www.twz.com
It's to be assumed that it's some form of probe to collect data, I'd say. Possibly how airflow from the pylons and the external payload impact the control surfaces in the rear. But my guess is just based on placement and it being a test article for novel external accessoires. So I'm not claiming absolute certainty here.
I find it hard to be believe that they'd set things up that way.1 of the stealthy sensor pod looks EO & other like EW.
So the fuselage acts as a blindspot, can't look the other side.
Then how will F-22 have spherical coverage?
Will 1 group of few data-linked F-22s do the IRST for other clean config F-22s?
When did the F-22 get a DAS?
The externals windows had been there orver 18 years or so.
The volume originally planned for the IRST was used by something else back in the 1990s.
But both the EO seekers & RF emitters are needed to cover all angles, bcoz F-22 after using all BVRAAMs would also try to sneak from side, behind, high & low altitudes & now the adversaries would also use such tactics.
It's my impression that the IR windows are only on the outboard sides of the pods, so you're seeing the face of the pod without the window.
Maybe? It'll only be good to about 50km at best, and that's if you can really solidly know the distance between the two pods.
Yes, but you can stick a thermometer onto the window to set your squelch correctly. Does cost you some detail when the window is hot, of course, and may require actively cooling the window to regain that detail.
There's also the trick where you can guesstimate range based on image size versus a calibrated measure inside the imager. This does assume you have a good guess of what the target is (so you know the size of the target). On subs, we used masthead height (waterline to top of mast, because it was easy to see the top of the mast against the sky). For a plane you could use wingspan or length, whichever you have a better view of. So the math turns into "target takes up X many pixels and has a fighter profile, if it's a MiG-29 range will be [X], if it's a Su-27 range will be [X+%]"
The same goes for all IR guided missiles, which in fact do get active cooling from the aircraft. There's a reason there are different pylon versions of the same type being sold for "same" missiles (like MICA).
yep. But today this is all digital, hence, a combination of software pixelcounting, AI, and databases.
i guess we didnt read the following sentence. "id image the electronics up in the nose could be down sized considerably and be displaced else where to make enough room for a system like EOTS." for further clarity the electronics that took over the space that was originally designed for IRST should be able to be completely downsized and moved to somewhere else in the airframe to make room for EOTS. this can be done and i believe relatively cheaply as all your really doing is taking these old 90's computers (much larger and gets curb stomped by the newest iphone in terms of performance) and replacing it with modern processors. look at the original xbox to the series S like 1/2 the size yet 12x the performance. which really makes me question why they arent just investing in internal upgrades but instead podded solutions
Nothing in aviation is cheap. Everything in the nose of the F-22 is 386PC equivalent technology. We absolutely could replace all those big boxes with smaller and higher performance ones. But it'd cost big money to do it, because the USAF bought enough of the old spares for full life of the airframe in one buy way back in the day.
nothing is cheap by our standards but for the airforce it could be cheaply done. if each upgrade costed a 1/2 of a brand new f16 per f22 fitted it would be a well worthy buy. not to mention all the funds that went into the podded IRST couldve been used for the internal EOTS and other upgrades. it would also allow for further upgrades in the future incase of the f22 seeing a threat to its service life. and we could scrap most of the spares for a extra bit of cash but clearly keep some for the trainers and potential need for going backward in capability. i just cant imagine it would cost THAT much money todo so, i mean just look at everyone putting apple car play in their cars designed in the 90's, it can be done relatively easily and cheap. sure the raptors case is much more difficult because it takes actual integration and reprograming of the FCS and other systems but thats more or less time and not so much cost. and again the US is literally investing into more open architecture which would streamline and make this whole process cheaper. i just find it hard to believe that cost is the true decider here and i dont see a great reason to go with the pods. now maybe if we had a document relating to the funding and or a RFI that goes into how much something like this would cost and what exactly it entails i would understand but as evidence suggests i cant come to the conclusion its cost
That is a very big if. You're still talking ~30mil each plane to upgrade. Times 185 airframes that's 5.55 billion to upgrade, just in parts.
Note that you are seeing the left side of the first pod, and the right side of the second pod.
2nd sexiest aircraft on planet earth. easy.
Citation needed.
Yes, but would have required a full avionics redesign instead of adding two pods. And I suspect a full avionics redesign would cost at least as much as all the parts, so we're now talking ~11bn.
While I admit that the pod shown under the bizjet has a notch in the nose and does generally look like the pods seen on F-22s, no pictures of that notched-nose pod on an F-22 have emerged yet.
