F-35A versus Saab Gripen NG

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24756
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 22:04

:applause: :notworthy: :salute: :cheers: :thumb: Exactly, not too hard to unnerstan F-35 Sensor Fusion given material provided: pdf & video.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 22:44

lukfi wrote:In order to do de-cluttering, you must have some way to determine the two (or more) sensor tracks are in fact the same target to hide all but one of them. Probably the only way you can do that is based on their reported position. Imagine a radar is telling you there's a plane and IRST is telling you there's a plane at the same spot, neither sensor sees two aircraft, so it's probably just one target. At this point you could choose to hide one of the tracks but you've already done the hard work of de-duplication, so if the second sensor brings any useful information that the first sensor does not have, or can increase precision, putting it together is easy. There are ways to do it better and ways to do it worse but it comes down to rules, priorities and weights and stuff like that.


Image

This is what Typhoon does and I suspect all 4.5 gen fighters with an internal IRST do, fuse IRST and Radar data. What is unique about F-35 sensor fusion though is that there is enough computing power that the fusion is pro-active, if one sensor or data link has picked up a target other sensors automatically are told to gather more information on the target so EOTS and APG-81 could cue each other without pilot intervention and the RWR and DAS could before that process begins cue them with their 360 degree coverage. It makes identifying targets very automated and quicker shortening the OODA loop considerably.
Last edited by marsavian on 18 Feb 2020, 02:05, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 22:52

lukfi wrote:I work with data, that's my day job. Integrating data on the same entity from different sources and combining them into a single record is part of that job.

Looking at your posts you must be a postman then? Combining letters from different sources and then dropping them into a single mailbox? Nice "data integration".

And yes, you can create complete sensor fusion on a legacy platform. Just hang all the different sensor pods under the wings together with an extra pod for all the computation and another extra pod to generate all the extra energy needed, oh and write all the software for it as well.

The F-35 already has sensor fusion completely integrated into it's platform. So think about the space that those sensors take up, think about the power that must be generated and then transported to feed those sensors, then think about the high bandwidth data lines and computational power, then think about how to deal with the heat and other radiation. Only then you might understand that if you do this in a complete optimized package from the start it's way more efficient than just hanging all those separate pods, parts and lines under a legacy platform.

It might also be the moment that you realize this is a type of efficiency that can never be reached on a legacy platform, the integrated efficiency of the F-35's sensor fusion will always outperform the legacy platforms.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4927
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 23:06

marsavian wrote: It makes identifying targets very automated and quicker shortening the OODA loop considerably.

This. The F-35 doesn't just say "IFF uncooperative aircraft over here, NCTR says Su-27" because the radar gathered the most info. It compiles the data of the IFF, NCTR, target aircraft emissions, target aircraft thermal signature, etc to increase the "assuredness" that the track is indeed an Su-27, and it may be able to tell you which subvarient as well. What was it? 600+ way to identify an aircraft?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2548
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post17 Feb 2020, 23:33

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
marsavian wrote: It makes identifying targets very automated and quicker shortening the OODA loop considerably.

This. The F-35 doesn't just say "IFF uncooperative aircraft over here, NCTR says Su-27" because the radar gathered the most info. It compiles the data of the IFF, NCTR, target aircraft emissions, target aircraft thermal signature, etc to increase the "assuredness" that the track is indeed an Su-27, and it may be able to tell you which subvarient as well. What was it? 600+ way to identify an aircraft?


Not to mention the system on Lightning 4-1 sending an automated message to Lightning 4-2... "Hey, I've got a bogey over here at LOC X,Y,Z, VEL Vx,Vy,Vz... with this data... whyaddya go there? Can you have a looksee and get back to me? Ta!"
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 710
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 01:16

Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 01:41

spazsinbad wrote::applause: :notworthy: :salute: :cheers: :thumb: Exactly, not too hard to unnerstan F-35 Sensor Fusion given material provided: pdf & video.

Given this is a f-35 board. I think it's only right. That a poster must understand the basic brochure type information to participate effectively. It may also stop the same repeated nonsense, from not reading or ignoring the links they are given.

