datafuserWhy? The so called “rumor” has been thoroughly debunked and shown to be a steaming load of BS.
Was there any discussion about it here? Anyway I just prefer to defer my judgement until I see the entire picture.
datafuserThe 30 page article is written by John Lake. Whether the data revealing depends on what you already know about it but with 30 pages of pics and text there will be something new in it I think. 😉
An old version of an Wiki artile quoted the IAPR story written by John Lake as below.
When on deployment to the USA on OEU trials work two RAF Eurofighter Typhoons flew against the USAF’s F-22s in an exercise at NAS China Lake, California. Typhoon got radar lock against the F-22s at long range and then proceeded to dominate the WVR fight. The USAF cried off and then proceeded to cancel the next day’s exercise.[20]. This mock engagement happened during Exercise High Rider 10 during 2005.[21].
20. ^ [International Air Power Review, Volume 20, Page 45].
Could you please type the original sentence of page 45 of IAPR vol. 20 here? I just ordered the magazine to read it myself but am dying to see it now. 🙂
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserOther than that, I’d play with the idea of turning one of the new generation of turboprop-powered trainer/attack aircraft into a carrier-based trainer/attack aircraft. Ideal would be the already rugged, South American Super Tucano. Give it folding wings, arresting gear, and navalize it. You get an aircraft that would sort of be a modern Skyraider at a smaller size. It takes up less space than a naval helicopter, flies faster, flies further, and is a major threat to aircraft up to the class of the A-37 or the AMX, for example. You can pack two of them in the space of even a tiny navalized Gripen.
I don’t think there will be a place for such slow-moving naval attack aircraft.
Against modern warships with a good point defence system, a naval Super Tucano would have no chance I believe.
I doubt if it would be capable of taking off with one or two Harpoon-type ASMs. And a podded radar would take up a hardpoint, further reducing the number of hardpoints available for weapons and fuel tanks.
Perhaps except against poorly defended targets on the ground, it would be almost useless. Turboprops are simply too slow to survive in a modern battlefield.
More modernized Trackers would be much more useful.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserTwo fixed phased arrays side by side, wazzup wid dat?
The smaller one must be an X-band illuminator developed with the help of Thales Nederland and the larger one is the C-band FCS-3 radar.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserFound a paper about Radar-to-ESM correlation written by Chinese scientists in 2000. I first saw this paper at the library of a British university.
http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.articles/hkxb-e/hkxb2000/0002/000204.htm
However, this is not about radar data fusion at measurement/plot or track level.
—–
QUADRI-THRESHOLD ALGORITHM OF CO-LOCATED RADAR-TO-ESM CORRELATION
WANG Guo-hong , HE You
(Institute of Radar 402 , Naval Aeronautical Engineering Academy, Yantai 264001, P.O. Box 109, Shandong Province, China)
MAO Shi-yi
(Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100083, China)
WANG Yong-an
(4330 Factory, Qixia 264001, Shandong Province, China )
Abstract: A quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm is presented and the corresponding four thresholds (high threshold, middle threshold, low threshold, and threshold margin) are given. The proposed algorithm is especially suited for the scenarios where each radar track is specified by different numbers of measurements. Using a simple and effective discriminant function based on the fuzzy synthesis function, the proposed quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm first selects the two most likely radar tracks and then makes the soft decision based on the selected two tracks. The introduction of the threshold margin in the presented algorithm can further reduce mis-classification errors. Simulation results show the feasibility of the algorithm.
Key words: radar; ESM; correlation
CLC number: TP202 Document code: A
Article ID: 1000-9361(2000)02-0086-05
In recent years, radar-to-ESM correlation has been widely studied［1～9]. Use of radar and ESM sensors increases the likelihood of target acquisition and reduces the vulnerability to jamming. Radar-to-ESM correlation was first studied by Coleman［1］. Trunk and Wilson［2］ considered the problem of associating a set of n ESM angle measurements with one of m possible radar tracks, where each radar track was specified by a different number of measurements and the cumulative probability of the random variable with a chi-squared density was used as the discriminant function. In order to alleviate the computational burden, the closeness score for correct association in Ref.［3］ and fuzzy synthetic function in Refs.［4,5］ were used as discriminant function, respectively.
Based on the fuzzy synthetic function, a tripe-threshold decision algorithm of radar-to-ESM correlation was presented in Ref.［5]. In order to reduce the mis-classification when radar tracks are close in azimuth, a quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation algorithm is proposed in this paper based on the work of Ref.［5]. The proposed quadri-threshold radar-to-ESM correlation decision rule is based on the two most likely radar tracks and, therefore, can further reduce mis-classification errors.
—–
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserIndeed it is, Arunta belongs to a friend of mine, who built it in the mid-90s.
The other, Aegis-equipped Anzac was built to the specs provided by Tenix by another friend of mine.
Here is another design which never made it off the drawing board except in model form (built by yet another friend of mine).
Unicorn
Thanks a lot for the images! You have very good modeller friends indeed.
BTW, what radar is it in the model? SPY-1F?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafusersensor fusion…
If this is the proof of sensor fusion, then almost all warships have sensor fusion.
There are many different types of sensor fusion – measurement/plot level fusion (SYS-2/TMS on various American, Canadian, German and Taiwanese ships and Australian CEA-MAST on Aussie FFG-7s), track level fusion (Outfit LFD Radar Track Combiner on UK Type 42 DDGs) and a combination of both (Franco-Italian Horizon).
