I believe I have the answer for the US Navy when it comes to getting the features of the Advanced Super Hornet, while at the same time gaining a better solution for their IRST21 pod.
Consider this. The above photos are of the Boeing enclosed weapons pod which is part of the Advanced Super Hornet concept. A fabulous idea! How do you make it better? Well check out the pics below.
Those are pics of the IRST21/fuel tank.
How about you combine the IRST21 with the enclosed weapons pod instead of a fuel tank? It should provide you increased range because you no longer are hanging missiles off pylons...you gain the use of infra-red search and track...and you combine those two features into one program.
You would have to slam Lockheed Martin hard to make them work with Boeing... but it should be doable. The concept for the IRST21 will need to be revamped. Funding might have to be fought for again but I believe the benefits outweigh the headaches.
Lockheed Martin's IRST21 page.
Boeing's Advanced Super Hornet product card.
More modern computers have actually helped that sensor which had its roots in the thingy that went in some of the F-14s. I have found the marketing language of that pod over the years scary. Better range than radar. Better sorting in an electronically contested environment. Etc. I would not sweat too much of what you are saying. The advanced Super Hornet does have an IRST of a different kind that is offered bricked right under the nose. Having said that I just like the centerline tank/IRST.
ReplyDeletenot a problem. i was just looking at the LM IRST21 and thinking that they could get more mileage if they paired it with the Boeing missile pod instead.
Deletei can take the pain on this one. everyone knows i'm not an aviation guy...it just seemed like a reasonable solution to a difficult issue during cash strapped times. sorta a two for one plus kinda deal.
One of the mock up's had a sensor similar to the one on the f35.
ReplyDeletehttp://s702.photobucket.com/user/BeoWolf057/media/5588-10241_zpsbfbe3eb3.jpg.html
Is it just me or does that weapon pod just scream Japanese 90s anime?
ReplyDeleteYes... Yes it does.
DeleteRobotech Macross style.
On top photo also visible conformal fuel tanks above wings near fuselage body. Conformal fuel tanks give F-18 Super Hornet range comparable to Su-27 without drop tanks. And enclosed weapon pod actually give F-18 an edge in combat, since Su-27 derivatives does not have stealth technology.
ReplyDeleteIRST on droppable fuel tank or on droppable weapon pod... Both will be dropped during combat encounter. Maybe its time to mount IRST in a manner similar to good old Su-27? Super Hornet and Su-27 is a direct counterparts, both from the same generation, both holding their own until 5th gen(stealth) 6th gen(drones) replacements will arrive en masse, so why don't borrow a proven solution.
Conformal fuel tanks are no freebee they add drag that is why no airplane has them form the outset. ,But Super hornet its an extremely bastardised airframe design and definetly benefits as its pylons are actualy mounted sideways so that ordanance doesnt hit the plane on release but on the other hand inducing considerable drag
Deletehttp://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-super-hornet-stores-story/
There are width and CG issues on the EWP which make it doubtful it will have the full Quad SDB or twin GBU-38/54 originally planned. Throw in the avionics and cooling (notice how far up the bay doors split) and you might compromise stores clearance altogether.
DeleteAs with all podded stores not specifically designed for dedicated (conformal, long rail, mount) IRST have another problem as well. They are subject to airframe vibration through the pylon and airstream whip at the end of the pod arc well away from the sway braces. If you put buzz on the imager, you get SNr noise gains. If you put shimmy on the pod tip you lose optics focus on the imager as true bearing averages on the impingent thermal source.
You also need to consider the ambient physics and the airframes involved. If you are up at 25-35,000ft, you get pretty decent look through on relatively clear air. Unless the target is below you in the muck or it's raining. IR can either diffractively bend around or be completely absorbed/attenuated by nothing more than atmospheric water droplets. Add more complex industrial obscurants and wind driven (thermal layering) effects and your atmosphere lens gets all Fresnelian as IR gets bent completely out of shape and it becomes hard to filter for coherent bandwidths (IR detectors are doped to be sensitive only in very narrow windows of transmissivity).
Which means that if the 'best air' is to be propagatively had starting at 25K and moves through 50K, a jet like the Super Hornet, which has _zero_ PS reserve above Mach 1 and 20K, needs to have it's IRST ontop of the nose. Whereas jets like Su-35, Eurofighter and the F-22 (if AIRST was still an option) should have them on the bottom.
And the jet with the 600-800 square foot wing and the massive thrust trust is STILL going to win the first to pole fight because the drag at 50K is half again and God's G gives you lots of loft energy on the terminal end.
This is where the rooks come to roost because it reinforces the certainty that all the sensor magic in the world is not going to make up for absent aeros as you _fly the profile you fight_.
Nobody should be relying on IR to see Cruise Missiles and low throttle setting jets close to the deck. You just end up looking for bright spot penlights through milk glass.
Where IRST really excel is as cueing aids for HOBs weapons on cheap fighters, simply because they are easily gimbaled and don't need high end ((Mercadtelluride or IndiAntimonide) detector material which means they can be installed inexpensively relative to a full up AI radar.
If you want to get the best out of an IRST as a BVR aid, for instance when catching threat VLO coming out of their baselanes, it's best to move to a LO drone, somewhere between a Darkstar-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPcEbA7ieTc
and a TACOM-
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmysvZ2VfAA
As giving you the best combination of penetration speed (no lag if carried by members of the strike package or a C-jet companion) and loiter with landing gear recovery of sensitive commo and sensor gear in a -dedicated- platform package in which low cost allows for forward positioning and network generation.
