F-16.net

I move to where I can call my dog (his name is Falcon - go figure) off, while at the same time making a bit of a scene, though not too much, to draw the skunk's attention to myself, occasionally blipping it with my flashlight (i.e. torch). Then my son shoots the skunk in its head with a suppressed .22 from the shadows on the other side of the yard.

A quick recon of the yard reveals no more skunks. Before retiring to the bar in the basement for a whiskey before the inevitable tomato juice dog bath on the back deck with more beer... a quick 911 call (tah pohleece) to report a dead skunk we think was rabid... and could they please send out the HOme ReNEwal Team truck to clean up the mess?

optimist wrote:I've seen this said, that seems more like it, because of a very narrow field of view.
"You scan the horizon and look into the night through a straw and may see shadows of the one or two..
etc. etc."

Would radar modes normally give you where you want to look, for a wider search?

Along the path of looking at what 5th Gen sensor fusion is.(ie. not 4th Gen track amalgamation), this is not meant as being a snarky answer. While the premise statement is true, the reality is that the followup question is a 4th Gen question. It has no meaning in a 5th Gen world.

Fifth Gen is an ecosystem, not a bag full of components with measurements. At that level, I suppose for the F-35... DAS, Barracuda et al provides the 360 degree spherical aspect. But beyond that the very operation of the sensor fusion package directs wide angle and narrow beam sensors and data seamlessly as one system to create that ecosystem. There really is no wide angle searching and fine beam tracking for those narrow purposes. The ecosystem builds itself, with the data available. That data may be totally from off platform, and not using any systems on the aircraft other than the MADL comm link. But it will sort of look like it came from an all seeing sensor on the aircraft. That's an ecosystem.

In that regard the F-35 does not search, nor track, nor target ... the system does, and then presents the world to the pilot. The pilot's account of what it was like to fly the first Israeli F-35 into the Middle East is filled with outright awe of this characteristic. All of these concepts are beyond what the eurocanards do in the realm of "sensor fusion." The F-35 is "not in Kansas anymore Toto."

MHO,
BP

PS Israel account - https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origin ... ority.html
Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel ... In a farewell interview with Haaretz, ... said. “There are some things you only learn on your feet. This happens with every plane that we add. But when you take off in this jet from Nevatim [IAF base], you can’t believe it. When you ascend to around 5,000 feet, the entire Middle East is yours at the cockpit. It is unbelievable what you can see. The American pilots that come to us didn’t experience that because they fly there, in Arizona, in Florida. Here they suddenly see the Middle East as a fighting zone. The threats, the various players, are in short range as well as in long range. Only then do you grasp the tremendous potential this machine has. We already see it with our own eyes.”

blindpilot wrote:...The ecosystem builds itself, with the data available. That data may be totally from off platform, and not using any systems on the aircraft other than the MADL comm link. But it will sort of look like it came from an all seeing sensor on the aircraft. That's an ecosystem.

An extreme picture of this might be an account I have in a sci fi story. A ship launches an high altitude recon and comm hub UAV up to 50,000 feet, and an ASW helo searching the deep with sonobouys. Along with the ship radar and sonar they build a picture of the surrounding sea, air and deep ocean. The hero takes off in an ultralight sea plane with no electronics except basic flight instruments. He puts an iPad up on the dash, connects to the high altitude UAV and suddenly has a picture of the entire world around him for hundreds of miles, every sub, every aircraft, every ship, every row boat, and a couple whales thrown in. Including a live TV feed of the destination area in the corner of the map. Even his navigation cues come from above, and the icon in the middle of the screen for his own aircraft is actually gotten from an off board feed. His co-pilot and navigator are sitting on the ship drinking coffee.

An ultralight with an iPad. It's sort of like that. That's sensor fusion, not merging IR and RF tracks.

FWIW,
BP

blindpilot wrote:

optimist wrote:I've seen this said, that seems more like it, because of a very narrow field of view.
"You scan the horizon and look into the night through a straw and may see shadows of the one or two..
etc. etc."

Would radar modes normally give you where you want to look, for a wider search?