In measurement/plot level fusion, radars send plot data to a central fusion system which forms composite tracks. This requires radars not to do local tracking.
In track level fusion, radars do local tracking and then just pass tracks to a central location for track-to-track correlation.
Many naval combat systems simply let radars do local tracking and just choose the best track they think, discarding the others.
Below is from “Multi sensor tracking function on modern anti-air-warfare (AAW) frigates”
Fiorini, M.; Filoni, G.
Target Tracking 2004: Algorithms and Applications, IEE
Volume , Issue , 23-24 March 2004 Page(s): 39 – 50
“In the frame of Horizon frigate each sensor provides target data as source track (ST). These data are composed by track data, estimated position and speed provided by the internal tracker of the sensor, and plot data, the real measures of the radar used to produce the estimates. Having both track and plot data the CMS has been designed as a mixed system, able to use tracks and/or plots according to the real need.”
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserLucky you are not in the Navy and good at talking only, show me which Navy has the doctrine enlightening you that Zenith attacking ARM is in the same priority of sea skimming AshM? Both missiles could be hundreds meters apart in altitude yet your poorly informed radar system still thinking there’s only 1 missile as your signal return on your 2D radar is still 1 , then soon your horizon search radar will find the KH-31A at low angel approaching and therefore confirm your VSR’s initial judgment is correct. The totally silent ARM therefore comes from your Zenith totally unnoted, destroying your VSR which sits high and you can assure what a massacre about to follow next.
I suggest you read more on shipborne IR surveillance system 1st before simply prompting up any more .such systems are common nowadays and on board the latest European and American warships. Refer to the FCR-17 diagram I posted, and open your eyes and tell us all: does the Main Gun & CIWS are plugged into the FDDI LAN directly or connected only indirectly to the main bus via the integrator console? All the IR17 optical device, Sea eagle 3D Radar and SR64 Tracking Radar are only accessible to the weapon system through this console as well. The console integrates data obtained from sea eagle radar @ 24 updates/min, SR64 @ 60 updates/min as well as data from IR 17 which can track 30 targets simultaneously, you like or not.
Just curious, if they are integrated, at what level? Are they integrated at plot/measurement level or track level?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHi Unicorn,
Thanks a lot for the images.
Probably one of the model ships in the images is this one here at http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/Arunta.asp. Although the model has two Mk74/SPG-51 fire-control radars, it seems its target indication radar is not TRS-3D/32, whose antenna is box-like.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHi,
datafuser: Sure would like to have a look at that design as well. All I have is the Aegis Anzac but I guess you already know that one.
Could you please post the info on that password protected site?
Unicorn: Are there any additional info on that upgrade available?
Regards.
Hi MConrads,
Thanks for the image. The site http://defence-data.com/current/page7301.htm was not password protected when I read the article in question back in 2000. Acutally I posted that link at sci.military.naval newsgroup 7 years ago when the defence-data.com site was open for all to see.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHere ’tis
Unicorn
PS. Datafuser, if you are going to link to a site, please choose one that isn’t password protected, thanks.
Hi Unicorn,
Thanks for the reply.
However ,they look like Tenix’s FFG PUP proposal, not AAW ANZAC.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserDoes anybody have a conceptual drawing or artist’s impression of the proposed AAW ANZAC by Tenix?
It was reported in early 2000 at http://defence-data.com/current/page7301.htm
The proposed AAW ANZAC was to have a TRS-3D/32 3D radar, a SPS-49A(V)1 2D radar and two Mk74/SPG-51 fire-control radars.
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserSirs,
there are 2 updated photos at Aviation Week & Space Magazine of April 23rd 2007, page 61. One with a “big nose” (for a bigger radar) and one with a small nose AKA F-35. Unfortunately my scanner is broken 🙁
Can someone post this photos here?
The article says South Korea is looking for partners. I just wonder if other in development countries with advanced aerospace industry like Brazil and South Africa would like to jump in !!! 🙂 Should be interesting !
Regards.
Hi,
Thanks for your interest in my article.
I am the one who wrote the article for AW&ST but I cannot post the pictures here because they are copyrighted.
Cheers,
Sunho
Kind
datafuserThe Chinese FD-60 is marketed specifically at US made aircraft that can use Sparrow.
Nothing is harder to integrate than a semi-active homing BVRAAM. You need complete integration between radar and missile.
Anything else — IR missiles, even ARH — would be simpler.
If carried out, it should be done without US appoval or assistance?
Cheers,
Sunho
datafuserHe never said the Shafir was a clone of a Soviet missile. I think he meant that the Soviet R-3 missile was the clone – which is true (copied from the AIM-9B Sidewinder).
I believe the Israelis captured quite a lot of R-3 missiles from the Egyptians when they overran an Egyptian airfield in, I think, 1967.
There was an attempt to fit these missiles to Israeli aircraft afterwards, and I believe the Israelis also fitted Sidewinders or Shafirs to some of the MiGs they captured from the Arab air forces as well, but I’m not sure.
Sorry, I misunderstood. But I haven’t seen the claim that the Israelis fitted the Soviet R-3 on their Mirage IIIs anywhere else and would like to know the sources of this claim.
Cheers,
Sunho
Sign In
