The World's 4th, 4.5 & 5th Generation Fighters

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

born2kill said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you think software can easily and seamlessly get rid of whatever errors result from the angled cage, I think you are mistaken. But please, bring forward a statement that the EOTS pod has multiple IR sensors? The pod has 1 optical camera, 1 IR sensor and 1 laser, as far as I know. You can see it in the photo from Le Bourge.

I don't spend time reading internet articles; I like to chat with insiders in the defence industry far more. So I can't really say what improvements to the PAK FA will be "really" made until I know from trusted men. Speculating is worthless.

Click to expand...

Please improve your reading comprehension. I said, "the JSF has multiple infrared sensors, and the JSF can coordinate the sensors to cover each single sensor's blind spots or weak spots." I NEVER said 1 pod has 360 coverage and has multiple sensors. See below about the JSF's multiple infrared sensors for complete 360 infrared coverage plus the 360 images sent to the pilot's helmet. On paper, it seems phenomenal.

Distributed Aperture System for the F-35 JSF


I reasonably assume they have a angle perception problem, but they use multiple sensors, which is probably for overlapping viewpoints to fix the angle perception problem AND to obtain 360 coverage.

Like I previously said, this is just marketing info or advertisements. I don't know the insider information, but I don't mind holding a variety of discussions. If you want to discuss about military discussions on this Internet discussion website, you are at the right place. FYI, a lot of people here like to speculate. FYI, even scientists like to hypothesize (hypotheses and null hypotheses are critical components of science and engineering).

I ask again on this discussion board, "Please give me Internet sources claiming the JSF has infrared sensors with poor performance." If it does have major problems, I would like to know. So far, the JSF seems to have high quality sensors, even in the infrared spectrum.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

Some Hi-Res images -

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

Infra_Man99 said:

Please improve your reading comprehension. I said, "the JSF has multiple infrared sensors, and the JSF can coordinate the sensors to cover each single sensor's blind spots or weak spots." I NEVER said 1 pod has 360 coverage from multiple sensors.

Click to expand...

In that case you admit that the EOTS sensors (the ones inside the angly bulb) will have angle issues, is that right? And I don't believe there's a complete overlap between these sensors and other sensors on the plane, that would just exclude any errors from the frontal sensor pod. Ergo, the EOTS sacrificed performance for the sake of RCS reduction.

Infra_Man99 said:

...the JSF can coordinate the sensors to cover each single sensor's blind spots or weak spots.

Click to expand...

Blind spots result from the hull of the plane, restricting a sensor's field-of-view. This is solved by installing more sensors.

However, you can't solve angling issues in one sensor by placing another sensor of the same optical quality, or placing another sensor in the tail or wing of the plane, unless their FOV completely overlap.

And in case other sensors which do not have angling issues provide enough information for 360 degree coverage (i.e. the EOTS pod sensors are redundant and any information they pass is also seen by other sensors), what was the point for that huge angly EOTS pod?

You seem to have a strange view of "issues". You said "however, the JSF has multiple sensors" as if it somehow solved the problems that a given sensor would have from the angles.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

A moron can say a person's right eye has "poor performance" because it can't see the left side very well, or the left eye has "poor performance" because it can't see the right side very well, but the moron forgets that the person has two eyes for overlapping, widespread coverage and for depth perception, so the person's eyes are fine and do NOT suffer from "poor performance." A moron can say a person's right leg has "poor performance" because it is hard to stand and move with only the right leg, and the same goes for the left leg, but the moron forgets that the person has two legs (a right one and a left one), so his/her legs are fine and the right leg or left leg do NOT suffer from "poor performance."

The JSF's angular infrared sensor pods most likely cause vision problems at the angles, unless some technology solved the angle's distortions. However, the JSF's multiple infrared sensors can solve this problem.

For the second time I post this marketing video which claims the JSF has 360 infrared coverage. The marketing video claims the JSF's multiple infrared sensors can see 360 on the vertical axis and 360 on the horizontal axis. The infrared images are sent to the pilot helmet, so the pilot can see all around him/her through the infrared spectrum.

Distributed Aperture System for the F-35 JSF


The website:



I don't know the technical details or real world performance, but the video's marketing information from Northrop Grumman claims the following:

1. "DAS is composed of 6 infrared sensors situated around the aircraft. . . . " (Video time: ~0:44)

2. "The result is complete spherical sensor coverage around the aircraft." (Video time: ~0:54)

3. "The 6 IR sensors have extremely fast update rates and are digitally fused to eliminate seams and to perform multiple functions in every direction at all times." (Video time: ~0:58)


Connecting to the thread's topic, I speculate the Russians are working on how to integrate the IR system into the PAK-FA. The Russians could stick with a bulb, but that would decrease the stealth, unless the Russians figured out a way to make a bulb projection stealthy. The Russians could use something similar to the JSF: angular housing for stealthy IR sensors, then directly solve the angle problem, or indirectly solving the problem by using multiple IR sensors for overlapping, widespread perception. The Russians could also figure out a way to smoothly integrate the IR sensors into the PAK FA jet's body.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

If we were to follow your analogues, the F-35 is a man with two eyes, but both or one of them put under tinted glass (angled cage), which as you obviously understand impacts performance.

