F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 22:58
by les_paul59
I am fairly new to the forum but I have been following the anti-f35 group for some time now and like most of us on f-16.net I'm constantly reminded of just how close minded and short sighted some people can be.

In my humble view the fusion and networking capability of the F 35 is the most impressive and game changing variable in the equation of how future air battles will be fought. The press and public in general don't truly understand the implications of this leap towards 5th gen warfare. Most of the time the press gets caught up in a discussion questioning the validity of "stealth" (i really hate this term) because it misleads the public into thinking that if the f 35 can be detected than the "stealth" has failed.

But even stealth is not representative of what a 5th gen platform brings, we have had stealth aircraft in the past (b2, f-117)
The sensor fusion is what sets the F22 and F35 apart; and is what brings the situational awareness to new levels. I believe this is why the F35 has broken the mold entirely and can't be described by the term fighter. The F 35 is really a fighter, awacs, electronic attack, ground attack platform, and unlike previous multirole jets it can truly do all of these things at a very high level. Stealth is only a contributing factor to why the F35 will do these things well, it is not the end all be all as many aviation commentators seem to think.

As we have seen with the Dutch pilots training interoperability between their f-16s and new f-35s, just the presence of one f-35 using the link 16 datalink made the f-16s much more lethal. General Hostage has also repeated this sentiment, that the level of situational awareness provided by the f22 and f35's sensor fusion makes them game changers if they are just present. These two 5th gen platforms don't even have to shoot to contribute greatly to the fight because it will extend the lethality of the 4th gen platforms and keep them relevant into the 2020's.

I have also listened to Billy Flynn (lockheed test pilot) say that even if the f-35's sensors were not as great, the fusion software would still make for a better picture of the combat zone compared to 4th gen fighters. Fusion not only makes for better situational awareness but completely controls radar emissions. Just like the F22, a stealth jet isn't so stealth if its blaring radar signals all over the sky. Fusion is able to fix this problem by only using just the right amount of power to find the range of a target while minimizing the chance that the signal is detected.

This is why you can't just put the apg 81 in a Su-35s and say that now the Sukhoi is better. Not only are the russians far behind in the realm of individual sensors but they also have not shown the ability to produce a aircraft with the same level of fusion as the American 5th gen platforms.

Is there anything I'm not understanding correctly about fusion?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 00:46
by eloise
I still think the most valuable point of fifgen fighter are their RCS

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 02:37
by SpudmanWP
eloise wrote:I still think the most valuable point of fifgen fighter are their RCS


It's also the one single thing that cannot be retrofitted to a 4th gen asset.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 04:24
by les_paul59
The low rcs makes everything the f 35 will do easier and it shouldnt be discounted, i was just venting my frustration at the apa not even bothering to recognize sensor fusion as a serious game changer. Fusion actually helps lo jets be more stealthy by controlling active emissions and using offboard data and fusing that with data from onboard sensors....they really go hand in hand

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 05:03
by eloise
les_paul59 wrote:The low rcs makes everything the f 35 will do easier and it shouldnt be discounted, i was just venting my frustration at the apa not even bothering to recognize sensor fusion as a serious game changer. Fusion actually helps lo jets be more stealthy by controlling active emissions and using offboard data and fusing that with data from onboard sensors....they really go hand in hand

APA are full of misleading information anyway , so why bother?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 07:31
by hornetfinn
IMO, sensor fusion along with networking (they go hand in hand) greatly improve the situational awareness of F-35s over any existing fighter aircraft. Especially a group of F-35s will have far better SA than a group of any other fighter aircraft. On the other hand the very low RCS of F-35 significantly lowers the SA of the enemy. They won't see any F-35s most of the time when other fighters (save F-22) are easily tracked. Together they improve the combat effectiveness enormously.

I don't think you can retrofit 4th gen fighters with F-35 level sensors and sensor fusion without completely rebuilding the airframes and designing basically a new aircraft. Theoretically it's possible, but I doubt anybody will spend the money to do that as it would be very expensive..

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 14:40
by sprstdlyscottsmn
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think you can retrofit 4th gen fighters with F-35 level sensors and sensor fusion without completely rebuilding the airframes and designing basically a new aircraft. Theoretically it's possible, but I doubt anybody will spend the money to do that as it would be very expensive..