Along the path of looking at what 5th Gen sensor fusion is.(ie. not 4th Gen track amalgamation), this is not meant as being a snarky answer. While the premise statement is true, the reality is that the followup question is a 4th Gen question. It has no meaning in a 5th Gen world.

Fifth Gen is an ecosystem, not a bag full of components with measurements. At that level, I suppose for the F-35... DAS, Barracuda et al provides the 360 degree spherical aspect. But beyond that the very operation of the sensor fusion package directs wide angle and narrow beam sensors and data seamlessly as one system to create that ecosystem. There really is no wide angle searching and fine beam tracking for those narrow purposes. The ecosystem builds itself, with the data available. That data may be totally from off platform, and not using any systems on the aircraft other than the MADL comm link. But it will sort of look like it came from an all seeing sensor on the aircraft. That's an ecosystem.

In that regard the F-35 does not search, nor track, nor target ... the system does, and then presents the world to the pilot. The pilot's account of what it was like to fly the first Israeli F-35 into the Middle East is filled with outright awe of this characteristic. All of these concepts are beyond what the eurocanards do in the realm of "sensor fusion." The F-35 is "not in Kansas anymore Toto."

MHO,
BP

sorry, I thought you were talking 4th gen.
5th gen, aren't you are just given the threat and it's location. using the group of sensors chosen by the software, including those offboard

optimist wrote:..
sorry, I thought you were talking 4th gen.

No Problem, see the PS I added to the post while you were posting. Typhoon (nor other 4th gens) does not have that type of "sensor fusion."

BP

CSAF Goldfein is a network-centric guy. With the right networks in place, multi-domain synergies are enabled. The F-35 is a natural fit in the networked ecosystem.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16 ... range-flag


The connectivity focused Goldfein, who seems to see be more platform agnostic than anyone that has held his position in the past, summed up this viewpoint while talking to a group of defense writers last February, stating:

“As we look at the 21st century, perhaps it’s time to focus less on the trucks and the cargo and more on the highway they ride on... Because traditionally, we’ve built weapons systems and procured munitions and sensors, and then looked at the way to connect them... In the future, we need to ask what is the network we will ride on and then what are the apps we’ll need to ride on that network...Some of those roll, walk, steam, fly and orbit and it is only as we can connect them as a family that we get multiple dilemmas for an enemy in multiple domains, where 1 plus 1 equals 3 or more."

mas wrote:Both Rafale and Typhoon share all sensor information to obtain consolidated tracks with all this information. It's not just Radar and IRST, in the Typhoon sensor fusion diagram the lower enemy aircraft is being tracked using a fusion of MIDS and ESM.

I'll probably end up regretting (namely wasting my precious time) this but I'll "bite this one".

Like I said in my last post:

For example a Radar detects a enemy Su-27 aircraft which has its radar on and as such is also detected by ESM. My interpretation of what happens in this case (which seems more evident with the Rafale) is that the track used for this contact/enemy aircraft is the one generated by the Radar (since it's more precise) but together with this the information generated by the ESM, this case the Su-27 radar information (detected by ESM) is added to the radar track but the two tracks aren't truly merged as one (the ESM track is simply hidden) - The end result is a radar track with a Su-27 tag added to it but show to the pilot as a merged (contact).

Just replace Radar with MIDS. The end result is basically the same.

mas wrote:I am not sure whose 4th gen sensor fusion LMT is referring to where they say only one source (the best) is being kept but it is not what is happening with Rafale or Typhoon.

Really?? Funny because this is what Dassault says how Sensor fusion works in the Rafale. Here:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ta-fusion/

MULTI-SENSOR DATA FUSION

Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the Rafale translates into accurate, reliable and strong tracks, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

That's basically what I said above and also goes in line with the LM diagram (about 4th gen sensor fusion).

Moreover it's funny that you instantly put in question the LM diagram but you instantly believe at 100% in the EADS diagram about the Typhoon's sensor fusion (without questioning it). For example, if we take the EADS diagram one can easily see right away something that's clearly not accurate: For example that the target ESM and IRST target resolution/precision such as range is similar (don't diverge much) from the Radar and MIDS target resolution/precision again such as range - This is obviously FALSE. Yet you don't question it...