That is all. If you put a dark glass on one of your eyes, the other cannot fully compensate for the performance issues this will cause.

Infra_Man99 said:

The JSF's angular infrared sensor pods most likely cause vision problems at the angles, unless some technology solved the angle's distortions. However, the JSF's multiple infrared sensors can solve this problem.

Click to expand...

How? There are multiple pods with vision problems. They offer a very wide field-of-view, but their problems remain unsolved.

That's like saying a man with two eyes can "solve" the performance problem caused by tinted glasses - an entire different problem that does not care for how many eyes a man has.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

born2kill said:

If we were to follow your analogues, the F-35 is a man with two eyes, but both or one of them put under tinted glass (angled cage), which as you obviously understand impacts performance.

That is all. If you put a dark glass on one of your eyes, the other cannot fully compensate for the performance issues this will cause.

How? There are multiple pods with vision problems. They offer a very wide field-of-view, but their problems remain unsolved.

That's like saying a man with two eyes can "solve" the performance problem caused by tinted glasses - an entire different problem that does not care for how many eyes a man has.

Click to expand...

LOL, a tinted glass creates a "performance problem"? There are various paints and specially designed glass for various lighting needs. A one-way glass isn't really one way only, and it's not a design flaw. Some shooters wear glasses with a yellow tint to protect their eyes from debris and to improve their eye's shooting vision. I wear DARK gray sunglasses with UVA and UVB protection when I go outdoor or when I drive during the daytime (especially during summer days), or else my eyes will have vision problems due to the bright sunlight and the glare from various objects. My car windows are tinted, too. (No, it's not a manufacturing flaw, LOL). Tinted glass isn't always a bad thing. Filtration can be a good thing. LOL.

[Sarcasm]
A bat's left ear has "poor performance" because a bat cannot precisely echo-locate its prey with only its left ear.

Usain Bolt's left leg has "poor performance" because Usain Bolt cannot compete in the Olympic sprints with only his leg leg.

My left speaker has "poor performance" because it cannot create accurate surround sound on its own.

A F-22's single engine has "poor performance" because it cannot provide all the thrust needs for the F-22.
[/Sarcasm]

Maybe you're right. Maybe the JSF's multiple infrared sensors have "poor performance" (as described by you). I just want to see convincing sources.

I don't know the details of the JSF's multiple IR sensors, but I SPECULATE the multiple IR sensors have complementary visions (where one has poor vision, the other(s) has good vision, and vice versa), like how my right eye's field of vision overlaps with and complements my left eye's field of vision, like how my right leg's movements complement my left leg's motions, like how my left ear's hearing complements my right ear's hearing, and on and on.

For the third time I post this marketing video:

Distributed Aperture System for the F-35 JSF


I don't know the technical details or real world performance, but the video's marketing information from Northrop Grumman claims the following:

1. "DAS is composed of 6 infrared sensors situated around the aircraft. . . . " (Video time: ~0:44)

2. "The result is complete spherical sensor coverage around the aircraft." (Video time: ~0:54)

3. "The 6 IR sensors have extremely fast update rates and are digitally fused to eliminate seams and to perform multiple functions in every direction at all times." (Video time: ~0:58)

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

Infra_Man99 said:

I don't know the details of the JSF's multiple IR sensors, but I SPECULATE the multiple IR sensors have complementary visions (where one has poor vision, the other(s) has good vision, and vice versa)

Click to expand...

So - you don't know, you speculate, and you can't even realize what the problem is (hint - it's NOT a bad field of view or BAD integration between DIFFERENT sensors, but optical distortions resulting from angled shapes for EACH sensor, or some of them if others have a better solution than the one seen on the EOTS pod).

You still think the problem I describe is a lack of sensors? Or that it can be solved by placing many angled sensor pods? But how?

Placing an eye on your behind wouldn't help you to see better with your head-placed eyes. It will increase the field of view. That is all.

The seamless integration of fields of view between the sensors is very good, but it does not solve the distortions that arise for each individual sensor due to angled cages.

If you wish to debate further, demonstrate that these other sensors on the F-35 have distortion-optimal coverings. I feel they have the same type of cover as the main EOTS pod, which means they also suffer from optical distortions. The seamless integration between them is of no matter.

That's like saying if you have an eye illness that affects both of your eyes, you're still fine because you have TWO eyes that seamlessly blend the image. Yes, they do - but that doesn't change the issue posed by the ilness, nes pa?