F/A-18E/F Block III ASH (Advanced Super Hornet) is an example. F-35 style cockpit, internal EOFLIR, EODAS type system, AESA radar, I doubt it has a Barracuda analog though.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 16:33
by bigjku
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think you can retrofit 4th gen fighters with F-35 level sensors and sensor fusion without completely rebuilding the airframes and designing basically a new aircraft. Theoretically it's possible, but I doubt anybody will spend the money to do that as it would be very expensive..

F/A-18E/F Block III ASH (Advanced Super Hornet) is an example. F-35 style cockpit, internal EOFLIR, EODAS type system, AESA radar, I doubt it has a Barracuda analog though.


Never saw an actual price for that though. Which is the real issue. If the government would just hand the tech over to say Eurofighter or F-18 and say here have it for free you would still have a billion, very conservatively, in R&D cost. Your fielding cost would probably broadly in line with the F-35. So in the end no one will bother. That is kind of the key for all of this. Yes you could do a lot of these things. But it may well be cheaper to simply buy more F-35's than mess with this. I think the current F-15 program is about as extensive of these kind of programs one is going to see. Interest in doing these things is going to crater over the next few years.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 17:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
bigjku wrote: I think the current F-15 program is about as extensive of these kind of programs one is going to see.

And new F-15s cost more than LRIP F-35s

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 20:35
by hb_pencil
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I don't think you can retrofit 4th gen fighters with F-35 level sensors and sensor fusion without completely rebuilding the airframes and designing basically a new aircraft. Theoretically it's possible, but I doubt anybody will spend the money to do that as it would be very expensive..

F/A-18E/F Block III ASH (Advanced Super Hornet) is an example. F-35 style cockpit, internal EOFLIR, EODAS type system, AESA radar, I doubt it has a Barracuda analog though.


Except that it isn't. What you are describing is basically the same as what most 4th generations have: high quality sensors; limited central data processing (much of it is done by the sensors individually). That's really the core of the fusion for the F-35. Its basically how do you process all of that data synergistically in order to provide the pilot with a single consistent display of the battlefield. I'm certain that Boeing will incorporate some limited efforts to add some aspects of fusion, but it will pale in comparison to what the F-35 offers. It won't have the accuracy or fidelity that the F-35 has, partly because it will be limited to the Link 16 to share data, and architectural/poewr constraints that prevent it from employing the data crunching algorithms that is in Block III. Really that's where the majority of the cost difference between the F-35 and other aircraft emerges from (albeit compressed due to higher production rates.)

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 20:38
by SpudmanWP
btw, the ASH does not have EODAS-like sensors. It barely has a MAWS.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 21:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I could have sworn that I had read an article whose exterior pictures included several glass windows. I can't find any pictures now to support it so I will chalk it up to seeing/remembering something wrong. Sorry.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2016, 21:10
by SpudmanWP
That was them finally adding an IR MAWS to the SH.

btw, That "internal IRST" is just that, only an A2A IRST.

Image

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 00:57
by neptune
SpudmanWP wrote:btw, the ASH does not have EODAS-like sensors. It barely has a MAWS.


Spud,

Not that you would care to keep up with this, but any info on the General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Type 4 Advanced Mission Computer for the SBug?

I know the Navy and Boeing tested it, certified it and had it pending for the future SBugs.

I can find no appropriations, contracts or "Approvals" for the Type 4 in the pending SBug purchases.

Do you think this will happen in this "last" batch of SBugs (ASH?)?

Thanks, whichever.

:)

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 04:57
by SpudmanWP
Have not heard anything recent about it.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 06:58
by eloise
Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 08:50
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt


Well, F-35 is real aircraft which is in service now while ASH is only a demonstrator and might never make it beyond that.

Laser warning system might be useful in some situations if F-35 is being painted by some threat system (most likely ground based) but I don't see it that important for F-35. It has so many sensors to detecta and identify all kinds of threats that I think it's unlikely LWS would improve performance that much. Besides, it might well be possible to integrate LWS system to DAS at some point in the future if deemed necessary.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 19:38
by blindpilot
eloise wrote:Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt


It is amazing how folks cannot grasp what is happening with the F-35 systems.

It is NOT sensor fusion to have twenty systems stove piped onto one display. Those who have had to fly with "Bitching Betty," in a threat environment, understand that you don't want 20 displays, or voices shouting, "There's a missile coming! There's a missile coming!" That is not sensor fusion. A clean integrated display / warning of the threat environment allowing clear situational awareness is NOT gained by slapping another sensor pod on an old airframe. It's NOT! And you can't get it using the legacy CPUs with 10 lines of code squeezed into the legacy's memory space, or velcroing an IPad on the cockpit rail.