Even just looking at the picture you posted. It gives the outline to what is sensor fusion.

Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 01:54

Previous thread on Sensor Fusion with diagrams. In 4.5 gens like Typhoon/Rafale Track attribute data is shared when consolidating tracks. Presumably Gripen E will follow this model.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=28397
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2797
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post18 Feb 2020, 02:10

jetblast16 wrote:

Original video source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hOvr3w9Obs

If Gripen had expended some of that 'redesign' of the fuselage to give it a chined-upside down pentagon frontal cross-section, they could have squeezed more fuel into the airframe. But redesign was more like holding the status quo. The aircraft really looks pretty much identical to earlier models.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6443
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 04:12

lukfi wrote:You can laugh at me all you want because I know nothing about aircraft maintenance and the like. But you can take my word on this. The idea that other fighters do "just de-cluttering", while the F-35 has an "advanced fusion engine" with near-magical properties, is a myth. I work with data, that's my day job. Integrating data on the same entity from different sources and combining them into a single record is part of that job. What sensor fusion in fighters does is not all that different and it's not rocket science.


This illustrates, just how much of an amateur you are on this topic if you think its even remotely the same. The sensor fusion you referenence not even close to the sensor fusion as is utilized by the F-35 or the F-22.Its plot and track correlation, which is what you get when you have link 16.

Its still a federated system as well: basically each sensor does its own data processing, then develops a plot or track (in the case of an IRST,it may have to be designated by the pilot), then the track is correlated with other sensors. that means you don't get the benefit of bringing segments of data together from different sensors to create an assessment. Rather one sensor has to make a determination, then the system has a plot. That's what you get from link-16.

The F-35 does it differently. Sensors do signal processing, but so does the main avionics system. It also draws in information from other sensors, but not simply as plots and tracks. Rather the data itself is being constantly analyzed and pieces from different sources, onboard and offboard are brought and then processed. Another way to look at it is how much data is being processed to make a identification. With the F/A-18E the plot is developed from the information in a single sensor, like the -79. In an F-35 its based on ALL of the sensors' information available to it, so all of the radars, all of the IRST, all of the RWRs ect. That system is far in excess of what any legacy system can do.

How powerful was this? A few months ago a F-35 was out on the test ranges and was tasked with undertaking SEAD against a simulated AD system. However it initially difficulty in identifying the system as a threat. So they brought the aircraft back in and it was discovered that the aircraft had it correct. The range basically used the wrong chassis and missile combination with electronic signature it was simulating, so the F-35 identified it as a decoy that could be ignored. That level of granularity is non-existent elsewhere. In that scenario they would have almost certainly expended several ARMs or jamming assets on a fake target.

Frankly, people like you post on this topic and make it sounds like a certainty that you know better. You don't even have a clue what you're talking about, to the extent that the evidence you post actually discredits the argument you are trying to make.

Basically the US is constructing massive battlefield networks, which link all ISR platforms. These systems basically tie in with each other and share raw data, upon which the F-35 avionics analyzes and provides to pilots in useful intelligence. The backbone for the network going forward for the F-35 will be MADL, as well as other developments like TTNT, with very high data transfer rates. The US Government is basically creating an ecosystem of capabilities for its equipment to operate in. Saab does have their own efforts, but it is limited to the Gripen and other company products, and is nowhere near the goals that US government has been working towards.

Beyond the F-35 being a "fighter", Its a flying super computer built primarily to operate in this space. Gripen E simply does not have the computing horsepower to do what the F-35 is leveraging. I think that's best understood by looking at the F-35's spiral development: you have avionics hardware upgrades (technical refreshes) every three to four years. The Gripen does not.

Even if the Gripen E does all of that, its question of further investment to fully exploit these systems. To give an example, even if the Gripen and F-35 were the same phone, its that the US government has the financial capacity and operational requirement to develop new apps for the phone to exploit the opportunities in this space. Saab quite simply won't, with 1/15th of the orderbook size nor the operational necessity.