Infra_Man99 said:

Tinted glass isn't always a bad thing. Filtration can be a good thing. LOL.

Click to expand...

Yeah - lol. When we are talking about optical distortions in sensors meant to pick off targets, it is not a laughing matter.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

Actually, upon reading here, I think we are talking about different systems alltogether?



Basically, the DAS is a passive IR detection system whereas the air-to-air IR search and track is in the EOTS, am I right?

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

There is two sensor systems wich I indeed think you may be confusing.

There's the "six eyed" DAS - AN/AAQ-37 - wich does all the passive look out, classification and tracking of missiles, missile launches, other aircraft, or even ground moving targets.

And then there's the EOTS wich primarily does ground targeting for an impending attack. I think it pretty much brings the capabilities of the LM Sniper XR pod to the Lightning II without copromising stealth.

I think that one window you see right next to the NG writing actually houses one of the DAS sensors, while that golden cage thing is the EOTS.

Re: Russian fifth generation fighter

born2kill said:

Actually, upon reading here, I think we are talking about different systems alltogether?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically, the DAS is a passive IR detection system whereas the air-to-air IR search and track is in the EOTS, am I right?

Click to expand...

No, you're not correct.

I was talking about the performance of multiple IR sensors for IR sensing and for stealth, especially on the PAK-FA. Focus on "IR sensing and stealth at all directions". One example I used was the JSF's multiple IR sensors.

I said the JSF's multiple IR sensors looked good on paper, and you claimed it has "poor performance" due to the angular housing. I said I wasn't sure about the exact limitations of the JSF's angular housing for the IR, and I said a single IR sensor's blind spots or weak spots can be fixed by advanced/secret engineering and/or complemented by other IR sensors. I used DAS as an example of COMPLEMENTARY infrared sensors, like how my right eye complements my left eye, like how my left ear complements my right eye. As a result of this complementary design, the JSF's multiple infrared sensors are good (on paper) for IR sensing and for stealth. Thus, the PAK-FA might want something like this or better. I repeat myself again: if the PAK-FA continues to use a bulb housing for IR sensing, then the bulb should incorporate a unique stealth design or the bulb should be replaced by a stealthy design.


Anyhow, this is what I believe is true about the F-35's multiple IR sensors (which is still being worked on):

1. DAS is used for complete 360 IR coverage. It operates best at short and medium ranges (don't know actual numbers). DAS comprises of 6 IR sensors. It senses and targets air and ground IR-sources at short and medium distances.

2. EOTS is used for longer-range IR-sensing and longer-range targeting. EOTS comprises of 1 IR sensor, 1 TV, and at least 1 laser. It senses and targets air and ground IR-sources at long ranges (don't know actual numbers).


Here are my sources and quotes:

Source #1: [I added blue font as highlights.]

Distributed Aperture System
In a joint effort with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems will provide key electronic sensors for the F-35, which includes spearheading the work on the Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System (DAS). This system will provide pilots with a unique protective sphere around the aircraft for enhanced situational awareness, missile warning, aircraft warning, day/night pilot vision, and fire control capability.

Electro-Optical Targeting System
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems are jointly providing key electronic sensors for the F-35 to include the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS). The internally mounted EOTS will provide extended range detection and precision targeting against ground targets, plus long range detection of air-to-air threats.


Source #2:

Lockheed Martin Missile & Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems are jointly responsible for the JSF electro-optical system. A Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) will provide long-range detection and precision targeting, along with the Northrop Grumman DAS (distributed aperture system) thermal imaging system.

EOTS will be based on the Sniper XL pod developed for the F-16, which incorporates a mid-wave third-generation FLIR, dual mode laser, CCD TV, laser tracker and laser marker. BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems.

DAS consists of multiple infrared cameras (supplied by Indigo Systems of Goleta, California) providing 360° coverage using advanced signal conditioning algorithms. As well as situational awareness, DAS provides navigation, missile warning and infrared search and track (IRST). EOTS is embedded under the aircraft's nose, and DAS sensors are fitted at multiple locations on the aircraft.




Anyhow, I am going to return this thread back to its rightful topic: the PAK-FA.

I repeat again: The PAK-FA MIGHT have a non-stealthy bulb housing for its IR sensor. The PAK-FA should develop all-around IR sensing in a stealthy housing. Even 4++ and newer jets should consider getting upgrades (Eurofighter, F-22, advanced J-10, advanced J-11, advanced Su-27, and MiG-29). This might be too expensive, but the advantages may be tremendous.

If the PAK-FA or some jet has this feature, this advanced jet would be much harder to defeat by surprise attacks than inferior IR-sensing jets. The advanced jet would also have superior situational awareness to plan better surprise attacks on inferior jets.