F-35 JSF vs Eurofighter Typhoon

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

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 19391
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 11:03

A thread with plenty of info about F-35 upgrade paths: (look either side of this link for your own interests) AVIONICS

Block 3F Status / Schedule
viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52626&p=374909&hilit=upgrade#p374909
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 11:39

optimist wrote:Does the aussie, french tiger helo count?
bought 2004, foc 2016. 12 years to get them working and being dumped within 10 years.


When I said:
"top notch" fighter aircraft
I wasn't being "innocent" since similar situations have certainly happened with different degrees of frequency with other pieces of military hardware.

However, if we expand from the "top notch" fighter aircraft to simply "top notch" aircraft (fixed wing and rotary) yes, it certainly counts.
Curious (or not) what you mentioned (Tiger) is just another piece of flying Euro(trash) military hardware :wink:
Offline

monkeypilot

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 12:29

mas wrote:Two-way datalinks will become more important against better quality opposition who not only then have to jam the missile but the datalink or opposing airplane radar too. I have seen it written that part of the purpose of the L-band radars in latest Russian fighters like Mig-35 and Su-57 is not only to indicate stealth opposition but to jam datalinks as well although how that would work in practice, if at all, is uncertain and of course would not be effective outside the FOV of the L-band attenna i.e. side/rear missile shots.



Are you sure it is not mainly focused on damage assessment?
Last edited by monkeypilot on 05 Dec 2017, 12:36, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2163
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 12:34

mas wrote:Single best source ....
Targeting solution relies on primary source ...
SA based on PARTIAL information ....

They are implying different sensor tracks of the same target are compared and only the best one is chosen.


That's because it's true. They are not claiming that only one track is selected to be the chosen one but track data (like speed, position, altitude, RF information, RCS). Otherwise it would be impossible to correlate tracks from different type of sensors as there is always differences of what and how they sense. For example IRST and ESM systems can not tell range or RCS accurately or at all and radar usually can. Radar doesn't have idea about thermal signature or RF signals coming from target (except maybe in radar band). Correlation might well take one track out of many (like radar track) and fill in the missing or less accurate data with better data from other tracks it thinks are from same target and discard (or more likely just hide from displays) those tracks afterwards.

This is the whole presentation from LM about the subject: download/file.php?id=19424

This is how 5th gen sensor fusion works in simple terms:
The fusion engine can automatically task individual sensors to search, detect, track, and identify things in battlespace. The pilot does not have to be involved in this because fusion understands the fields of regard and fields of view of each sensor and will task them accordingly. In addition, fusion may use multiple sensors on one track to get a better kinematic estimate of some particular piece of data


LM does say that 4th gen correlation is good advance over any sensor fusion:
• In the next graphic we see a modern 4.x gen fighter. These use correlation, which is a big step toward advanced sensor fusion. None the less, the pilot’s workload and situation awareness are improved, but not like in a 5th gen fighter.


However correlation can not task differrent sensors and is only using sensors as sources. There might be some very rudimentary ability to search for targets tracked by other sensors, but the difference is that in F-35 the sensor fusion actively and automatically tasks the sensors to do complex things together. This is possible because in F-35 the sensor fusion is directly connected to sensors and is basically a common back end to all the different sensors. In earlier (like even advanced 4th gen aircraft) systems the sensors are black boxes with some inputs and outputs but sensor fusion has no knowledge of the data they handle, how they handle it and why they came to some conclusion (for example generating tracks or not doing so).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -c-376369/

The SABR REP cannot be retrofitted back into the F-35 because APG-81 does not have a "backend" as such, instead most of the processing for the radar is performed in the JSF's core processors, says Joe Ensor, Northrop's vice president for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and targeting systems.


and this: Image

So Fusion server in F-35 does almost all the processing of all sensor data and has direct access to all the data the sensors are gathering. In F-35 the sensors are "White boxe" or "Glass boxes" instead. It does Image processing for images coming from EOTS, EODAS and probably AN/APG-81 (SAR and ISAR operation produces images).

EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have the advantage over most other 4th gen fighters as they have correlation based sensor fusion system. That's much better than having separate sensors displaying information in separate screens in separate formats. It might also be one reason why EF Typhoon scored higher than Super Hornet in Danish evaluations in DCA and SEAD/DEAD missions. F-35 takes this to another level with their sensor fusion engine which has full control of all the sensors the aircraft has and can use the sensors in ways that are impossible otherwise. It leads to F-35 detecting targets earlier (especially difficult stealthy targets), having more stable tracking against higher number of targets and identifying targets better and with higher fidelity. One important feature is that off-board sensors can be used much better in fusion, especially from other F-35s due to higher speed datalink from MADL.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2163
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 12:45

monkeypilot wrote:
mas wrote:Two-way datalinks will become more important against better quality opposition who not only then have to jam the missile but the datalink or opposing airplane radar too. I have seen it written that part of the purpose of the L-band radars in latest Russian fighters like Mig-35 and Su-57 is not only to indicate stealth opposition but to jam datalinks as well although how that would work in practice, if at all, is uncertain and of course would not be effective outside the FOV of the L-band attenna i.e. side/rear missile shots.



Hmmm... Are you sure it is not mainly focused on damage assessment?


One thing is that it could be used for telling exactly where the missile is flying and what status it has. This could lead to better engagement results as launch platform knows where the missile is flying, is it operating properly and in the end-game tell that it has gone active. It might then tell if the seeker sees multiple targets and then if the proximity fuze operated (and thus enemy is likely dead) or if it missed the target. In one-directional systems none of this would not be known for certain.
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 13:15

hornetfinn wrote:

EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have the advantage over most other 4th gen fighters as they have correlation based sensor fusion system. That's much better than having separate sensors displaying information in separate screens in separate formats. It might also be one reason why EF Typhoon scored higher than Super Hornet in Danish evaluations in DCA and SEAD/DEAD missions.


granted it was evaled to their requirements and had to work within their system of systems. The super hornet was overall scored better than the typhoon. The only area it scored better in was Strategic relationship

Image

Strategic relationship: candidates ' conduct or the fulfilment of the overall Danish defence and security objectives, including the potential for cooperation with other countries.
r Military Affairs: the candidates ' ability to solve the kampflyopgaver (mission effectiveness), candidates ' survivability, the ability to keep the aircraft operational and technical relevant in life expectancy (future proofing) as well as the risks associated with each candidate, that cannot be quantified economically (candidate risk).
r Financial (f)o: candidates ' estimated lifetime costs, including costs associated with the acquisition, ongoing operation and maintenance as well as quantifiable risks.
r Industrial relations: candidates ' support for major Danish security interACEs through industry collaboration with the Danish defense industry.
Offline

monkeypilot

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 14:19

hornetfinn wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:
mas wrote:Two-way datalinks will become more important against better quality opposition who not only then have to jam the missile but the datalink or opposing airplane radar too. I have seen it written that part of the purpose of the L-band radars in latest Russian fighters like Mig-35 and Su-57 is not only to indicate stealth opposition but to jam datalinks as well although how that would work in practice, if at all, is uncertain and of course would not be effective outside the FOV of the L-band attenna i.e. side/rear missile shots.



Hmmm... Are you sure it is not mainly focused on damage assessment?


One thing is that it could be used for telling exactly where the missile is flying and what status it has. This could lead to better engagement results as launch platform knows where the missile is flying, is it operating properly and in the end-game tell that it has gone active. It might then tell if the seeker sees multiple targets and then if the proximity fuze operated (and thus enemy is likely dead) or if it missed the target. In one-directional systems none of this would not be known for certain.


So you think the backwards link will be operated several times during path? Wouldn't it be an issue for missile discretion and, more important, for electric consumption? The end of your message is what i wanted to tell by damage assessment (proximity fuze) . I am not sure the missile sensor after going active would have enough time and capabilities to scan and transmit? Or would it?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2163
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 14:30

monkeypilot wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:One thing is that it could be used for telling exactly where the missile is flying and what status it has. This could lead to better engagement results as launch platform knows where the missile is flying, is it operating properly and in the end-game tell that it has gone active. It might then tell if the seeker sees multiple targets and then if the proximity fuze operated (and thus enemy is likely dead) or if it missed the target. In one-directional systems none of this would not be known for certain.


So you think the backwards link will be operated several times during path? Wouldn't it be an issue for missile discretion and, more important, for electric consumption? The end of your message is what i wanted to tell by damage assessment (proximity fuze) . I am not sure the missile sensor after going active would have enough time and capabilities to scan and transmit? Or would it?