Frankly, if you have to go and question whats' so special about this, then you really don't have a grasp on the cutting edge of military developments today. This IS the future, which will determine who wins or loses. F-22 is able to transmit data with other F-22s with IFDL, and receive plot and track data through link-16. This provides them significantly superior Situational awareness over all other platforms in the field, even C2 aircraft. F-22s were driving operations through voicecoms with legacy platforms, imparting that situational awareness. We already seeing this over Syria with F-22s offering force protection for allied units. It was so valuable that F-22s that had already expended its ordinance are often tasked to remain in the airspace to continue this role, as this is far more valuable than its actual kinetic potential (ie dropping bombs or firing missiles)

The F-35 is far ahead of even this. It can two-way communicate through link 16, while accessing the next generation datalinks, either TTNT or through MADL. With it being the primary air force fighter for the next thirty years, it basically is setting the future for the data sharing architecture. It doesn't bend to other efforts, other efforts bend to it. That's why you saw the Navy make a massive investment into block III superhornet upgrades and TTNT: they saw that unless the F/A-18E could communicate with the F-35, it wasn't worth having. Its very clear there is a hard line between 4.5 and 5th generation sensor fusion to the point where the Gen 4.5 fighters are in mad scramble to be useful to 5th generation warfare. The Marines have in no uncertain terms demanded F-35 over Super Hornets, and even Marines I know who are groundside understand the F-35 is going to be the Marines AWACS/JSTARS all rolled into one. I had an artillery officer tell me flat out "F-35 isn't going to be cut, thats going to be our eyes and ears" and had already fired HIMARS rockets as directed by F-35s using F-35 targetting sensors.

Gripen does not have this sort of plan like the F-35, straight up. The US is acutely aware of the changing nature of warfare and invests to what it needs to ensure that the capability can perform the best it can. Saab simply does not, they are limited in their funding and operational experience.

The problem is that you’re looking at one segment of a system, basically a well designed network connection for Gripen and other enabled. If you were to focus on just the communication network backbone, then yes it is competitive and perhaps superior in some areas. But that would be to ignore how the entire system operates. It would be akin to looking at the network card and the switchers and routers between the computers, but not the computers, programming, the connected outputs, or overall aims of the system. Moreover this ignores the capabilities of the next generation of data links that are emerging, like MADL.

I’m not trying to say that TDLS/Saab's networking a bad or ineffective: on the contrary, its effective within the aims of what it achieves. And the American system is not flawless. Its limited in the amount and type of data that can be communicated, there are integration issues between the various parts, and there are limitations. But the capabilities of that system today outstrips what Saab has demonstrated, and its potential is far more vast than what the Swedes are contemplating. And this is a lot of what Saab does. it sets a moderate bar and then meets it. it grossly oversimplifies complex issues and then gives a grossly oversimplified solution. sensor fusion? we have that too!

Image

Do you know why the F-35 doesn't have external pylon mounted targeting pods? because they're literally built into the aircraft. Can you explain to me how the Gripen E sensor fuses with a seperated federated system like a targeting pod? its a simple answer, it doesn't. I bring up the targeting pod because thats a real tangible thing you can see with your eye that the F-35 doesn't need because its built into the F-35 from the start. But whats better is that internal targeting system works automatically. thats the most obvious, simple, break it down barney-style, example I can give you short of breaking out the crayons. These things are not equal. The ability to slew an IRST to a radar, or vice versa with gen 4.5 is not the same thing. Like so many things the F-35 takes these ideas and concepts to the next level. hence a new generation.

What you don't grasp is that for the Gripen, F/A-18E and Eurofighter, the information is offered in a federated fashion. So you look at the radar see a contact, then you look at the IRST window and gimbal it towards the target, or another sensor. You basically have to develop a mental view of the battlefield in your head and update it with information. The problem is that with sensors systems able to provide massive amounts of data which are increasingly unable to be managed by one person. Developing a competency in managing these federated systems takes years, many will say five to nine years. what Gen 4.5 did was improve those federated systems. 4th gen radars became AESA radars for example, and in most cases an IRST was added which is another system the pilot get to manually manipulate or in some cases slew (targeting pods I know can be slaved to radars too in some cases)

The F-35 and F-22s avionics basically is a vast information management system: it incorporates all of the data together and provides the pilot a single view of the battlefield. That's vastly more effective than what the other aircraft offers because the system can process exponentially more data than a single person could. Its far far far easier for the pilots to operate this system, in an operational setting. Most pilots reach peak competency after six months, and they say they have a far better understanding of the battlefield compared to when they flew a 4th gen aircraft.