Whether you can see the threat at 10nm or 70nm, it's how far ahead of you that a drone IRST starts generating angle rate datums that lets you work the geometry for a pole advantaged first shot. Because of course the other guy has IRST too. And his tailpipes are pointed behind him. Not necessarily at you.
The Navy could theoretically do this tomorrow with a converted MALD but they could never get their investment back so it would have to be a very high threat value target matrix and they would have to be operating alone, without a frei jagd sweep of F-22 or Typhoon or whatever.
Myself, the obvious conclusion is that you put the imager in a drone with enough performance to do the TARCAP mission itself and then run skirmish lines -inside- the baselanes, looking for wheel in well kills.
Sixty percent of an AAM is motor. That motor exists to put the weapon in-collision intercept condition with a fleeting target before it can go invisible or out of range. If you burn kerosene instead of HTPB to get 50-100-200nm out in front of the package, with a low value cruise-AAM, there is no transit window as time domain to worry about.
Good points MS on the potential 'shimmy' on the long nosed IRST pod. Could a stronger brace or redesigned pylon and frontal structure of the pod make any improvement? Perhaps your right. If so, could the IRST could be integrated instead into the CFT, or elsewhere into the frame?? Where there is an engineering problem and requirement, there's probably a solution.
DeleteI'm no sure if there will be enough space left for the weapns inside. The solutiin adopted by the Russians and Europeans is better, even the Japanese adopted for their F-15, why not the SH?
ReplyDeletehttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mIU8l8LGJL4/U3wCqUifCtI/AAAAAAAADOo/ER6E6GotjPU/s1600/F-15J-ASDF-FLIR-1.jpg
You do realize that LM and Boeing work together on things all the time?
ReplyDeletePlacement matters with IRST. On the centerline or below the cockpit tends to give a more downward oriented view with upward occlusion, while many of the Russian or Euro installs are in front of the cockpit which tends to give a more upward view with downward occlusion.
ReplyDeleteFighters will want upward orientation, strike would want downward.
Does the IRST will replace the Atflir?
ReplyDeleteThe Mig35 will use both
http://www.bhmpics.com/download/fighters_mikoyan_mig_35-wide.jpg
http://www.1zoom.me/big2/147/309947-Sepik.jpg?m=1
I think is basically a forward loocking air to air IRST.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.boeing.com/Features/2013/04/bds_irst_04_09_13.html
For ground targets there are several diferent Atflir,Snipers, Damocles etc that are much bigger, maybe for the laser designator and the rotation system. Maybe those could be adapted to the EWP?
http://youtu.be/mTFcmlbn1GQ
http://youtu.be/bxPNfYuNuaM
Maybe the reazon they don't use the air to air IRST On the nose is because the Gun flashes could damage the IRST sensors? and has nothing to do with ground detection? that;s the only explanation I have to be used in the central tank. For the ASH it's proposed under the nose but that's a big intervention, better in the EWP as Solomon Suggest.
ReplyDeletehttp://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Hornet-hyperspace.jpg
I'd actually have to question how much space they would have left in the weapon's pod after the addition of the IRST. It might not be much and I don't think they could fit an AMRAAM missile in such a tank if the space left in the weapons pod is too short.
ReplyDeleteBoth the IRST21 and the Enclosed Weapons Pod use the maximum amount of space available under the aircraft without getting in the way of the landing gear.
i have a question to you aviation experts, if the super horny can be upgraded like this , why cant the next gen avionics in F35 be installed in older airframe like ASH or F22 or f15e ?
ReplyDeletei mean those fancy EO/DAS surely can be made compatible with othher aircraft right ? or am i mistaken
Perhaps an out-sourced company such as 'Terma Inc' could further come up with expanded solutions to the ASH needs?
ReplyDeleteGood blog entry anyway. I've also contemplated the no-brainer utility of sticking some combination of EO/IR apertures in the nose of the EWP. I'm sure Industry has been considering it as well, so you get some credit Sol with being in that league of big-picture thinking, in my view at least :)
Perhaps a request for competitive proposals could deliver? Something like a mid-2018 twin-aperture (full 180+ degree frontal sphere IRST) integrated into EWP with electronics to either be integrated in EWP or other space? Coupled with 360 degree sphere (possibly 4x aperture) MAWS system integrated into the CFT space? Perhaps a Terma or someone else could develop an enclosure pod for electronics stuck in neatly behind the canopy??
Absolutely it could be done and affordably. It's called prudent and strategic innovation, operating in austere budget environments. Marines should know something about that.
So whether it's an LM IRST that gets stuck in that EWP nose, or another make, yes, go for it. Force-multiply, Cut-fat, build-muscle, however you call it.
Stick a next-gen Litening SE Pod under the centerline and call it a day for a solution to Marines need to replace those well-served but geriatric and ready to retire Hornets.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=186346
The enclosed weapons pod is not a "must to have" as the Conformal fuel tank.
ReplyDeleteWith the Growlers, advanced jammers and emiter receivers on the Super Hornets wing tips they can geo locate any emmiter and jamm or destroy any radar.
The new IRST in the central gas tank is ok.
http://news.usni.org/2014/04/07/navy-preparing-aggressive-growler-operations
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-successfully-tests-us-navy39s-next-gen-radar-406278/
ReplyDeleteSuper Hornet & Growler Attack:
http://youtu.be/HYGM-aB1Luc
Sol, you should see this.
ReplyDeleteBoeing Company WSO Talks Growler: http://youtu.be/rwNCGCifsXo