There is a reason the software is taking time. Those zillions and zillions of lines of code actually do things ... that you can't do without zillions and zillions of lines of code.

BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 20:36
by hb_pencil
blindpilot wrote:
eloise wrote:Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt


It is amazing how folks cannot grasp what is happening with the F-35 systems.

It is NOT sensor fusion to have twenty systems stove piped onto one display. Those who have had to fly with "Bitching Betty," in a threat environment, understand that you don't want 20 displays, or voices shouting, "There's a missile coming! There's a missile coming!" That is not sensor fusion. A clean integrated display / warning of the threat environment allowing clear situational awareness is NOT gained by slapping another sensor pod on an old airframe. It's NOT! And you can't get it using the legacy CPUs with 10 lines of code squeezed into the legacy's memory space, or velcroing an IPad on the cockpit rail.

There is a reason the software is taking time. Those zillions and zillions of lines of code actually do things ... that you can't do without zillions and zillions of lines of code.

BP



Way ahead of you on that one... read what i said above.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 23:18
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:
eloise wrote:Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt


It is amazing how folks cannot grasp what is happening with the F-35 systems.

It is NOT sensor fusion to have twenty systems stove piped onto one display. Those who have had to fly with "Bitching Betty," in a threat environment, understand that you don't want 20 displays, or voices shouting, "There's a missile coming! There's a missile coming!" That is not sensor fusion. A clean integrated display / warning of the threat environment allowing clear situational awareness is NOT gained by slapping another sensor pod on an old airframe. It's NOT! And you can't get it using the legacy CPUs with 10 lines of code squeezed into the legacy's memory space, or velcroing an IPad on the cockpit rail.

There is a reason the software is taking time. Those zillions and zillions of lines of code actually do things ... that you can't do without zillions and zillions of lines of code.

BP

I really thought your waze analogy was apt.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2016, 23:40
by les_paul59
you guys have great points, I think one of the most underrated parts of the f-35 is the clean cockpit design and the pilot interface. The jet's displays are customizable and the information is displayed in a nice clean, compact format. This is going to save pilots valuable seconds and make them more lethal.

"People focus on stealth as the determining factor or delineator of the fifth generation [aircraft]. It isn’t; it’s fusion."
General Hostage

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2016, 22:48
by KamenRiderBlade
popcorn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
eloise wrote:Atleast F-18 ASH has laser warning system while F-35 doesnt


It is amazing how folks cannot grasp what is happening with the F-35 systems.

It is NOT sensor fusion to have twenty systems stove piped onto one display. Those who have had to fly with "Bitching Betty," in a threat environment, understand that you don't want 20 displays, or voices shouting, "There's a missile coming! There's a missile coming!" That is not sensor fusion. A clean integrated display / warning of the threat environment allowing clear situational awareness is NOT gained by slapping another sensor pod on an old airframe. It's NOT! And you can't get it using the legacy CPUs with 10 lines of code squeezed into the legacy's memory space, or velcroing an IPad on the cockpit rail.

There is a reason the software is taking time. Those zillions and zillions of lines of code actually do things ... that you can't do without zillions and zillions of lines of code.

BP

I really thought your waze analogy was apt.

As a Software guy, I totally get how it takes a while to work out the bugs, ESPECIALLY when it's something that HASN'T been done to this scale.

The F-35 sensor has far reaching effects down the pipeline.

Imagine the next naval surface vessel with Sensor Fusion.

Or subs with the equivalent of DAS, but with Hydrophones + sensor fusion.

There are all sorts of things that can be gained from this.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2016, 02:20
by marauder2048
U.S. Air Force says plans test F-35 deployment this month excerpt

Silveria, a pilot who also flies the F-35, said the 12 F-35s based at Nellis Air Force Base were performing well in regular exercises with other aircraft, and had proven their ability to share data and communicate with fourth-generation jets.

He said the jets were now also able to share data within a formation of four F-35 jets flying together - a capability he experienced during a flight in the past week.


Sounds like four-ship composite tracking/passive ranging is a go.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2016, 03:12
by spazsinbad

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2016, 04:55
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Good story - thanks: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockh ... SKCN0VE0BT


...the ending to the article is not unique in it's quote but, I would "REALLY" like to see the helicopter that land like an F-35B!

