6 AMRAAM Loadout moved up to Block 4

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 13:53

wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:



How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?



I'm not going to revisit years of reading, to disprove a negative.
Not even Eurofighter/Dassault/SAAB make such ridiculous claims. Suffice it to say, the F-35s systems compile data in orders of magnitude larger and faster. We're not talking about a 10 or 20% improvement. We're talking dial up vs high speed internet, in capabilities.


Sorry, but what you say is quite unsubstantiated. Do you know their respective calculators performances ? (perso I don't), algorithms etc. ? Gripen NG for example is more recent than F-35 isn't it ? As i said, 4th gen is very variable so comparing plane X vs 4th gen is rather unmeaningful. What do you compare it with? F-16 block 20/30? Gripen NG? World apart!

Do not misunderstand me. I do think the F-35 networking as being the most advanced ever atm. AND as its greatest stregnth. But again, do not say "it is networked, the others arent". Gripen NG for example has satcom and also an IFDL...
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3339
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 15:00

aasm wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
aasm wrote:



How do you know the part about fusion engines not being on par?



I'm not going to revisit years of reading, to disprove a negative.
Not even Eurofighter/Dassault/SAAB make such ridiculous claims. Suffice it to say, the F-35s systems compile data in orders of magnitude larger and faster. We're not talking about a 10 or 20% improvement. We're talking dial up vs high speed internet, in capabilities.


Sorry, but what you say is quite unsubstantiated. Do you know their respective calculators performances ? (perso I don't), algorithms etc. ? Gripen NG for example is more recent than F-35 isn't it ? As i said, 4th gen is very variable so comparing plane X vs 4th gen is rather unmeaningful. What do you compare it with? F-16 block 20/30? Gripen NG? World apart!

Do not misunderstand me. I do think the F-35 networking as being the most advanced ever atm. AND as its greatest stregnth. But again, do not say "it is networked, the others arent". Gripen NG for example has satcom and also an IFDL...

F-35 vs Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen as they exist. Not how they may exist in 2025. The F-35 will look a lot different in 2025, as well.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 15:30

There are several items that show that the amount of data that the fuses is higher than any 4th gen jet:
1. There are more sensors involved (EODAS is unique and it always has a FLIR & IRST)
2. The sensors gather more granular data (AESA vs traditional radar, improved EOTS, EODAS, etc)
3. The Data Link transmits raw data, not just tracks and is "always on"
4. The ICP (computer) will be getting 25x more powerful (Block 4.2) before Gripen NG goes IOC
5. Australian Parliamentary testimony stated that the typical 4th gen jet can ID a target using a dozen or so parameters, the200 and the 600 parameters.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 16:21

SpudmanWP wrote:There are several items that show that the amount of data that the fuses is higher than any 4th gen jet:
1. There are more sensors involved (EODAS is unique and it always has a FLIR & IRST)
2. The sensors gather more granular data (AESA vs traditional radar, improved EOTS, EODAS, etc)
3. The Data Link transmits raw data, not just tracks and is "always on"
4. The ICP (computer) will be getting 25x more powerful (Block 4.2) before Gripen NG goes IOC
5. Australian Parliamentary testimony stated that the typical 4th gen jet can ID a target using a dozen or so parameters, the200 and the 600 parameters.


EODAS unique? Best ould be closer to reality (e.g. DDM-NG)
Sensor gather more granular data. AESA isn't a specific of 5th gen is it? EOTS neither
Datalink. Gripen also has IFDL. In fact Sweden was the very first country to build such a system.
All computers are evolving.
Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated. That's exactly that type of aircraft i had in mind when i said "4th " gen is so heterogenous that it should not be considered as a whole.
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 16:22

F-35 vs Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen as they exist. Not how they may exist in 2025. The F-35 will look a lot different in 2025, as well.


you have insights on their data fusing capabilities? Please let me know, i'm genuinely interested.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 16:41

NOT a bad overview of SENSOR FUSION for the F-35 and of course there are other explanations - often on this forum:
Elite Engineering: The Brain of the F-35
LM PR 14 Apr 2015

"...Pieces of the Puzzle
F-35 fusion has the ability to take partial data from each sensor and combine it to make an accurate assessment. It not only combines data, but figures out what additional information is needed and automatically tasks sensors to gather it—without the pilot ever having to ask.

Given this unique capability, the way F-35 sensors had to adjust how they “think about” and report incoming data to take full advantage of the fusion system.

“Fusion is the core of our 5th Generation system,” Kent remarks. “We’re asking the sensors to send us not only their answer, but we want to know the reasoning and details behind that answer. That is what we combine during fusion to give us the whole picture.”...

The Fusion Evolution
While the concept for fusion was first conceived in the 1970s on the F-15 program, no one ever fully succeeded in standing it up in an aircraft system until the F-22.

With 18 years spent as a representative on the F-22 fusion team, Tom is one of only a handful of people who have intimate knowledge of both the F-35 and F-22 fusion systems.

“Some innovations had to happen mathematically to deal with data the way they were sharing it before the F-22” he says. “By the time the F-22 came along, the computers and technology finally caught up, and we launched the first real 5th Generation fusion on an aircraft.”

That was “Fusion 1.0.” The F-35 takes it one step further.

“The F-35 not only has the ability to proactively collect and analyze data, but it adds the ability to share it amongst the fleet and work as a pack,” he explains. “That’s ‘Fusion 2.0.’”..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/eli ... f-the-f-35
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 16:57

aasm wrote:EODAS unique? Best ould be closer to reality (e.g. DDM-NG)
While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).

Sensor gather more granular data. AESA isn't a specific of 5th gen is it? EOTS neither
The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.

Datalink. Gripen also has IFDL. In fact Sweden was the very first country to build such a system.
The MADL is "always on" and links up to 25 nodes, the IFDL does 4 IIRC. MADL will also likely be a "fatter pipe" to allow for more data to be shared.

All computers are evolving.
No doubt, just remember that the people with the biggest budgets can evolve faster.

Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated.

It was an Australian General testifying under oath about a technical capability. Note that he also mentioned that the F-35 out performed the F-22 in this area by a wide margin.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 17:46

This quote is repeated several times in/on this forum: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52626&p=375650&hilit=Osley#p375650
& viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52482&p=359635&hilit=Osley#p359635 MORE TEXT: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27994&p=303055&hilit=Osley#p303055 AyYiYi: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=25198&p=266896&hilit=Osley#p266896
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
16 MARCH 2012 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT page 61-62

“...Air Vice Marshal Osley: The F-35 will play to its strengths using low observability and using better situational awareness. Its aim would be not to get within visual range. It does not need to be within visual range because of the sensors it has on board. I mentioned before that it has perhaps three times the software and therefore the discrimination of other modern aircraft. Its strength is its ability to recognise and identify an enemy aircraft at beyond visual range well ahead of the other aircraft —...

...And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example — is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F-22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F-35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range....”

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... ficial.pdf (0.8Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 19:07

While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).


Again, that is a negative assumption. None of us has any clue that , for example, DDM-NG do not feed the the data fusion system. Even Mica IR sensor do.

The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.


Possible. unarguably? Why? afterall it is older than Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, not to say about Captor E

The MADL is "always on" and links up to 25 nodes, the IFDL does 4 IIRC. MADL will also likely be a "fatter pipe" to allow for more data to be shared.


I refered as IFDL for intraflight datalink, not the F-22's. Can't remember the name of the present swedish datalink. MADL is in K band isn't it? Has its own issues (small range for example). MADL is already 25 nodes? And do we have numbers about its output, do we?

F-18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft
Frankly, aussie F-18 are kind of prehistoric in terms of avionics...


Once again i do not intend to deny the excellent sensor and communication suite the F-35 owns, probably the best atm. However, comparing it to "fourth gen" is imho meaningless considering the huge differences between lets say a danish F-16C and a Rafale F3R or Gripen NG.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 19:25

aasm wrote: OMGZ LMFAO KIKOO i'm OWNED!

we are not in schoolyard are we?


Sometimes it seems indeed that it's you who's in some sort of a schoolyard.
Let's recap:
- First you come up here "fantasying" about some "magical tactics" that could somehow level the advantage that 5th gen aircraft (like the F-35) definitely have over 4th gen and that those "magical tactics" would give the 4th gen fighter aircraft a fighting chance against the 5th gen.
- Then and for example you were reminded that such "magical tactics" would work even better against 4th gen fighter aircraft than against 5th which means that the 5th gen advantage could even be bigger in such circumstances.
- After this, you claimed that 4th gen "doesn't exist" and is some sort of LM's PR.

With all due respect, this (specially the last part) is a schoolyard type of rethoric!


aasm wrote:If you had bothered reading what i wrote... Never talked about 5th Gen. Just sayed 4th gen is so heterogenous that these aircrafts should not be put into a single category for comparisons.


Care to name a single jet fighter aircraft generation which is homogeneous (as opposed to heterogeneous)??
Lets see, starting with 1st gen where you have aircraft like the F-86 or Mig-15 which were day-fighters/dogfighters while in the same gen (1st) you also had so different aircraft like the F-94 or the CF-100 which were all-weather interceptors. Do you want a more heterogeneous gen than the 1st one??
And what about the 2nd gen and 3rd generation? For example, would you classify the F-8 Crusader a 2nd or a 3rd generation fighter aircraft? This is really a honest question which again honestly, I don't know the answer.
So IMO I have no doubts in categorizing the 4th gen as probably the "most homogeneous" of all initial 4 generations of fighter aircraft. Only the 5th gen would IMO be "more homogeneous" but then again this is because this new gen is very, very recent.
Moreover, the newest 4th gen fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG and Su-35 are often categorized as being 4.5 gen, which makes things even more homogeneous (and less heterogenous as per your claim).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Oct 2018, 19:46

aasm wrote:
While the sensor itself is IIR based, the DDM-NG does not provide that image to the avionics system. It only serves as a MAWS/MLD. The same holds true of the F-22's MLD/MAWS (eg IIR based but only does MLD/MAWS).


Again, that is a negative assumption. None of us has any clue that , for example, DDM-NG do not feed the the data fusion system. Even Mica IR sensor do.


Because it is stated by the manufacturer itself that it (DDM-NG) currently only works as a MAWS/MLD?
Source here:
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/ddm-ng/

The same also applies to the F-22's MLD/MAWS.
The F-35's DAS does indeed have more functionalities (for example IRST, navigation, etc...) besides of course the MLD/MAWS functions, all of this is implicitly and explicitly stated by the manufacturer itself.



aasm wrote:
The APG-81 is unarguably better than any 4th gen AESA and thereby provides more data to be fused. It also fictions as part of the ESM in both active and passive functions.


Possible. unarguably? Why? afterall it is older than Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, not to say about Captor E


So according to your logic when the Su-27 first came out it was or could be more advanced compared to the F/A-18 (when it came out) because the F/A-18 was older than the Su-27...

The reasons why the APG-81 is more advanced than the Raven ES05, RBE2 AESA, etc... were already debated to the death here.
And speaking about schoolyard discussions/debates...
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23558
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 03:51

On previous page this thread there was talk about F-35 SENSOR FUSION - here is some more but....

download/file.php?id=27755 "you are not authorized to download this attachment" DUNNO AHA! it is a banned PDF so I'll have to excerpt a page or three.... F-35 Information Fusion This is complicated so I'll REGRESS to some graphics....
"Information fusion is a set of algorithms that combines data from all sources to create an integrated view of the environment to provide situational awareness. Fusion is a core attribute of the F-35, designed into the mission systems from initial conception. The F-35 Information Fusion development leveraged experience from past fusion projects across the corporation and industry. However, there were some fundamental architectural decisions and algorithmic solutions that are unique to the F-35 concept of operation. This paper discusses some of the key design decisions and features that shaped the final F-35 Information Fusion solution.

5th Generation fighters, with their diverse sensor suites and multirole mission sets, require some form of information fusion to support the pilot’s situational awareness (Fig. 1). The F-35 avionics suite comprises several complementary sensors and off-board datalinks but is a single-seat fighter with no weapon systems operator. Without some form of information fusion, the pilot would be left to manually correlate sensor and datalink tracks together, while executing tactical air, land, and sea missions while also trying to fly the aircraft. This combination of factors can increase pilot workload and quickly lead to an overwhelming amount of displayed information. Information fusion algorithms aggregate the onboard and off-board sensor information to provide a complete and accurate representation of the environment, resulting in an increase in situational awareness, which is the ultimate goal of fusion.

Fig. 1 Information fusion is a set of algorithms that combines data from all sources to create an integrated view of the environment.

The terms data fusion, sensor fusion, and information fusion are often used interchangeably, and yet these terms have subtle distinctive connotations within the community. The Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL) Data Fusion Model defines a useful categorization of fusion algorithms and techniques used in the solution of many general fusion problems [11]. They define data fusion as the combining of information to estimate or predict the current or future state of the environment. Level 1 fusion is focused on object assessment. Level 1 fusion algorithms include: (1) data association algorithms, which determine whether information from multiple sources describes the same object; and (2) state estimation algorithms, which estimate the current (and, in some cases, future) state of the physical object in the environment. The estimate includes both the kinematic state (e.g., position, velocity) and an estimate of the object’s identification (ID). Level 2 fusion focuses on aggregating the Level 1 objects, inferring relationships between/among the objects and corresponding events, and assessing the unfolding situation. Level 3 fusion assesses the impact of perceived, anticipated, or planned actions in the context of the unfolding situation, for instance, in terms of lethality and survivability. Level 4 fusion is focused on process refinement, including sensor resource management or sensor feedback to modify sensor actions and refine the overall situational picture....

...VIII. Co-operative Sensing
The F-35 MADL was designed to support full sharing of information among aircraft. MADL bandwidth supports the exchange of all air and surface tracks between/among participants within the flight group. Given that each F-35 has multiple sensors detecting multiple targets – and sometimes spurious signals – this can lead to the exchange of numerous, potentially duplicative tracks over MADL. Therefore, the F-35 places limits on the kinds of tracks and associated information that can be transmitted over the link.

For MADL distribution, a single F-35 system track is divided into three messages: the basic MADL surveillance track, extended combat ID (XID), and RF parametric extensions. The basic surveillance track provides the independent kinematic state estimate and track covariance at the time of the last measurement update. It is important to note that the kinematic estimate for a sent track can be either ranged or angle-only (no observed range). This distinction becomes important for advanced multi-ship tracking techniques, such as angle/angle ranging or time difference of arrival (TDOA), described later. The MADL surveillance track also includes a list of sensors contributing to this track, as well as ID summary data. The XID message contains a higher-fidelity ID ambiguity list, in addition to ID measurements (e.g., IFF). The RF parametric message contains the electronic signal measurement (ESM) data correlated to this track. The sharing of this detailed information allows each aircraft to leverage the spatial diversity of the flight group.

One of the initial multi-ship capabilities of the F-35 was the ability to cooperatively range airborne emitters by finding the intersection (or point of nearest approach) for angle-only tracks on two or more different aircraft (Fig. 8]….

IX. Summary
The F-35 Information Fusion software combines information from both onboard and off-board data sources, providing the pilot with advanced capabilities not available on legacy aircraft. Further, this extensible approach to information fusion leverages the spatial and spectral diversity among multiple F-35 wingmen, creating an innovative tactical network where data is shared instantaneously with other F-35s and legacy aircraft. The F-35 Information Fusion implementation of data association, state estimation, and combat ID ensures that the pilot has accurate situational awareness, allowing for advanced target detection, tracking, and tactical employment. The autonomous sensor manager provides timely reaction to a changing environment and ensures that all tracks are refined to a prespecified quality based on priority, allowing the pilot to return to the role of tactician. The F-35 MADL provides sufficient bandwidth for complete sharing of detailed fusion solutions and accuracies for all air and surface targets, resulting in improved situational awareness for all pilots in the MADL network. Using data-sharing methods to ensure that the data pedigree is maintained, the MADL information can be processed like a remote sensor, resulting in improved accuracies and new capabilities."
Attachments
F-35infoFusion.gif
F-35fig1infoFusionPCD.gif
F-35MADLtrackFusionTiers.gif
F-35passiveAngleRangingFig8.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 11:16

aasm wrote:Typical australian4th gen is well... Somehow completely outdated. That's exactly that type of aircraft i had in mind when i said "4th " gen is so heterogenous that it should not be considered as a whole.


FYI, I reported within a dead thread recently that Thai Gripen were at the recent month-long "Exercise Pitch Black" airpower exercise in Northern Australia, along with Indian Su30MKIs, French Rafale, F-16 and F-15 from several countries, including the USA, and several other types as well.

At the end of the first week of the exercise the leader of the RAAF force reported to camera that RAAF Hornets [F/A-18A which are heavily upgraded of course] supported by Growlers, had achieved an A2A kill-exchange ratio of ...

78 : 3


So you're sorta talking out of your posterior vent again, about things you don't grasp, which is your defining-characteristic for which you have only yourself to blame.

I considerably doubt that an equal number of Gripen would survive long in a fight with RAAF Hornets and the systems-of-systems approach that's been developed for them as there's just a little bit more to it than the jet. Which is why you continually (obviously willfully) fail to comprehend how hopelessly obsolete Gripen now is.

But if your country's airforce is flush enough and has the time and dedication, and wished to prove a point, they could always come the next Exercise Pitch Black, and show us what Gripen can do.

I must mention though that next time there will be RAAF F-35A present, but maybe you can ask them to go easy on you.

Your country's airforce would be very welcome, I'm sure, and we wouldn't even be rude about the unmitigated thrashing that they'll be getting. All among friends of course.

Put your Gripen where your mouth is. Come on down! We'll have you. :mrgreen:

https://www.airforce.gov.au/news-and-ev ... itch-black

Send them an email, they'd love the correspondence.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

aasm

Banned

  • Posts: 77
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2018, 13:01

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 16:43

So you're sorta talking out of your posterior vent again, about things you don't grasp, which is your defining-characteristic for which you have only yourself to blame.


I am sorry, i dutifully tried to take example on you. Couldn't properly immitate the unique scent of your "talks" apparently of course, i do not spend my time grasping my anatomy.

Thai Gripen are outdated, i agree. Nothing to do with Gripen NG. And Assie F-18 are heavily modernized (like swiss, canadian etc.) but on the verge to be replaced... no data fusion, rwr, AESA.... Nothing to compare with superhornets or recent gripens (MS20) Sure WITH Growlers (NOT and original F/A 18, is it) it is another problem.

Just putting F-18 and F18 E/F in the same generation is abusive.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post04 Oct 2018, 17:43

aasm wrote:Thai Gripen are outdated, i agree. Nothing to do with Gripen NG. And Assie F-18 are heavily modernized (like swiss, canadian etc.) but on the verge to be replaced... no data fusion, rwr, AESA.... Nothing to compare with superhornets or recent gripens (MS20) Sure WITH Growlers (NOT and original F/A 18, is it) it is another problem.

Just putting F-18 and F18 E/F in the same generation is abusive.


Again, you just don't know what you're talking about. The F/A-18A/Bs were updated continuously from 1999 to 2012 and by about 2004-5 they had a spec that was remarkably close to that of the F/A18E of the day. So they were in the same generation as SH in capabilities at that point. And the connectivity and functionality with the off-board systems has gone ahead in leaps since then. That is why they work in so well with RAAF's SuperHornets and Growlers, they talk through the same systems, and they share the same data. That's why they worked so well in in A2A against what are often incorrectly presumed to be more capable jets. The 78:3 kill ratio is the truth of that matter.

As for your other absurd nonsense.

“ … Saab delivered three Gripens in April 2013, and three more in September 2013.[216], Air Force Marshal Prajin Jantong stated that Thailand is interested in purchasing six aircraft more in the near future, pending government approval. … “


The Thai Gripens are five years old, they're barely into FOC! :roll: :doh:
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests