|
slicendice -> RE: Stickied thread for minor database issues? (3/4/2014 1:59:05 PM)
|
Thank you for your reply mikmyk.
I'm not sure if I'm clear about the signature issue. Of course detection is about both sensor and target signature, and I was talking about(what I see as) discrepancies in the latter. What I'm saying is basically that munitions like JASSM, JSOW, Storm Shadow, AGM-129, etc..., with pretty explicit RCS reduction features, don't seem to have lower RCS than the comparable, "non-stealthy" weapons. Of course it will be difficult to find any credible figures, but I'd say a guesstimate will be closer to the real world figures than leaving them in line with weapons with little stealth consideration.
And for the unpowered guided bombs(GBUs), from what I see in database, they are just somehow much more visible to IR sensor from the rear, say maybe 2x+ the detection range from side? Seem to me that someone just forgot that these weapons, although classified as guided weapons, don't really have engines.
I'd like to post a link to the F-35 reference, but I couldn't as newly registered user. Anti spam measures?
dtic.m(WTF)il/ndia/2012annual_psr/WERTH.pdf
Bypassed it anyway.
Not exactly up to date, but you get the general idea. Hate to admit, but the Block 3F weapon set is pretty basic. Block 4 however includes some more sexy stuff.
Both F-35B/C are threshold platform for SDB II integration. So if nothing goes seriously wrong, they will probably get SDB II. Were I to hazard a guess, F-35A will get the same. Even fit testing is done for F-22 and it is designated as an objective platform for integration, but that's a bit far fetched.
BTW APG-63v3 has been fielded by USAF for sometime(although only in small number at a painfully slow rate), wouldn't it be a good time to add an APG-63v3 variant for USAF F-15?
|
|
|
|
