Something I’ve already stated in #190. There might be capabilities we’re not aware of right now, but so far it doesn’t looks like the MADL is going to offer additional capabilities which would improve the F-35s SA more than what MIDS is already capable of right now. Albeit I believe MADL will also offer the ability to transmit SAR & EOTS images to other F-35s and possibly F-22s as well, which will have an impact in AG missions, but which might have little to no relevance in AA.

It’s not know publicly how many can participate, but I can see the AWACS acting as a hub of info allowing many more sources to exchange info within a MADL network.

Think of it this way:
1. Let’s assume a the limit of 10 AC.
2. One of the AC is an AWACS.
3. That AWACS could be part of multiple, 10 AC networks.
4. This would allow many more than the original 10 to be on a larger, virtual network.

That is basically what MIDS is capable of right now. So far I don’t see anything special with MADL functionality. Albeit I could imagine that more comprehensive data is exchanged between the platforms, due the increased transfer rates.

All the data, from all the sources (radar, IRST, EODAS, RwR, AWACS, F-22s and fellow F-35s) is integrated automatically into a single display. No need to look at different displays to see data from different sources.

If the MADL is turned on, the data is integrated automatically and does not need actions from the pilot to complete.

The F-35 will act as a mini-ISR and return data about what it detects back to HQ to update the known battlefield map.

Is it known how many F-35s and F-22s can participate in such a network at once? Right now MIDS allows up to 8 aircraft to share their data, while receiving and possibly sending data to C2/3 and AWACS and the like. It’s not like these data are just presented on a seperate display format, but they are fused with onboard data from IR, radar, IFF and EW systems, at least in the case of a Rafale or Typhoon. MADL will certainly be more advanced with its 6 phased arrays and as I understand it, it will allow somewhat a direct line of sight communication, avoiding unnecessary transmissions in areas out of interest. The latter point and the increased data transfer capacity, at least in comparison to current systems seem to be the strongest points of that DL.

With the advent of MADL for the F-35, the sensors of all the other members of the flight are shared and the “blinded” F-35 will still know where all the targets are.

Sharing sensor data in a flight is already possible with current datalinks. Though that might not have been your point, see it as complementary.

EF has Motorla 68020 CPU in its DASS system. That’s a processor from over 20 years ago.

DASS uses Radestone Technology PowerPC processors. Motorola processors were just used for the development variants of DASS. But Motorola processors are used in other areas on T1 aircraft.

Finally, if/when EF’s pilot gets MAW/FCC fused picture on the HMD, he will have, at least equal (and in certain aspects, better) SA in conditions of AA combat.

Well target boxes will be presented on the Typhoon’s HMD. Those are generated by the AIS which collects, processes, correlates and fuses the aircraft’s onboard and offboard sensor data. Track files are generated from those various sensor sources taking the most reliable data (angular resolution from IRST/FLIR, range data from radar/ESM…) and targets are displayed on the HMD depending on the pilots direction of view. This also helps the radar to overcome jamming, by comparing the radar data with the data from the remaining sensors.

@djcross

The blending, processing and fusion of sensor data is where JSF excels. While Typhoon and Rafale get close, they do not have the sheer processing power and access to off-board data that JSF will have in Block 5 for A-G and Block 6 for A-A.

Comparing the planned capabilities of the F-35 in ~8 years with that of current Rafales, Typhoons or whatever aircraft you like is somewhat off the line. It’s at best naive to believe those types won’t be further developed by that time.

Bulgarian VVS MiG-29S Fulcrum

Isn’t it a MiG-29A, not S.

@Scorpion,
Interesting. So, EF’s MAW actually has the ability to pinpoint spatial position of the incoming projectile, then?

The active MAWS provides essentially the same data as a fire control radar such as bearing, range, closure rate etc. This allows to present the position accuratly on the displays and prioritise the threats, in the case multiple missile launches occure. Manoeuvre instructions are presented for the most threating missile (that which would hit the aircraft first). This manoeuvre symbology comprises an arrow showing the direction of turn and the amount of g to be pulled as well as a counter (in seconds) when to start the turn. The countdown is spoken by the DVO as well and the pilot manoeuvres the aircraft to a “box” on the HuD and then stops the turn. Then the same procedure is started again for the next turn. It’s not simply a support for last ditch manoeuvres, but for support manoeuvres to make best use of the aircraft’s automated counter measures, including chaff, jammer and TRD.

While the active MAWS is suspect to ECM and detectability in theory, it works with wavelength usually not covered by airborne EW equipment and jammers, spare specialised ELINT/SIGINT platforms. The advantages of an active MAWS are that the system provides more data than a passive MAWS allowing for evasive manoeuvres and most effective use of counter measures. The performance in bad weather conditions is basically unaffected, unlike IR based systems for example and the same applies to the missile detection performance after the rocket motor burnout phase, albeit the plume itself is also a source for radar wave reflections.