Jump to content

522nd Special Operations Squadron


fltsload
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually, during flight test, DTED seemed to be more...consistent. I'm sure, just like most anything, it'd take time to grow to trust something like that out in the weather & mountains at 250'.

MC-Ws have the same plain 241 too. I kinda figured they'd be the first to use the TF capability, but I guess I'm wrong...again.

DTED can be a limfac. The resolution of the test area was probably quite good - at least Level 1, but likely level 2. Most of the world is still at level 0 and you want it at level 3 or better...level 2 is still >10% of your clearance.

That's memory intensive and processor intensive.

It's an outstanding concept - use the DTED (even lower resolutions) to do the first rough cut on your TF profile and active sweeps to refine. But you're still trying to time-share the active sweeps with ground mapping...which results in latency issues with a moving antenna because it simply can't move quickly enough. Add different displays (TA & GM) and you've got real issues. Same issues T2 has with TF & TA simultaneously - it triples the TA refresh rate depending on exactly what the antenna is trying to do just then...and TA may be the best picture you've got right then...but old.

The MC-W has had a slight mission change... ;) And at least the current AFSOC/CC sees it as a pseudo-test platform due to various reasons...most of them financial. But that's how all our decisions are made anymore...not mission, money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TF capable APN-241 that was used on 0572 had a beefed-up elevation drive on the antenna, and a matching elevation servo amplifier in the RTP, along with extra dual function processor circuit cards for greater processing power. More importantly, a different software load to implement the TF functions as commanded by a separate Mission Processor on the aircraft. Much less expensive than some of today's hi-tech TF systems; and there is no such thing as a multi-aircraft off-the-shelf TF system. All have to have some tailoring to accomodate unique performance capabilities/limitations of the host aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and there is no such thing as a multi-aircraft off-the-shelf TF system. All have to have some tailoring to accomodate unique performance capabilities/limitations of the host aircraft.
The system currently fitted to CV22 is pretty much an off-the-shelf system - designed specifically for TF, works at our speeds and performance, is light, reliable, and is already developed, so not uber-expensive when you compare it to the MX intensive, cobbled-together system of systems to make some other non-TF radar do TF.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "pretty much off-the-shelf" TF system on the CV-22 is perhaps(?) working fine for the performance characteristics of the host aircraft, but is many millions of dollars and years in development/tests away from meeting the requirements of a C-130J. If you can, check and see what the development/tests costs and schedule were just to install and qualify that system for the Osprey.....

You might also find that the roots for that system come from the LANTIRN pod radar; modified to become an APQ-174; modified to become an APQ-186..... Sorta cobbled together, I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...