All the stuff you are posting does not disgree with what I said. Both Rafale and Typhoon merge angular and range information to get new consolidated more accurate tracks as explicitly spelt out in both their documentation. What is then removed are the original unmerged tracks which is totally different to what LMT is saying which is a choice between tracks is being forced upon 4th gen fighters. Frankly I trust the original manufacturers to know their own product better than a competitor ! However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

mas wrote:... However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

I don't think its a bias as much as an inability to communicate between the two worlds a new paradigm.

It's like when the BlackBerry folks kept saying they had the same thing as the iPhone. Well sort of, they did. But .... Apple/Samsung sells a few more smart phones than the ... well BlackBerry doesn't even sell phones now, they license features to android type phones with keyboards. As the iPhone/Androids(Samsung et al) evolved the new framework has become clearer, but in the beginning BlackBerry couldn't see what was happening. They advertised features they thought were the same thing.

In any case the BlackBerry was evidently not what the iPhone/Android type ecosystem has become. That was really the point. It wasn't that people didn't believe BlackBerry. They simply didn't care in a new paradigm. It wasn't that BlackBerry was lying about the features in their ads. It was that nobody cared. BlackBerry didn't know what "the words" meant in the new language.

I think that conflict is what you are seeing as "bias." It's like Garmin Yelling "But we can do maps and directions !!! " Everyone says, "yep, so what?" and buys a smartphone.

Can the EuroCanards (and SH) do things "like" the F-35/22? Do they have sensor fusion stuff? Well "yep, so what?" The paradigm has changed. That's the confusion you are seeing.

MHO,
BP

mas wrote:All the stuff you are posting does not disgree with what I said. Both Rafale and Typhoon merge angular and range information to get new consolidated more accurate tracks as explicitly spelt out in both their documentation. What is then removed are the original unmerged tracks which is totally different to what LMT is saying which is a choice between tracks is being forced upon 4th gen fighters. Frankly I trust the original manufacturers to know their own product better than a competitor ! However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

Sadly, i have to agree. The only comparison available is from... A manufacturer and should not be considered as a solid/consolidated base for further decluttering the forum...

blindpilot wrote:...
Can the EuroCanards (and SH) do things "like" the F-35/22? Do they have sensor fusion stuff? Well "yep, so what?" The paradigm has changed. That's the confusion you are seeing.

MHO,
BP

When we genuinely talk about "new generations" of fighter aircraft, it is not just faster, neater, cool new stuff. The Jet is not just a faster P-51 or higher flying Spitfire. One can ask how much horsepower the jet engine puts out. And the answer can be, "well if you put a prop on it (turbo-prop) it is 1000 hp." BUT that misses the point! No one cares how much horsepower is in a turbojet! That's not the language any more.

When we compare the F-35/22 to Eurocanards or SH, it really isn't just "about stealth." It is that stealth is a piece of what the new generation is about. But the point is something completely unrelated to the previous framework.

No one disbelieves the Eurocompanies' advertising. No one says they are wrong. No one says that the F-35 is "cooler," "better," "most awesumeness'est". We are saying we don't care about such things any more, even when they are applicable. It's not about "horsepower," even when it is. That's what I propose you need to get your head around. Not fan-boyism, and bias.

MHO,
BP

mas wrote:All the stuff you are posting does not disgree with what I said.

Actually the "stuff that I posted" does not disagree and actually agrees with that LM diagram, that's the reality!
The fact that you failed to grasp this by now clearly shows that you don't want to understand this so I won't develop any further because doing it would be a waste of my precious time even because I think that everything was quite well explained.

mas wrote:However considering the anti-European and the F-35 uber alles bias that exists on this site I am not surprised by this constant disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products.

Finally, you've shown your "true colors here"!
You're just an (another) Eurofighter "fanboy" and your reply which I quoted above is typical from such a Eurofighter/Rafale/Gripen fanboy and I clearly knew this was the reason why it's pointless to have a discussion with you.
But I would say that yes, it's normal that there's some "F-35 bias" if you will, here. In case you've missed this is the F-35 section in the F-16.net forum!
But even though you can get here in this forum section some serious throughout analysis showing and proving the advantages of the F-35 over other fighter aircraft. Or are you implying that this forum is "more bias" than any other aviation forum around the web where Typhoon, Rafale, etc... are promoted (and these being actually "Eurocanard bias forums")??

Your previous post, namely the latest part that I quoted also clearly shows one more thing: Due to your European/Typhoon "Fanaticism" you fail to grasp this reality fact -> European military aerospace technology (namely fighter/combat aircraft) lags decades behind the US military aerospace technology (and this has been happening since decades ago)! This is not "hatred" towards European military aerospace technology, this is the reality which you seem so incapable of understanding.

And as such, if you feel that this forum is so "F-35 bias for your taste" why don't you go to other forums instead??
I'm pretty sure that there are lots of forums promoting the Typhoon which like yourself will "clutter" (like the Typhoons sensor fusion) any negative or disadvantageous features that the Typhoon has or may have

Oh, and no-one here is "disbelieving of what European manufacturers say about their products". Actually these analysis that we've been posting are also based on "what European manufacturers are saying about their products".
In fact what's happening here is that instead, you are "over-believing or over-exaggerating what European manufacturers are actually saying about their products".

Actions always speak louder than words. Let’s take a look at some pertinent facts here:

1. Multiple Eurofighter partner countries are buying the F-35. Germany is currently exploring the possibility of purchasing the F-35 to replace its Tornado fleet.
2. Multiple European countries which were free to purchase the Eurocanards are buying the F-35. The F-35 is the odds-on favorite to win multiple current competitions in European countries.
3. Austria is getting rid of its Eurofighters.
4. Right after purchasing the Eurofighter, the Saudis spent $60 billion on, among other things, new F-15s.
5. Every single advanced fighter in development shares more design concepts with the F-35 and F-22 than with the Eurocannards. Look at the Su-57, India’s AMCA, Turkey’s TFX, Korea’s KFX, Japan’s X-2, the J-20 and the J-31. Do these fighters look more like the F-35 and F-22 or the Eurocannards? That tells you about all you need to know.
6. The Rafale has been on the market for 16 years now and only recently managed to sell in small numbers to Egypt and India. These are countries that won’t be purchasing the F-35 for political reasons. Plus France had to give the Egyptians generous loans. There are already more F-35 airframes than Rafales.

I want to make very clear that the Eurocannards are great birds for what they were designed for. They should be useful and potent multirole aircraft for some time yet to come. But in the air-to-air and strike roles, they are outclassed by the F-35. At the end of the day, investment matters. The European countries haven’t invested anywhere near the resources and time that the US has into combat aircraft development and it shows.

Fortunately, the Eurocannards and F-35s will most likely be working together and together, they will be an extremely lethal combination to contend with.

icemaverick wrote:I want to make very clear that the Eurocannards are great birds for what they were designed for. They should be useful and potent multirole aircraft for some time yet to come. But in the air-to-air and strike roles, they are outclassed by the F-35. At the end of the day, investment matters. The European countries haven’t invested anywhere near the resources and time that the US has into combat aircraft development and it shows.

Well said. Thats the very hard truth.

I mean i like the Eurocanards. Especially the Rafale. For the resources the French have, the build a very good 4 gen Fighter. As some very knowledge guys here on F-16.net mentioned it is probably the best 4 gen out there.

But the F-35 is a game changer. He set new standards in stealth, avionics and sensor fusion . And on top of that the lightning II is even cheaper then a EF, Rafale or SH. So there will be thousands of f-35. More then all Eurocanards and SH together.

What i don't get is why some guys still believe a EF, Rafale or Su-35 are in the same league or even better then a f-35. At least when you read the Danish Evaluation, it should be clear that thy are no match for a true 5 gen Fighter.

swiss wrote:What i don't get is why some guys still believe a EF, Rafale or Su-35 are in the same league or even better then a f-35. At least when you read the Danish Evaluation, it should be clear that thy are no match for a true 5 gen Fighter.

I find that internet discussions of tactical aircraft (really, any military topic) quickly devolve into nothing more than poorly-informed nationalist posturing.