LokeI doubt it. The Swiss eval report specifically mentions that there was no fusion between the radar and EW suite (Gripen D was it?).
My understanding was that the sensor fusion of Gripen C/D was fusing of radar signals from different Gripens, without involving the EW suite?
This is also sensor fusion, but a very special one. And seems still very useful.
LokeThat is the essence of the discussion. If their is overall superiority in Network reach, and quality then even a force equipped with the F-16 can handle an equal force of F-35’s.
I would like to challenge you on that.
Can you please describe a scenario in which a force of F-16 supported by a “network” will be able to handle an equal force of F-35 (which will generate their own network)?
Please keep it realistic and reasonable 🙂
LokeLol… let me have a go at that too Madrat.
Su-35 is a true Gripen killer. It is designed to destroy all Gripen versions of past, present and future. :diablo:
Gripen fanboys can claim low RCS as much as possible, but in the end its not a stealth platform and will be picked up by IRBIS / BARS a looooong way away.
The only advantage Gripen has compared to other Eurocanards is cost. Its inferior in every other manner.
From the previous page:
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.
Gripen NG will detect the emissions from form the SU-35 radar a looooong way away… and with triangulation a group of Gripen can even produce a track, without emitting anything 😉
LokeF-35 and Norway:
Look at the ever-changing number on green background to the right. That’s the size of the Norwegian “oil fund”, in NOK. the Cost of 52 F-35 is no issue… Norway will get her F-35 and keep her subs and Nansens frigates…
2. If you have any specific questions you would like to ask the Norwegian MoD please let me know; the spokesperson is active on a norwegian military forum and I will be happy to forward your questions to him.
3. The cost of 62.6 billion is in 2013-NOK; thus this reflects a signficant inflasion. Also, it does include everything, even the engines!
LokeI find it interesting than even this “pimped up” F-16 has not participated in any competitions, it seems even Peru did not ask for information on it!?
http://www.andina.com.pe/Ingles/noticia-spain-offers-eurofighters-to-peru-446063.aspx
LokeCosts are going down, according to Norwegian MoD:
The 52 F-35 Norway is to get is now estimated to cost 62.6 billion NOK (2013 estimate).
Total costs for 30 years of operation was estimated to 230 billion NOK in 2012.
Loke1-this have been discussed many time in the old thread ,very sensitive RWR can see LPI but they also see a lot of background noise ( not to mention jamming from MALD-J or EA-18 ) that why it really hard to detect AESA radar ( russian , USA , chinese will not going to spend money on stealth fighter , if AESA radar is so easy to detect like that )
2- rafale and EF-2000 will not going to have rcs =0.1 m2 when they carry missiles , pylon , pod ( not to mention fuel tank )
3- T-50 and F-35 probably detect other by IRST before they can see the other on radar
1. Yes, but I still think the thesis could be of interest, there is a lot of information in there. The opponent of F-35 may also use jamming
2. The Gripen NG will get new low RCS pylons… Saab also said that by using more modern missiles (meteor, IRIS-T) the RCS will be reduced, due to the reduced RCS of those missiles compared to older missiles.
3. Indeed, and therefore the F-35 can easily end up in WVR range when faced with other 5. gen. If the PAK FA meets its requirements most likely the F-35 radar will be useless and the name of the game will be EM detection and IR detection, and potentially WVR
LokeTIDLS has always been a beamed/directional datalink.
—
Below is a brief summary of TIDLS capabilities, from an older JEDOnline article by Bill Sweetman.
Thanks for the Sweetman article. However I am still not convinced that the TIDLS was beamed/directional originally? Or did I miss something?
LokeI thought Gripen would get sensor fusion with the E version only?
Anyway, great list above, however I think you missed the “reduced IR signature”?
Also, the E version will have further reduction in RCS compared to C
And when did the beamed datalinks enter? I thought that was also with the E?
Eurofighter Norway claimed the Typhoon IR signature “is in the same class as the F-35″…
LokeI think we must look at GENERATIONS with a pinch of salt. For all practical purposes, they are marketing terms that are loosely used by most manufacturers, some people have in the past refered to the basic Gripen as a 4.25 generation fighter 🙂 , however SAAB markets it strictly as a 4.5 generation aircraft.
I agree but if you see my post above I think there is a significant difference between a 4.0 gen and a 4.5 gen in terms of capability. Can a “4 gen” be upgraded to 4.5? Possibly, but lowering the RCS and IR to that degree can be a challenge without building a new airframe… also you need to be able to fit all the sensors, and have enough power to drive it all.
4.5 gen a/c: SH block II (but not block I), Rafale (only 1 so far, flying with AESA). Typhoon is a special case, it got all the characteristics of 4.5 but one, it lacks the AESA. SU-35 will be 4.5 gen.
AFAIK Gripen C has always been superior to the Norwegian F-16 (which are currently at block 52 level after several upgrades), I think this is a combination of slightly lower RCS, lower IR signature, and an ECM package that is more powerful than what many people is aware of. Still I would not call it “4.5 gen”, it lacks sensor fusion, AESA and a few other things.
LokeIMO Gripen C/D is 4.0 not 4.5.
NG however will be 4.5.
Lokes definition of 4.5:
Reduced RCS (compared to 4.0), typically 10% or less
Reduced IR signature
sensor fusion
AESA
IR sensors
built-in RWR, MAW
advanced, built-in ECM,
limited supercruise (all but the SH got this one)
NG vs. Rafale; my guess is that they will be roughly on the same technology level, this is IMHO more important than turn rates and acceleration. Thus I would guess both would operate in silent mode to avoid the other detecting it’s emission.
Also I think it would come more down to training, tactics etc.
The NG will have an advantage with the swash plate AESA; it can cover a much larger scan volume than the RBE2.
The NG also has beamed data links. Does the Rafale have this? When used properly that can make a difference.
Operating in silent mode the RCS of each a/c becomes irrelevant.
IR reduction however will be important, as well as the level of sensor fusion, the sensitivity and quality of the sensors (how good they are at excluding false positives), and finally ECM.
NG vs Typhoon: If the Typhoon gets the large swashplate AESA that it can potentially fit, then that would be a huge asset also in “listening mode”. I am not so sure about the other sensors of the Typhoon? Does it have beamed data link?
LokeOne document that may be of interest:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a456960.pdf
Page 53, below table 2:
It can also be seen that ES receiver interception range is coming closer to radar’s maximum detection range with -80dBmi sensitivity. ES receiver interception range can be calculated as 250km, too much above radar’s maximum detection range, if the sensitivity of ES receiver were -100dBmi.
With a highly sensitive ES receiver, a 1W LPI can be detected at 250 km! To avoid detection one would have to go to lower transmit powers. No doubt modern AESAs like the AN/APG-81 have much higher sensitivities than the one presented in table 2 on that same page; on the other hand one should also keep in mind the dependence on RCS for detection. 4.5 gen a/c like Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen NG are assumed to have RCS around 0.1m2. I wonder how the F-35 can detect such a relatively small a/c at a large distance without using at least some power?
Does anybody have ballpark figures of the power output of modern AESAs in LPI mode?
Anyway, I am wondering that if e.g. the F-35 is to face another VLO plane then it would have a problem, since, in order to detect a VLO at a distance it would most likely have to increase the power, even if sensitivity of the radar is excellent… this will make it easy for the other VLO plane to detect the emissions. And if the VLO planes opposing the F-35 have the capacity to triangulation then the F-35 may find itself in trouble:
http://gb.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416108193
page 43, first paragraph
Perhaps I am wrong, but even if the other plane (e.g. PAK FA) has, say, one order of magniture higher RCS than the F-35, it may still have sufficiently low RCS to cause a real headache for the F-35s radar.
In such a scenario the F-35 might be better off turning off the radar? In which case the scenario Saab describes below becomes true…
But future air combat is most likely to be much more silent than it is today. This means that fighter aircraft approaching each other will try to emit as little electromagnetic energy as possible, not using their radars in active mode.
Silent Gripens
Gripen NG is built for such future silent operations. When Gripen NG approaches an advanced adversary in the air, its powerful AESA radar and EW antennas are silent, listening. These two systems are very well adapted for position determination by only listening to enemy emissions. It is important to notice that in a totally silent scenario, where all aircraft avoid emitting with radar, RCS (Radar Cross Section) is meaningless.
It doesn’t matter if you have the best stealth features in the world if all radars in the scenario are turned off. And as soon as an enemy turns his radar on and starts emitting, Gripen NG pilots know where he is.
LokeGripen has some heat sinks behind the cockpit, I think this is mainly to reduce the IR signature seen from the ground.
F-35 is much bigger than Gripen and also somewhat bigger than the Rafale, but it’s not bigger than the F-22. It is more modern than the F-22. Also, it has this active IR reduction as already mentioned. Thus I would assume that the IR signature from the F-35 would be less than the IR signature from the F-22, at least at subsonic speeds…
It would be interesting to know how the F-35 would compare to Rafale and Gripen though.
LokeSmaller ir signature? When LM chief was in Norway, he had to admit that the f-35 had considerable hotter signature than most 4 gen planes. And that is not even an priority thing to fix on the must/should be fixed.
I would also be interested in a source to this.
Unlike most planes the F-35 does have active IR reduction, in addition to some passive techniques. The active IR reduction consists of using the fuel to cool things down — when the heated fuel is burned in the engine, you should at least in theory get a real IR reduction that would be difficult to get in any other way.
Note that Gripen also uses fuel to manage heat, but I do not know if it has any impact on the IR signature, Gripen has much less fuel than the F-35 to play with.
LokeThis is also not unprecedented , it was decided during the planning stage that the aircraft development, and production will continue despite any glitches that need to be fixed. Any fix will be applied to all the systems that have been produced. This was done so as to meet delivery dates as the air force and navy needs fighters to replace its aging fleet. Although delays are inevitable , it was thought that at least this way some of them can be cut short (not NO DELAY but less delay).
The high level of concurrency seen in the F-35 is to my knowledge unprecedented, and it has also been critiziced.
The report takes aim at the amount of concurrency risk in the F-35 programme. Concurrency risk measures the downside on cost of producing aircraft before completing all development. Nearly all modern commercial and military aviation programmes rely on some overlap in the development and production phases, but the F-35 acquisition plan takes this to a whole new level, according to the report. The F-35 concurrency strategy was based on certain assumptions about the accuracy of modern design tools that have proved invalid, the report says.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/12/document-download-the-f-35-con.html
Sign In