Yes, it could operate several times during flight. It could use quite directional antenna pointed away from enemy and use very little power which would make it very difficult to detect because ther transmission would likely last only some milliseconds. The shooter-to-missile datalink is much easier to detect as it's pointed more towards the enemy and likely uses higher power (because of very small receiving antenna in missile). Missile sensor would very likely have enough time to scan and transmit, depending on how far away it goes active. It would only scan very limited area/volume and could detect targets only in that volume. Of course that might be of limited usefulness, but in some cases might be good capability.
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 19:14

icemaverick wrote:I don’t know how much of a difference it makes but I do know that for the Rafale, the Meteor has only a 1 way data link whereas with the Typhoon etc. there is a 2-way data link. The Super Hornet has a 2 way data link with its AMRAAM. I’d have to imagine that this makes a big difference in missile performance.


Its a pitty the Rafale has no 2-way link for the Meteor. But when i got horentfinn right, its debatable how big the performance plus is.

hornetfinn wrote:EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have the advantage over most other 4th gen fighters as they have correlation based sensor fusion system. That's much better than having separate sensors displaying information in separate screens in separate formats. It might also be one reason why EF Typhoon scored higher than Super Hornet in Danish evaluations in DCA and SEAD/DEAD missions.


This is also a reason why i believe, the Rafale has the edge against the SH. Rafale was in all categories better then the EF. Including CAS and Escort (AI). Where the SH was inferior or equal to the EF.
Offline

monkeypilot

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 20:28

Its a pitty the Rafale has no 2-way link for the Meteor. But when i got horentfinn right, its debatable how big the performance plus is.


On Rafale, datalink is shared with mica missile. That is why there is only one way link.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6975
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 20:53

Just because one missile is limited to a one-way link is no reason to limit ALL missiles to a one way link. Case in point, every US fighter that is cleared for the AIM-120D. They all can use other missiles like the Aim-9x, Aim-120C, etc that are limited to a one-way link yet still take advantage of the Aim-120D's two-way link.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:03

swiss wrote:Where the SH was inferior or equal to the EF.


Well, according to the Danish evaluation the SH was definitely not inferior and according to this same evaluation the Super Hornet was in fact equal or even superior to the EF (definitely superior if one is to take cost into account).
Offline

optimist

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 495
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:15

swiss wrote:This is also a reason why i believe, the Rafale has the edge against the SH. Rafale was in all categories better then the EF. Including CAS and Escort (AI). Where the SH was inferior or equal to the EF.

I should have put my first sentence in bold. "granted it was evaled to their requirements and had to work within their system of systems."

It's a long report and I just read the summary, could you quote the page you are referring about sead/dead please.

The super hornet system splits some of it's ew to the super hornet growler model for sead/dead. You know, like what the two users are doing. Is this rafale edge, like how the su aren't disadvantaged, by them not having awacs and tankers? They are so strort.
Offline

swiss

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 60
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 21:39

ricnunes wrote:
Well, according to the Danish evaluation the SH was definitely not inferior and according to this same evaluation the Super Hornet was in fact equal or even superior to the EF (definitely superior if one is to take cost into account).


Yes, all in all the SH is superior to the EF. I have no doubt about that. But not, like the Rafale in the swiss evaluation, in all categories (SH was inferior to the EF in DCA and AI/escort). Where the Rafale was also better then the EF. So for me its a logical conclusion, the French Fighter as the edge against the Super Hornet.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 778
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Dec 2017, 23:54

swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
Well, according to the Danish evaluation the SH was definitely not inferior and according to this same evaluation the Super Hornet was in fact equal or even superior to the EF (definitely superior if one is to take cost into account).


Yes, all in all the SH is superior to the EF. I have no doubt about that. But not, like the Rafale in the swiss evaluation, in all categories (SH was inferior to the EF in DCA and AI/escort). Where the Rafale was also better then the EF. So for me its a logical conclusion, the French Fighter as the edge against the Super Hornet.


By the way, why wasn't the Super Hornet considered in the Swiss evaluation?

This is "strange" because the Super Hornet should in my opinion be a "natural consideration" since the Swiss Air Force currently operates the Legacy Hornet.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests