SignI think Kovy answered it already, but even the Brazilian president stated that, Brazil is searching for a long term stratigic partner and be it in political, economical, or the defense field, Sweden can’t offer this, like US, Russia, France, or even some of the EF consortium members could do.
Yes we can? Sweden have no problem with that. Our defence industry have been working well for the last 200 years. The only thing we dont do is carriers…
SAAB is backed up buy investor, one very big investment company and also the Sweden and UK, and probably some US (not when F-18 is in the loop).
Signbased on the fact that only France would/will really provide help about nuclear sub, aircraft carrier, space tech and a permanent seat at the security council.
For once, the (usually limited) political weight of France has some relevance in the deal.
You have to realize that this deal is not only about the planes.
only french would not cut it (security council)
Signbut in terms of overall performance and especially stratigic benefits, there is no better choice than the Rafale and France.
based on what?
Signall capabilities described above can be achieved by a rafale I think.
As far as I remember the rafale in the only fighter in the world to have demonstrated a hand over of missile coordinates data (Mica) to another fighter (rafale). Demonstrating a networked missile capability.
widspread formation and third party targeting is also used by rafales.
I don’t see the fundamental difference for the moment.
hmm..this is bacics.. giving tracs and missile guidnence is a simple task, please read the above again.
tracs and guidnance is fundamentally diffrent from changing up to 4 rawdata sensor plots in realtime, and compare it, isnt done bye any other operational fighter to date.
Imagine how this can be developed even futher with even more bandwith, the radars could became one! and reseive the other radars “signaltags and synk” and thereby see reflection detection and tracs. but thats alot of bandwith 😉
The americans are on track of making rawdata as TIDLS happen, but only between f-22:s..
and in the long run probably f-35.
all the other is left out!?
SignCould you elaborate please ?
i have not found so much about it, but i have come across this, about early gripen version. this is basics of what can be done when a broadband dualway link is used, and sensor rawdata is signalprocessed together in every single craft to get an even better picture of the situation. i even heard of stealth detection and triangaultion technics from people who know the system.
TIDLS (datalink) A/B gripen basic version
One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target’s track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to “burn through” jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye “mini-AWACs” aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.
TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state.
The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.
TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.
Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.
A basic use of the datalink is “silent attack.” An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM’s active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.
But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls “samverkan,” or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: “Communication is possible without explaining everything.”
“Radar-samverkan,” the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target’s signals will often identify it as well.
The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.
Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target’s track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.
In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman simultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.
SignRafale has more sensors to fuse though.
no, not really. Gripen has datalinked sensors in a much broader scale. NG sensors suit is alot bigger than C/D as well.
SignNo he also commented about sensor fusion and situational awarness. He compared the gripen C/D to a smaller mirage 2000 mk2.
The NG will certainly lessen the gap
Sensorfusion is one of gripens strongpoints, so…i would not put all my money on that horse…
SignThe rafale F2/F3 (there are almost no F2 now) is clearly superior (weapon system) to the gripen C/D as reported by french rafale pilot who flew the gripen during a former gripen C/D deployment in Reims. (The rafale F2/F3 is also more recent)
The N/G has to demonstrate in real condition its potential but technically (weapon system) it should be in the same league than a rafale F3+ (roughly)
reported by a french pilot :), i think you really need to put it in a scenario. In this case probably dogfights at hi level…which rafale is the king. When a pack of gripens use its datalink at BVR then the table probably turns.
SignThis is not excatly the same thing ;
On one hand we have a french active squadron leader talking at an official press conference about an exercise he actually took part in. The fact that this interview is reported in the blog of a famous french defense journalist (and not just an anonimous fan boy blog) is also relevant to assess the value of this info .On the other hand we have a respectable but retired FAB pilot who gives his opinion about a selection process about which he has only very limited official insight (if any). And he bases a big part of this opinion on 25-30 years old bad experiences he had with one of the contender.
Well, think what you want, but I prefer to take his opinion with a pinch of salt.AFAIK, the situation is not reverse.
Where did you see that the rafale lost the technical evaluation ?
The FAB said that all 3 aircrafts meet the technical requirements.
Thus, there is no technical winner or looser for the FAB.Price and TOT should not have been part of the technical evaluation and shouldn’t have been taken into account in any FAB report, leaked or not. That is why Jobim asked a new report with only what was asked to the FAB (ie no ranking based on price and TOT or whatever was not the FAB business in the first place)
rafale developement represents about €10 billions and 20 years of advanced research and expensive trials in all relevant aerospace fields :
– composite materials airframe
– aerodynamics and associated FBW system
– jet engines
– esa radars
– esa ECM
– BVR missiles
– stand off cruise missiles
– multispectral optronic
– sensor fusion
– RCS reduction (I didn’t say stealth 😉 )
– carrier operation compatibilityThat’s a lot of known how which are ALL in the rafale bag. AFAIC, I doubt that Brasil would get everything…
The only other contender which can match this set of TOT, is the F-18E, but the US congress will never accept TOT of this magnitude (especially not on missiles, radar and ECM)
:rolleyes: think this things have been debated for quite some time now.
I dont think the won the evaluation from FAB, the made it last… still there are some real good tech there.
but thats not only rafale that cut it…
SignBefore there can be a sixth generation, there needs to be another technology brakethrough.
every generation dont need to take gigantic steps.
But one aspect that should be in the context is UCAV
No pilots! at least in the plane.
Think of all equipment that a pilot needs, interfaces, oxygen systems, g-suit, etc. The volume and weight of it!
Think of all the restrictions a pilot give. 9g, information handling, responiveness, pilot loses i battle etc.
A man in the loop for now, but no pilot onboard.
Sign:rolleyes:
As far as stealth is concerned, no it’s not. And the obvious proof is that no existing stealth aircraft, either operational or under developement has canards.
Prove otherwise or you are just speculating.
:confused:
What is all this about, knowing the future? if i could do that i will be rich.
i said to control elevation you cant rely on TVC.
Also theres no difference between elevators and canards, but you have to choose between frontal or rear RCS at the moment, because the americans havent figured out the non-resonance canard/elevator(resonance between the two pair of wings).
Still eurocanards are today >0,1rcs, so not to bad for semi stealth 😉
Signcanards or elevators is allways a good thing, TVC will not make em obsolite.
the engines could be out, and then you cant keep leveled flight!
but you get rid of some other controll surfaces, that help stealth charistics 🙂
SignDoes Sweeden or Finland operate any other SAM systems to complement the RBS 70?
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/
Bamse i one of the systems used, dont know of other finish systems
SignIts kind of boring, copying american designs…..:confused:
Why not take one step ahead, with there own wild and crazy ideas?
Thou china is “bould” with its canards.
Signno one of the rafale/EF/gripen countries will never build a “5 gen” fighter.. it will go for a 6 gen. Meaning: no pilot…this is beond 2030…may be some neuron derivate for a-to-g in small numbers.
Sign In
