F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
EOTS is the electro-optical targetting system. It is a development of the Sniper XR targetting pod, with an added IRST capability. It is the diamond shaped object you can see positioned under the nose of the attached F-35 picture.
EODAS is the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System. It is a system of mid-wave infra-red cameras positioned around the airframe in a fashion that allows these cameras to constantly "stare" in a 360 degree bubble around the aircraft. This system is designed to allow constant situational awareness of the airspace the F-35 is operating in, provides missile approach warning functions and allows 360 degree targetting around the aircraft. A useful capability for high off-boresite missile shooting for air to air engagements I should think...
Video of EODAS:
F-35 Lightning II's Electro Optical Distributed Aparture System(EODAS) - YouTube
Oh, thank for helps
So this combined system can be called EOTS-DAS? I thought they depend on each other? Or EODAS just an alternative to MAWS or RWR ?
And EOTS is just a substitute for IRST name and combines the capabilities of a Targeting Pods!
So EOTS or EOTS-DAS better than OLS-50 (Su-35/T-50) because it is a mixture of EO and IRST for A2A and A2G!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
EOTS and EODAS are two different systems that perform completely different things, albeit in similar ways.Oh, thank for helps
So this combined system can be called EOTS-DAS? I thought they depend on each other? Or EODAS just an alternative to MAWS or RWR ?
And EOTS is just a substitute for IRST name and combines the capabilities of a Targeting Pods!
So EOTS or EOTS-DAS better than OLS-50 (Su-35/T-50) because it is a mixture of EO and IRST for A2A and A2G!
The EOTS as already mentioned is a chin-mounted electro-optical targeting system and has the capabilities of an infra-red search & track system already integrated into it. AFAIK this is primarily intended for use against ground/surface targets.
The EODAS is an electro-optical system intended to provide improved situational awareness to the F-35 pilot, by distributing the EO sensors to provide sight angles beyond what a fighter would normally have. This is in addition to normal ESM like RWR, etc. The idea being that an EO system which looks port, aft or starboard, could detect an object (missile, aircraft, etc) which is outside the radar cone of the F-35 radar. What it is looking for (and where it is looking) is different from what the EOTS is looking for. They do both happen to use similar technology though when looking.
-Cheers
Oh thank you, what the system F-35 will use ? to "see" the T-50 instead of RWR (similar to an IRST)
Can you PLEASE stop turning discussions into this platform-vs-platform fixation you appear to have? You've been asked twice now, I'm asking you again, for a final time.
F35 will use the lot - combining inputs from EODAS, EOTS, the very good radar, it's own ESM suite, any off board inputs data linked from other platforms - all of that will be sorted, catalogued and fed into the pilots head mounted display.
One of the big things (really big things) about F35 is that the pilot will have really good situational awareness - they'll have a ton of information presented in a very natural and accessible way so that instead of having to look at three or four different systems and mentally combine those sets of information, the pilot can simply look around them and see threats presented to them wherever in the air or on the ground they are. That'll be a huge advantage in any situation an F35 is used.
That single big cockpit display has the ability to provide the pilot, with a single glance, a "God's eye view" of the 360-degree bubble surrounding the F-35. Is such a perspective possible with the HMD or, more likely, will it only display a subset of what's on the big screen? I'd heard of SH pilots experiencing "helmet fires" i.e multitasking overload, something the data fusion should makea thing of the past on the new jet.
Oh, sorry, but my mind just want to ask if they will use EODAS or EOTS to detect the T-50, replacing the RWR. You too strict
[Mod edit: But you are wrong. Bonza is not too strict as he is only issuing a warning. You have been given 3 warnings in 3 threads by 3 different Mods. Take 28 days-off to read the contents of this thread and the Forum Rules, before posting again. Remember, reading the thread and the Forum Rules are basic requirements for participation in any thread.
Further and stronger sanctions will be applied if you reply to a Mod warning again or fail to follow instructions given by the Mod Team.]
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't *know* but I'd have thought it was easier to present all the data around the pilot via the HMD than cramming it into a single 2D display. By this I mean, presenting it in a natural way, by highlighting items in the pilots field of regard, not by presenting a mini display of everything around him in the HMD. I guess I need to dig out some of the LM promo stuff and check
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YOffkw0_I"]Lockheed Martin F 35 Lightning II stealth fighter cockpit demonstrator - YouTube[/nomedia]
This is a good video, although the only real comment about what is displayed on the helmet is pretty much what we saw on the regular HUD, i expect that's not meant to be a comprehensive explanation as i'm 99% sure DAS imagery should be displayable on the visor.
But otherwise, it's an interesting vid about what exactly the cockpit panel would be like.
This is a good video, although the only real comment about what is displayed on the helmet is pretty much what we saw on the regular HUD, i expect that's not meant to be a comprehensive explanation as i'm 99% sure DAS imagery should be displayable on the visor.
But otherwise, it's an interesting vid about what exactly the cockpit panel would be like.
Think Google Goggles for Fighters....
The pilot would not want to be overloaded, but basic HUD and target indicators (fixed and moving) are included. EODAS and EOTS can be displayed on demand.
Spaz at F-16.net found these HMDS samples (HUD data only, not EOTS or EODAS).
View attachment 5787
View attachment 5788
The pilot would not want to be overloaded, but basic HUD and target indicators (fixed and moving) are included. EODAS and EOTS can be displayed on demand.
Spaz at F-16.net found these HMDS samples (HUD data only, not EOTS or EODAS).
View attachment 5787
View attachment 5788
I have no interest in your opinion on how I go about moderating the site, and hopefully during your time away you can develop some introspection for your own prior behaviour and an appreciation for why we run the site the way we do. There are reasons for it and these reasons have been demonstrated time and time again. It isn't the fact that you wish to know how these systems will work, it's your insistence that if such a discussion takes place, it must take place in the context of Russia's latest platform versus the USAF's latest platform. This wouldn't be an issue if you'd mentioned it once but you'd already made two threads of a similar nature and had both of them shut down by other moderators, with similar warnings to the one I gave you.
If all that is still not to your liking, feel free not to come back. Believe me, you'll know when I start moderating "strictly".
That's pretty much the way I'd figured the HMD would work - augmented reality a-go-go, look up, down, around, wherever you look, all the usual stuff you'd need to keep the aircraft out of the weeds, plus targets. Big step forward.
I can imagine in a furball the HMD would be cluttered with a lot more symbology... still, that's definitely a preferable situation to being blindsided.
Major advantage should be if you're looking over your shoulder at something and the HMD sticks a label on that fast moving blur with "Mig-29" as opposed to a bit of guessing.
Absolutely! .. and with EODAS, [EDIT] .. darkness should not be an issue though precipitation would be detrimental to IR sensor performance,,right?
I must say that I haven't been keeping up with this topic as of late, but i've read back to November 2012 of the topic and I haven't found a discussion of this article (though its quite fresh):
IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics
I do not claim to know a lot about aircraft, at least not in comparison with you guys, so I thought this would be the place to discuss this. I found this on DID actually, and they made a very nice diagram comparing claims from LM test pilot Billy Flynn and counterarguments from other experienced pilots. Now I'm well and truly sold on the F-35, and I believe it will be a very effective fighting machine. However mister Flynn makes some claims that seem a bit optimistic to me.
For one there is this: " Flynn says. "No one is going to see us coming or going." From what I know as a layman the F-35's stealth characteristics are not so fantastic as to support this claim, especially not the "going" part. Because from what I know the rear aspect stealth of the F-35 isn't very impressive, also there is that big whopper of an engine pumping out heat (correct me if I'm wrong) painting a big bulls-eye for IR guided anti air missiles. Also developments in radar, computer and guidance technology are doing a pretty decent job in catching up to the whole stealth thing. Lastly from what I believe the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-35 and that machine isn't invisible either. So is this just marketing jibber jabber?
I guess I just wanted to see what the experts have to say about mr Flynn's remarks and the reactions of the other pilots. I thank you in advance if you choose to discuss it.
Oh and there was one remark I take exception to: we're better than the rest of the world combined' on every measure... I mean c'mon Flynn, even I can't get there and I like the F-35 :S
IN FOCUS: Lockheed claims F-35 kinematics
I do not claim to know a lot about aircraft, at least not in comparison with you guys, so I thought this would be the place to discuss this. I found this on DID actually, and they made a very nice diagram comparing claims from LM test pilot Billy Flynn and counterarguments from other experienced pilots. Now I'm well and truly sold on the F-35, and I believe it will be a very effective fighting machine. However mister Flynn makes some claims that seem a bit optimistic to me.
For one there is this: " Flynn says. "No one is going to see us coming or going." From what I know as a layman the F-35's stealth characteristics are not so fantastic as to support this claim, especially not the "going" part. Because from what I know the rear aspect stealth of the F-35 isn't very impressive, also there is that big whopper of an engine pumping out heat (correct me if I'm wrong) painting a big bulls-eye for IR guided anti air missiles. Also developments in radar, computer and guidance technology are doing a pretty decent job in catching up to the whole stealth thing. Lastly from what I believe the F-22 is more stealthy than the F-35 and that machine isn't invisible either. So is this just marketing jibber jabber?
I guess I just wanted to see what the experts have to say about mr Flynn's remarks and the reactions of the other pilots. I thank you in advance if you choose to discuss it.
Oh and there was one remark I take exception to: we're better than the rest of the world combined' on every measure... I mean c'mon Flynn, even I can't get there and I like the F-35 :S
"Stealth" or "low observability - LO" as it is more accurately known, doesn't make anything invisible. There are whole threads on this on this forum if you want to know more. Basically what LO does, is provide multiple opportunities to break up the detect, track, engage and destroy cycle of modern air warfare. If you can defeat any one of those stages of air combat, then your aircraft will live to fight another day and will more likely than not achieve it's mission.
When people argue that "computers, radars and sensor" development is reducing the advantage that LO provides, it demonstrates a fair degree of ignorance. Such presumptions assume that LO is not similarly developing and evolving too...
The F-35 is a low observable aircraft from all aspect. The "forward LO" only nonsense, was an attempt by detractors of the aircraft to make it's advantages seem far less significant than they are.
These people of course do not and did not ever have access to the data necessary to make such a judgement whereas the USAF, Lockheed Martin and the US DoD Department of Operational Test and Evaluation do. All have said the F-35's LO is just fine and meets it's goals, not just in the forward sector...
As to the IR issue, yes of course if you pump 43,000lbs of thrust through a turbofan engine, it's going to have a heat signature. There's no denying that and whilst measures can perhaps reduce this signature (burying the engine "deep" in the airframe so it is obscured from view from many angles by other parts of the airframe, mixing exhaust gas with cool air before exiting the aircraft, running cooling systems through the parts of the airframe surrounding the engine and so on) that signature cannot be eliminated entirely.
However whether that signature is of a tactical disadvantage or not is the question. Optical and IR targetting systems are short ranged systems, compared to radar and the F-35 will have weapons capable of engaging targets well beyond the range of any IR or Optical targetting system. F-35 will also have systems capable of decoying or jamming IR systems throughout it's lifespan so again, how much of a weakness is it really?
It is worth noting that as the F-35 itself has a wide variety of optical and IR tracking sensors, such vulnerabilities will be present in any adversaries as well and unlike the F-35 most aircraft flying today have had NO attempts whatsoever at reducing their IR signature...
As to the F-35's kinematics, well as a big a fan of the aircraft as I am, it's kinematic performance does not particularly excite me and I believe I've always been fairly realistic about that. In it's A and B models, it's a heavy aircraft with relatively small wings and a single engine (powerful though that engine may be). In it's C variant it's an even heavier aircraft, with the same engine, though a reasonably large wing.
The F-35 as I understand it, was always designed to exceed the F-16 and F/A-18 series kinematic capability when combat configured in a like configuration (same weapons, same fuel, similar sensor systems). I am convinced it will do so comfortably and combined with it's numerous other advantages will see the F-35 emerge as a truly outstanding combat aircraft.
It may not perform so brilliantly at airshows (though the average crowd won't notice much difference, except in the -B model which will do things no other fighter can at airshows) but then it wasn't designed for this purpose.
It's designed to win in combat and in the overwhelming majority of scenarios, it will do just that.
- Status