is "beyond other nations", but a) does the way they utilize airpower create a requirement for said technology, and b) are all the off-board systems in place to enable the full potential of the technology (in terms of information handling, force integration, etc).

To the last point, I think it's important to remember that the system won't operate in a vaccuum - it'll operate within the US force structure. As such, it is impressive because of the synergies it achieves across the board.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Certainly, but then how do you integrate a system as complex as the DAS into an older aircraft? Do older aircraft even have the architecture or computing power to make such upgrades practical?

Not even the processing power. Do older aircraft simply have the space within the airframe to fit 6x of these?

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/images/Product-images/combat/F-35.jpg

What about an optical fibre communications network in the aircraft (and the inherent bandwidth therein) instead of hundreds of kilos of cabling?

Replacing the wiring in an aircraft is not a trivial or cheap exercise...

It's easy to say that older aircraft "can be upgraded". It's not quite so practical to do so...

With a pre-planned Block upgrade path, an "open architecture" combat system, high band width fibre network within the aircraft, easily replaceable processors and C++ software and weight and space within the aircraft available for system enhancements such as an internal DIRCM, upgrading the F-35 and continuing to maintain it's capability "at the leading edge" is going to be demonstrably easier than aircraft which do not possess these features...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Exactly and the "the threat won't be aware of the missile until it goes active" entirely ignore the fact that almost every new fighter, including updated examples will feature MAWs which could enable them to detect a threat missile long before its seeker is going active.

I highly doubt a MAWS is going to detect an incoming missile that is past it’s sustain phase (i.e. very small IR signature) outside the 20km to 30km (active phase) range. Considering dedicated IRST cannot detect afterburning targets at much greater range without cueing I don’t think a MAWS with one fifth the aperture size is going to do so against a missile without an exhaust plume.

"Long before" would imply 50 or 100% greater than that (45km~60km)? I don’t think so.

In any case, this does not alter the fundamentals of the argument. If your first indication that you have been engaged is your MAWS goes off the missile is well within its now extended NEZ. Outrunning a missile only works if you run early enough, being the point I was making.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Not even the processing power. Do older aircraft simply have the space within the airframe to fit 6x of these?

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/images/Product-images/combat/F-35.jpg

What about an optical fibre communications network in the aircraft (and the inherent bandwidth therein) instead of hundreds of kilos of cabling?

Replacing the wiring in an aircraft is not a trivial or cheap exercise...

It's easy to say that older aircraft "can be upgraded". It's not quite so practical to do so...

With a pre-planned Block upgrade path, an "open architecture" combat system, high band width fibre network within the aircraft, easily replaceable processors and C++ software and weight and space within the aircraft available for system enhancements such as an internal DIRCM, upgrading the F-35 and continuing to maintain it's capability "at the leading edge" is going to be demonstrably easier than aircraft which do not possess these features...

Additionally you have to do the R&D; the systems integration alone on the F-35 is hideously complicated. In order for other nations to "catch up" they will not only have to develop the technology being deployed on the F-35, they will have to develop and operationally deploy those technologies before the next round of F-35's block upgrades is rolled out, all a competitive disadvantage with less money, less resources and less expertise.

The US/West has held this lead since the days of the F-86 and its radar ranging gun-sight. It’s never really been made good by the Russians or Chinese. I don’t see why the next 20~30 years will be any different.

 

[Scorpion82]

I highly doubt a MAWS is going to detect an incoming missile that is past it’s sustain phase (i.e. very small IR signature) outside the 20km to 30km (active phase) range. Considering dedicated IRST cannot detect afterburning targets at much greater range without cueing I don’t think a MAWS with one fifth the aperture size is going to do so against a missile without an exhaust plume.

"Long before" would imply 50 or 100% greater than that (45km~60km)? I don’t think so.

In any case, this does not alter the fundamentals of the argument. If your first indication that you have been engaged is your MAWS goes off the missile is well within its now extended NEZ. Outrunning a missile only works if you run early enough, being the point I was making.

Well I have to agree that a detection long before is unlikely if the seekers acquisition range is 20 km to 30 km, it of course depends on the seeker performance and if the seeker is going to acquire the target at such a long range there is enough time to react anyway. Modern IIR seekers are capable to detect heat sources smaller than a pixel element and the question is at what range a target is detected within a reasonable FOV. IR tech isn't going to get worse either.