What most 4.5 generation fighters are, is generation 4 improved/perfected. But its not 5th generation by a long shot. To do such a thing the way you imagine it, (IE the only difference is muh stealth!) would be to take say an F-16 or F-18 or Typhoon, and completely gut it. tear everything out of it internally. Then start cutting holes in various areas of the structure and skin to start mangling and wedging built in sensors, avionics, electronics, and targeting pods, comms, etc along with all cooling and wiring and other stuff to tie it all together with the same capability and coverage and the power to run it all without destroying things like weight and balance and watch out for fuel tanks and lines! beware hydraulics! You'll behold your mangled leaking creation and the lightbulb will go on that you should have started with an optimized "air vehicle" from the start, instead of raping an F-16 with F-35 avionics that would facilitate a complete redesign anyway and still not offer the same capability.

Image

an incredible amount of engineering and intelligence had to go into designing that nose to pack everything into such a small space. so even if you wanted to pack 5th generation avionics into a 4, or 4.5 gen airplane you'd have to start from scratch to the point you might as well design it to be a LO platform to begin with. We've seen how even going gen 4 to gen 4.5 takes years of development and nearly complete redesigns almost every part. 5th generation sensors are an order of magnitude higher than that.


you really picked a bad one to play the "take my word on it this, its all a myth" This is quantifiable and battle proven. I'm also not the only one and even Marsavian who seems to give gripen the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity isn't arguing this one. Sensor fusion is a big subject and its one thats misunderstood by many.

don't quit your day job

I was going to address cost probably next, but since we got into a bugaboo once again of you trying to blur the distinction between fighter generations in order to drag everyone into the same muddled mess I might go over that first, even though I feel its been addressed multiple times in multiple places. I will say this in the meantime though. since youre so convinced 5th generation is a an arbitrary "marketing term" one has to wonder why the F-35 competitors don't claim to simply be 5th gen too. Instead I get lots of squirming and subterfuge when people ask competitors directly.


Though it doesn't mean anybody else can't build a moderately good plane, or that their plane wouldn't be able to drop bombs on advancing enemy troops.


There's seems to be some real confusion here because it sure seems like every time I say there is a clear winner based on all these characteristics and other factors, you seem to equate that with something else being completely unable to do it. allow me to clarify, once more. I didn't say someone couldn't build a "moderately good plane" I said the F-35 was clearly superior to "moderately good"
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2548
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 06:29

XC,

can you expand on TTNT a bit? Can the F-35 speak / grok TTNT natively? Is TTNT layered on top of MADL? Or a totally separate thing? Is TTNT LPI / highly directional?

I am guessing TTNT is NOT MADL, but, perhaps, more of a LINK-16 on steroids? I say this, because if the Super Duper could speak / grok MADL, I would think Boing would be yelling that to the stars by now.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 06:34

Not MADL.

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/Product ... ology.aspx

If I'm not wrong boing uses WNW for the JTRS.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 06:49

Without making any claims of any kind, just a bit more info on the Gripen.

Last line useful in link below...
https://www.flightcommagazine.com/singl ... -data-link

http://sesam.smart-lab.se/seminarier/Ho ... Gripen.pdf
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2429
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 07:08

I think slide 3 explains TTNT benefits. Slide 6 shows the benefits in the operational sense.

https://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uplo ... ePaper.pdf
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1254
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post19 Feb 2020, 07:13

Google [ I need it, as I don't have the memory power to keep up with this stuff] says the Boeing Growler is already using the TTNT and it's an upgrade to come on the supper. An enabling, small area coms within a battlespace. A phone tower in every platform. Which is how I was told to think about this stuff.
Last edited by optimist on 19 Feb 2020, 07:22, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests