Invader ZIM

Nicely done! I always was riveted by this cockpit audio, over Baghdad in an F-16. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc0_1240788325 The video above seems to correspond to the recollection at this site under Day3: http://www.lucky-devils.net/afm.html

On the surface your correct tflash, but the U.S. defense industry has a long history of working together on projects. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-77.htm http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg79aesa/ Either way, the companies have their hands in it, along with other AESA systems together, some of the advancements are shared or updated later on on legacy products. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/electronic-attack-role-next-upgrade-for-raptor-radar-212317/ My guess from the above is that Raytheon was able to get ahead on the AESA electronic attack capability on the software side and so these useful advances get rolled back to the APG-77 which they had a hand in with Northrop Grumman. As you can see in the above link, the upgrade for electronic attack is a software upgrade, not a hardware one. And below you can see another large defense company working with Northrop Grumman and improvements to the APG-77's and other AESA's upgrades. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/elec-tricks-turning-aesa-radars-into-broadband-comlinks-01629/

Well, we're dealing with public sources of info, but if you can find info that helps tie the jigsaw puzzle together and get an idea of what might be going on. The F-18's AESA are made by the same company that makes the F-22's AESA, and F-35's AESA, Raytheon. This article mentions the upgrades of the F-22 from F-35's: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-fields-first-upgraded-f-22-raptors-369886/ http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm From this Air Force Article: https://secure.afa.org/joinafa/login.aspx?returnurl=http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2014/february%202014/0214raptor.aspx So, as you can see, info slips out there sometimes in articles, the other articles only serve to reinforce the idea that any Raytheon AESA radar has electronic attack capabilities, and I'm sure the F-22 probably gets first crack or updated software and equipment as it becomes available as mentioned from the other guys in this thread. I would not be surprised if the thing already has other upgrades we just don't hear about in public circles.

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-cenciotti-us-f-22s-escorting-jordanian-planes-over-syria-2015-2 Edit: beat me to it, good article Sith, mine was derived from your more detailed report. Regarding AESA and jamming capabilities: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fa-18ef-to-use-aesa-as-jammer-208213/ Somewhere awhile back in the Su-35 vs F-22 thread, there was an article I posted that said the F-22 will get all available upgrades that trickle down from other advances in aviation technologies, so I wouldn't be surprised if it has the capability.

You're correct, it was. Specifically it was probably the CCTV Spotter scope on the gimball set to monochrome, the spotter has a very narrow field of view, but great magnification as you can see how close up the plane appears as the gimball operator switches between the other cameras in the mount, such as the Mid wave thermal and color CCTV modes.

Need to tell the P-3 maintenance crew that the thermal camera on that plane has a bad pixel down and to the right of the crosshairs. It's not a dead pixel, because it's reacting to the various heat sources that pass over that pixel, but they are reacting out of spec from the rest of the non uniforimity calibrated Focal Planar Array. A nearest neighbor algorithm will fix it though, or an additional offset correction map of the FPA.

Doesn't look fake to me, few people who haven't seen stabilized high power thermal imaging systems in an aircraft would know where and when they would see thermal lens flare effects to fake it. It wouldn't take much of an increase in the Su-27's throttle to really spike the heat signature as seen from the FLIR camera on that plane. Matches up nicely with the FLIR imager watching the Paris Airshow. After some research I'm guessing the imaging system is an export downgraded version of the FLIR SAFIRE http://www.flir.com/uploadedFiles/CVS/Markets/Legacy/Documents/Sea%20Star%20SAFIRE%20II.pdf Video demonstration of SAFIRE family matches image from P3:

Glad to assist, rep given as well to a few guys, good to see interest in learning and trying to better understand some of the complexity of air warfare.

Sorry, nothing I can find in the public realm to share at the moment, but an old Bill Sweetman article about the F-22 systems which helps understand how some of the systems might work, it's about 15 years old though so keep that in mind. If the other guys want to add info they can, my expertise is in thermal imaging and IR optics as well as image intensifiers, some of the guys here are real radar gurus so I defer to their expertise in that area and hope they correct me if I'm wrong about what I've posted. As far as jamming AESA equipped aircraft, refer back to the Northern Edge 2009 exercises where the AN/APG-81 equipped aircraft faced off with multiple very advanced jamming systems and techniques. http://www.deagel.com/news/APG-81-Radar-Validated-during-Northern-Edge-2009_n000006262.aspx EDIT: Found the article Below is the article from the Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill Not in it's entirety, and published June 1, 2000 making it 15 years out of date. So, you can start to see the advantages of a radar that's hard to detect, and in the case of the F-35, coupled with pretty advanced IR detection capability to address the advantages and disadvantages of each technology to create a more complete picture of the battlefield. One other tidbit of info that was published in Air Force Magazine is that F-22's fly in groups with a spacing that is much further from each other than 4th gen aircraft, it was mentioned as "Geographic" spacing.

What I meant by fast maneuvering, is that if you have an aircraft closing at high speed, and say the IRST sees it a 50km ahead of you, your heading toward him, both at or over mach by this time, you don't have much room to work with that range closing fast. And aircraft don't usually come in ones and twos, so in busy airspace PIRATE might have some trouble if it's focused on one or two contacts, but others are also out there. Best official word on an F-22 detecting an object with 1m2 target size was in a Jane's 2004 publication, you won't find any details on the actual ranges though.

Well, your right that newer technology will extend the range, the Su-35's IRST is better than the legacy Su-27, but you can see it's not by too much and there's other factors that increase or decrease range performance, like good coding for the thermal sensor and quality of optics in front of the sensor. Sniper is multi spectral, including a 3rd gen 3000 to 5000 nanometer thermal sensor with a rather large 512x640 focal planar array that gives the sensor a recognition range 2 to 3 times further than legacy pods like Lightning. Plus advanced image processing algorithms and extremely steady stabilization to help achieve that longer range. It's really fascinating stuff to study, but like you said there are a lot of secrets, so the best you can hope for is to get some hints and put the info together to guess what might be possible when you search for info. Trust me though, PIRATE isn't perfect, great to have in addition to a good radar to help out but there's no perfect solution. https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/united-kingdom/defence/air-group/infra-red-search-track/pirate Your article mentions the following for PIRATE: Which in English translates to the following: So perhaps 40 to 50 km to ID the target as a plane then, on such a high end IRST system. It's great as an aide to the radar, but still too limited in range in real conditions against an air threat that's moving very fast.

Sniper is pretty good, same limitations apply trying to recognize an aircraft using a narrow fov sensor.

If your talking Western European and US IRST and thermal imaging sensor designs, then I agree, they can add an extra layer of information and other options to detect and fire on opposing aircraft at useful ranges. They are also more advanced and sensitive systems that can see targets much further away than Eastern designs. But none of them are magic bullets able to defeat all countermeasures. Nobody talks about false signals though, from terrain, buildings, hot spots and metal reflecting in the 3000 to 14000 nanometer IR windows, stuff glinting into the sensor as you fly along at high speed, and the Su-35's IRST is the most advanced Eastern design that is actually fielded so I used it as an example showing how limited it was against a non IR stealthy and very large Su-30 target. Other models which go into Mig-29's for example, like the OEPS-29 IRST are even less capable. http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan%27s%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm So here's some interesting info, the IRST on a Mig-29 has problems tracking a target if it uses flares. And at that, the combined IR signature of the multiple flares has to be LESS than the aircraft that's spoofing, that doesn't happen too often if you understand IR signatures. That's not good in a close in battle with aircraft popping flares WVR, and it's more confusing that false info is going to your radar display from the flares, since the system can't reject their signature as a false positive. The Su-27's IRST, the OLS-27: So looking up the hot tailpipe of an opposing aircraft engine, it can see it at 50km. Most likely if it's skylined against a nice flat cold sky in the thermal sensor. As far as IR stealth, the F-22 and F-35's do employ it. Imagine the IRST sensor, however at 30km, an F-22 may only take up a few pixels across the sensor, and at that range the difference in it's heat signature from the sky may not be enough for it to be noticed by the IRST. Even more difficult is a plane coming from below the horizon, now it's IR signature is more easily hidden from terrain features, the ocean, etc instead of the much colder and more uniform sky if that happens to be perfectly clear. On top of that, for example if it's possible to hide an M1 Abrams with IR paint, it's very conceivable that F-22's and F-35's can do some of the same. Look how hard it is for the thermal imager to see the hot engine of the tank even. Maximum detection ranges are just that, detection, not recognition, or identification range, which is shorter than the Detection range. Detection is a pixel, what is it?? Recognition range is: It's a plane, but what kind? Friendly, enemy? Identification range: It's an F-22, and he's in my face!! We use the The Johnson Criteria which assumes that the critical dimension for a human being is 0.75 meters. To get DRI, you need 1.5 pixels, 6 pixels and 12 pixels across 0.75 meters in the object pane. That means: Detection 1.5 pixels / 0.75m = 2 pixels per meter Recognition 6 pixels / 0.75m = 8 pixels per meter Identification 12 pixels / 0.75m = 16 pixels per meter For a rather advanced 640x480 thermal sensor we have the following example to see a human target: Sure, I can detect a man at 2.5km, but I won't know it's a man until he's 1.1km away. And I can't tell if it's a farmer or an enemy soldier until he's 600m away using the sensor above. Same applies to aircraft IR sensors. And this applies to aircraft as well. http://www.defensereview.com/intermat-anti-thermalir-camo-tech-for-infantry-and-special-operations-forces/ For reference, the M1 painted with the intermet is number 2, and it's only 250 meters away from the camera. Another image, same range, 250 meters. Thermal Images of Aircraft Carriers Notice that there are two sets of apparent jet heat trails, these are called "ghosts". They are errors and result from lense reflection or instrument calibration error which introduce artifacts. Video of the F-14's IRST, not the nice smooth real time high resolution image many like to think when discussing IRST's. And to get any real range, the sensors have to dramatically reduce their field of view, and their ability to search any large portion of the sky. So, starting to see the problem with using IR seekers? It actually gets worse trying to pick out your target than the photos illustrated if it is high humidity, or if it has rained or is raining. Much more difficult. Now do it at ranges to avoid getting hit from an Amraam at over 35 km with a plane that's masking it's signature to allow it to get within no escape zones with it's AIM-120.

lol, it sure does seem to be heading more toward lasers, drones, and hackers as of late.

There's a lot more to even the type of radar used in planes like the F-22, F-35, Golden Eagles. http://www.deagel.com/news/APG-81-Radar-Validated-during-Northern-Edge-2009_n000006262.aspx From the book "Detecting and Classifying Low Probability of Intercept Radar" Essentialy, you would have to deal with a radar that is very difficult to detect, and can supposedly give you false signals or actively jam while it easily sees and classifies at ranges far in excess than even Western IR sensors. And as far as IRST's go: Even the Su-35 according to the brochure has trouble seeing the giant Su-30 coming straight at it until it's within 35 km. If that hot and large Su-30 happens to even be in the IRST's gimball frontal search arc. Your Amraam fodder head on at 35 km with something you can't see yet that's using LPI radar against you, or God forbid being painted by another LPI F-22 while the other units fire on you from multiple vectors.