:D

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 11:22
by Scorpion82
LO is THE primary capability that distinguishes the 5th generation platforms from 4th gens as it is the sole capability that can't be retrofitted to the 4th gens.

That itself doesn't mean that the 5th gens haven't introduced other capabilities that provide them with a combat edge. Sensor fusion is without doubt a critical enhancement, but it's not a 5th gen mutually exclusive capability. At least the Rafale and Typhoon were from the outset designed with sensor fusion capabilities in mind and both constantly evolve in that field. Existing 4th gens have also been fitted with new processing hardware and new sensors. Whether it's possible to match the prospective sensor fusion capabilities of the F-35 is yet another question. However the only unique sensor system onboard the F-35 is its EODAS.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 15:41
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:LO is THE primary capability that distinguishes the 5th generation platforms from 4th gens as it is the sole capability that can't be retrofitted to the 4th gens.

That itself doesn't mean that the 5th gens haven't introduced other capabilities that provide them with a combat edge. Sensor fusion is without doubt a critical enhancement, but it's not a 5th gen mutually exclusive capability. At least the Rafale and Typhoon were from the outset designed with sensor fusion capabilities in mind and both constantly evolve in that field. Existing 4th gens have also been fitted with new processing hardware and new sensors. Whether it's possible to match the prospective sensor fusion capabilities of the F-35 is yet another question. However the only unique sensor system onboard the F-35 is its EODAS.



Guess again. And as for sensor fusion, I am amazed that people will compare airplanes out to a tenth of G, yet all sensors and sensor fusion is presumed equal... it's not

There are also limits to "evolution" which is why we develop new stuff.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 16:25
by Scorpion82
XanderCrews wrote:Guess again. And as for sensor fusion, I am amazed that people will compare airplanes out to a tenth of G, yet all sensors and sensor fusion is presumed equal... it's not

There are also limits to "evolution" which is why we develop new stuff.


Guess again what? I neither stated inferiority, equality, nor superiority here for anything. I know reading and understanding isn't everyones strength.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 16:32
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Guess again. And as for sensor fusion, I am amazed that people will compare airplanes out to a tenth of G, yet all sensors and sensor fusion is presumed equal... it's not

There are also limits to "evolution" which is why we develop new stuff.


Guess again what? I neither stated inferiority, equality, nor superiority here for anything. I know reading and understanding isn't everyones strength.



Indeed or you would know it's more than just EODAS. I do enjoy the snark though, bad day?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 17:20
by Scorpion82
Nope just tiresome to see people reacting for the sake of it. As far as EODAS is concerned it potentially the only sensor to which there is no equivalent available on any other tactical combat aircraft, rumours about such capabilities for the AN/AAR-56 and DDM-NG apart for which I haven't seen any hard evidence. The simple point I make here is that the F-35 isn't the first platform to provide sensor fusion capabilities as implied by the OP. The F-35 might well take sensor fusion to new heights though. Whether it's already close to the proposed capabilities is yet another question and how it will compare once it is is yet another question. Sensor fusion is extremly complex and requires a lot of elements to work together properly.

F-22's sensor fusion was much touted only to learn about it not fusing link 16 feeds into the process until more recent increments which are claimed to do so. Typhoon for example had similar issues and fusion of some data was disabled due to reliability issues. The sensors need to work in a reliable manner in the first place before sensor fusion can be fully exploited, then fine tuning of the fusion algorithms needs to be performed to match the sensors' capabilities. It's a challenging process and what looks so clear on paper isn't not always as good/easy in reality. Arguably you will proably not learn to much about potential smacks like this from public sources, at best snipets.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 17:39
by XanderCrews
Scorpion82 wrote:Nope just tiresome to see people reacting for the sake of it.


Like your snark?

Pretty sure you forgot EOTS, and of course the helmet which is taking all that information and gluing it straight to your face. Is there another aircraft that puts targeting pod feed straight to the helmet?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 18:22
by Scorpion82
Typhoon's HEA is designed to provide video imagery from NVS and FLIR. EOTS is more or less unique as an airframe mounted system, but its capabilities are matched or even surpassed by the latest iterations of the Sniper and Litening. I subsequently don't consider EOTS as a particularly unique system/capability for the F-35.

Striker II is probably the closest match for HMDS gen 3 in terms of technology and capability.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 18:41
by jetblast16
Straight from the manufacturer: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/F-35LightningIIEOTS.html

'...The low-drag, stealthy EOTS is integrated into the F-35 Lightning II's fuselage with a durable sapphire window...'

Basically, it was designed to provide thermal imaging/targeting in a low RCS manner. It is by no means unique.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 00:22
by spazsinbad
This quote is from a 'sensor fusion' PDF being extracted from my 4.4Gb tome about NavAv/A4G/F-35 bits that interest me.... A lot more stuff (especially about HDMS) was not put in this PDF and remember to ZOOM in to read the small text using latest Adobe Reader suitable for your Operating System: http://get.adobe.com/reader/otherversions/

PDF edited to include the new high quality graphic illustrations of 4th/5th gen sensors & FUSION attached below
[RAAF] Air Combat Operations 2025 and Beyond SEMINAR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
April 2014 Andrew McLaughlin

"...SQNLDR Harper [RAAF F-22 exchange pilot] said the fusion is the “key enabler” for 5th gen. He said because the sensors require little or no manipulation means it “frees up huge amount of brain space for the pilot.” He said all the
relevant information is presented in sync “not just your own aircraft, but with the entire formation.”

LtCol Berke [former USMC F-22 exchange pilot now F-35 ex FA-18/FAC] described the fusion offered by 5th gen platforms as “an overwhelming advancement in breadth and depth in terms of the spectrum in which it operates.” He said it’s unlikely we fully understand what that breadth and depth will allow pilots to do yet due to the vast differences to the capabilities offered by legacy platforms. “It’s not just a matter of being able to function in a wide array of information – if we can’t fight in a particular spectrum, whether it’s RF, IR, laser, EO, the F-35 has the ability with the agility on the platform to live in whatever spectrum it thinks it needs to be in.”...”

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... rewMcL.pdf

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 06:06
by spazsinbad
It always strikes me that SLDinfo do not look at what they produce. Perhaps there are better graphics out there that are readable however I have yet to find them. Best read about 4th/5th Gen Sensor Fusion at URL/PDF of same material:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-impact-of-ad ... apability/
OR
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Fusion.pdf (0.5Mb)

Graphix:
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... gure-7.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... ture-8.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... gure-9.jpg

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 13:45
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:LO is THE primary capability that distinguishes the 5th generation platforms from 4th gens as it is the sole capability that can't be retrofitted to the 4th gens.

That itself doesn't mean that the 5th gens haven't introduced other capabilities that provide them with a combat edge. Sensor fusion is without doubt a critical enhancement, but it's not a 5th gen mutually exclusive capability. At least the Rafale and Typhoon were from the outset designed with sensor fusion capabilities in mind and both constantly evolve in that field. Existing 4th gens have also been fitted with new processing hardware and new sensors. Whether it's possible to match the prospective sensor fusion capabilities of the F-35 is yet another question. However the only unique sensor system onboard the F-35 is its EODAS.


Well, there is not a single system in advanced 4th gen fighters like Rafale, Eurofighter or Super Hornet which could not be fitted to Mirage III, English Electric Lightning or F-4 Phantom II. This is not done because it would be very expensive and the basic airframes are limited in many ways.

There are systems and capabilities which are unique to Western 5th gen fighters that would be very difficult to implement in any 4th gen fighter.

1. Directional high-speed datalinks (MADL and IFDL). These datalinks share more information faster and without much delays while also being very difficult to detect and intercept. Link 16 and similar systems used in 4th gen fighters are incapable of sharing as much information and have longer delays and latency. This gives a flight of F-22s or F-35s much better ability to share information between each other which leads to much better ability to do sensor fusion. Of course we don't know the exact abilities of MADL or IFDL but we know that they have about 10-20 times higher frequency and are directional, so any transmission won't have wait for transmission slots (which are also rather short). So, it's extremely likely that MADL and IFDL are tens or hundreds of times faster datalinks with similarly lower delays and latency compared to Link 16 and similar legacy datalinks. This means potential for much better situational awareness and much improved cooperative engagement capabilities.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to install such a system to 4th gen fighters, but they'd need a huge amount of upgrades to do so as they are not designed to use such systems. So you will likely never see a 4th gen fighter with MADL equivalent datalink installed.

2. Stealth. This is a rather wide encompassing issue and advanced 4th gen fighters have some stealth features. However there is very big difference in radar signature and also emitted radio signals between 5th gen fighters and any 4th gen fighters due to directional datalinks which also allow stealthy radio communications. Stealth is really an enabler of many other things as it allows going much closer to enemy without being detected or engaged.

3. Internal networks/databuses. Only F-22 and F-35 have really high-speed databuses. Even the most advanced 4th gen fighters have tens or hundreds of times slower and otherwise less capable databuses with no real upgrade possibilities without changing everything. F-35 databuses are very fast already and will be even faster in the future. This means there is serious hard limit for sensor and sensor fusion capabilties due to limited data transfer speeds. It would not be possible to install anything like EODAS on 4th gen fighters as they don't have the architectures to handle all the data from sensors. F-22 and F-35 databuses allow transferring pretty much raw data from sensors to central computing system and doing sensor fusion from there. In 4th gen systems the sensor data needs to be crunched inside sensors and only then sent to central computing system for further handling. This limits the sensor fusion capabilties a lot especially as modern sensors can generate a lot more information than they used to.

4. Flight performance in combat configurations. While advanced 4th gen fighters have decent performance also in combat configurations, they are at serious disadvantage against 5th gen systems. For example F-35 with 18,000 lbs of gas and about 5,000 lbs of weapons and targeting pod has much better flight performance to any fighter aircraft I know with similar loadout. AFAIK F-35 and F-22 have pretty much full performance envelope with full internal weapons load. 4th gen aircraft would have much lower performance in similar configurations. Both are also capable of releasing internal weapons at high supersonic speeds while I have not heard from single 4th gen fighter which is capable of the same.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 15:48
by les_paul59
[quote from Scorpion82 "The simple point I make here is that the F-35 isn't the first platform to provide sensor fusion capabilities as implied by the OP."]

If you read my original post again you will see that I mention the f-22 multiple times, and we all know that the f-22 was operational a decade before the f-35, so maybe you should read a little more closely. And with respect to the the euro-canard's sensor fusion, It is designed to fuse at a much simpler level than the raptor or f-35.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 17:51
by Scorpion82
spazsinbad wrote:It always strikes me that SLDinfo do not look at what they produce. Perhaps there are better graphics out there that are readable however I have yet to find them. Best read about 4th/5th Gen Sensor Fusion at URL/PDF of same material:

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-impact-of-ad ... apability/
OR
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Fusion.pdf (0.5Mb)

Graphix:
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... gure-7.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... ture-8.jpg
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... gure-9.jpg


Thanks, have seen them long ago when you or someone else shared them already. The fact remains however that the description of 4th gen sensor fusion capabilities is more generic and may apply to US teens, but it definitely doesn't match with that onboard a Rafale or Typhoon where the fusion is more complex and were fused tracks are updated with the best kinematic data available from all contributing sensors, where ID data are fused as well and where sensors are being tasked by the weapon system. While I have no doubt that the F-35 scores higher here as it's a newer platform, there are two points to consider 1. those older platforms including the F-22 have the advantage of being more mature, whereas the proposed sensor fusion capabilities of the F-35 have yet to be fully developed and 2. sensor and processor upgrades, incl. replacement of existing gear with entirely new gear as well as continued software development will help these platforms to stay competitive in that field. That doesn't mean that the F-35 won't have an edge over these older platforms, but the gap might not be as big as is being perceived, mostly due to the lack of awareness of the actual capabilities of these older platforms and due to the fact that a proposed future capability of a new platform is compared against what's available right now on existing platforms minus what people are apparently unaware off.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 18:04
by Scorpion82
les_paul59 wrote:[quote from Scorpion82 "The simple point I make here is that the F-35 isn't the first platform to provide sensor fusion capabilities as implied by the OP."]

If you read my original post again you will see that I mention the f-22 multiple times, and we all know that the f-22 was operational a decade before the f-35, so maybe you should read a little more closely. And with respect to the the euro-canard's sensor fusion, It is designed to fuse at a much simpler level than the raptor or f-35.


Acknowledged that you mentioned the F-22 as well, but nontheless ignored the capabilities of the two ECDs. You may justify this with your thought that they fuse data on a much lower level, but what is that based upon in comparison to the F-22 in particular? Do you have any credible evidence to prove that assertion or is it just a gut feeling because the F-22 has the 5th gen tag attached to it? One has to keep in mind that the F-22 itself was developed around the same time as the two European designs, is marginally newer. Argueably T1 Typhoon's processing capabilities were definitely more limiting than are those of newer production aircraft, Rafale has however, with exception of a mere dozen Batch 1 examples been fitted with a powerful central processing unit similar in design to that of the F-22. I want to stress that I don't claim that the F-22's senor fusion capabilities aren't superior to that of the two ECDs, but I won't claim the opposite either as long as there is no credible evidence to prove this assertion especially when it comes to the Rafale.

Point being I totally agree with the fact that sensor fusion is a significant capability multiplier that clearly distinguishes newer platforms designed around this from previous generation platforms that haven't been designed with it in mind in the first place. From a US perspective the 5th vs 4th gen comparison may well apply (F-22/F-35 vs F-15/F-16/F/A-18), in comparison to the two ECDs it isn't true the way it's being touted here, however.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 18:11
by les_paul59
I will get you links scorpion if you would like to see them, to start here is a more detailed discussion from earlier last year on f-16.net

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=28397&p=309532

(Here is an excerpt)
Rafale sensor fusion : when multiple sensor tracking/detecting a targets , it only use data from sensor with the highest amount of information and ignore everything else
Typhoon sensor fusion : when multiple sensor detecting/ tracking a target , all information from all sensors that is tracking that target will be used to get more accurate track
F-35 sensor fusion : when multiple sensor detecting/ tracking a target , all information from all sensors that is tracking that target will be used to get more accurate track , also difference sensors can also communicate with each otherz to cue , rely track , when a sensor detect something , it will ask others sensors to look at that direction for more information .

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 18:48
by blindpilot
LtCol Berke [former USMC F-22 exchange pilot now F-35 ex FA-18/FAC] described the fusion offered by 5th gen platforms as “an overwhelming advancement in breadth and depth in terms of the spectrum in which it operates.” He said it’s unlikely we fully understand what that breadth and depth will allow pilots to do yet due to the vast differences to the capabilities offered by legacy platforms. ..


Interesting discussion on the evolution of systems in the 4 + gen world. But if we listen to LtCol Berke and others, they are telling us something far more profound.

This conversation continues to remind me of the argument, "But my Garmin has 50 kzillion colors, and a complete world database of maps you can download from your PC, and it uses Glonass as well as GPS, and ... and .."

I keep responding, YOU DON''T GET IT! - Siri told me to "turn left, and take 225 instead of 25," and told my granddaughter I would be a few minutes behind her, but her etickets were paid for out of my PayPal and she can use her iphone at the gate!
................AND I didn't do anything!

You don't do things like that on a flip phone, or a decades old computer. There wasn't enough bandwidth, nor relevant data.
It's "IN THE APPS!" and the apps only run on LTE 4G, 64 gigabyte memory smart phones, with cameras, and .... although, theoretically I could port it to my Windows XP desktop, with a USB 2.0 hub and lotsa wires, and lotsa add-on devices ... and ... put the XP in my trunk ...

I mean ... I don't even know if the Siri talking is on my old iPhone 5c, or my wife's new iPhone 7 plus. Siri just talked on the car's radio. ... and don't ask my wife what a Bluetooth is. She doesn't know OR CARE!

Guys listen to what Berke is saying. And no the Eurocanards can't do it.

MHO
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 19:07
by krorvik
MIght be a good idea to stop thinking too much about the tech - the difference from 4th to 5th when it comes to "fusion" is more about what goes in the pilots mind. Or rather, what doesn't have to anymore.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 19:08
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the internal link 'les_paul59' - now I see better quality graphics from 'eloise' which I had forgotten (getting old) here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=28397&p=309475&hilit=honest#p309475

THANKS 'eloise' I see there are links to nos.1 to no.3 graphics (attached again below):
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/combatsy ... 1334993866
&
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/combatsy ... 1334993866
&
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/combatsy ... 1334993866 [This last JPG edited to reveal the text on the left hand side]

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 19:57
by les_paul59
I don't think anyone on this thread is denying that the euro-canards are good airplanes, or that they have sensor fusion, but I don't believe they "fuse" to the same degree as the U.S. 5th gens.

For anyone that likes cars, It's like saying a Bugatti Veyron and Mitsubishi Evo must be able to go the same speed because their engines are both turbocharged. Except for the fact that the Veyron has a quad turbo-charged v16 and the Evo has a turbo-charged 4 cylinder engine.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 22:51
by Scorpion82
les_paul59 wrote:I don't think anyone on this thread is denying that the euro-canards are good airplanes, or that they have sensor fusion, but I don't believe they "fuse" to the same degree as the U.S. 5th gens.


It's not about good or bad here for myself. It's more about the somewhat ill perception, let alone acknowledgement of what others are capable of in this particular field. People are deluded by generation labels and conclude automatic superiority on all fronts for the sake of one platform having a 5th gen label attached to it and the other only a 4th gen label. The F-35 is certainly at the forefront of sensor fusion capability, that's nothing I dispute and obviously something that's being overlooked by the black and white thinkers. To use the rather generic "generation" labels to describe the entirety of these aircraft is misleading for the simple reason that aircraft like Rafale, Typhoon or even the Super Bug were developed around the same time as the F-22, the same certainly doesn't apply to the F-35 which is a newer platform. Those 4th gens are still in production and the completely re-designed ones like the Su-35 or F/A-18 SH as well as the newly designed ones like Rafale or Typhoon are fitted with technologies already that are possibly even newer and more advanced than some stuff found on the Raptor whose production ceased some years ago. That's a reality, albeit one that's to often overlooked.

As far as the stated "correlation of tracks" vs "internal fusion" statement is concerned you have to keep in mind that every fusion engine needs to correlate its feeds from various sources to determine whether individual sensor detections or tracks correspond to each other. Otherwise you can't de-conflict the various feeds. Tracking is the correlation of successive detections and I doubt that single detections are output as tracks to the F-22 or F-35 displays either. At best an internal track is formed pending for confirmation of at least a second detection otherwise there is a very real risk of false alarms and display clutter.

If you try to build tracks from individual sensor detections you are at risk that there is no subsequent detection or that closely spaced targets are errourneously fused. It actually takes two successive detections within a defined scan/time frame to build a track.

Another consideration must be given to the fact that not all sensors necessarily detect and track the same objects at the same time either due to the vastly different characteristics of these sensors. Whether there is a centrailized processing unit that does all raw data processing or not, track/track correlation remains a necessity and is performed by the fusion engines of the F-22 and F-35 alike.

As outlined before a couple of times I don't claim parity or superiority, as in the case of the F-35 I'm sure that it's the new benchmark in this field and for the F-22 I don't know based on what's available for the latter I find no hard convincing evidence it does, but none for the opposite either.

Btw as it was mentioned elsewhere neither sensor tasking, nor cross cueing are unknows to the fusion capabilities of Rafale or Typhoon. Scope and depth might be debatable for the very few who witnessed both sides and not just one or none.

My 2ct

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2016, 23:43
by spazsinbad
PDF about 'sensor fusion' now has extra 3 pages made from high quality 'sensor fusion' graphics above - so 80 pages

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 00:22
by blindpilot
jetblast16 wrote:Straight from the manufacturer:...

Basically, it was designed to provide thermal imaging/targeting in a low RCS manner. It is by no means unique.


Not responding to you specifically jetblast, but the "opinion" in general.

My response is - ACTUALLY it (F-22/35 fusion) is by all means unique.

For example the "manufacturer" Apple would say the iPhone has a GPS sensor that can tell you where you are, and use it to work with maps.

AND Blackberry and Microsoft, and Garmin would have said the "iPhone is by no means unique," as they had their a$$'s - (cell phone business) handed to them on a platter. As they responded to stockholder meetings, they continued to whine that the iPhone was "by no means unique," right out the door with all the profits that never happened, and didn't have to be fired because their jobs disappeared out from under them.

If you don't understand why BlackBerry crashed and burned, (41% market 2010, 1.2 % share 2015) then - you won't get it. I mean after all the iPhone was by no means unique.

MHO
BP

PS my background was designing and selling, "factory simulators" that became realtime on line AI robotics reprogrammers, on the fly during live factory production, using simple high level(we need twice as many fan belts this month) inputs. We aren't in Kansas any more and no one is impressed with "can do the same thing," BlackBerries

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 00:36
by les_paul59
Scorpion i personally like the rafale and typhoon. But the raptor has been upgraded many times since 2003 whin it hit IOC. It most likely still has the best air to air radar in the world, and has always had an insane esm suite

There is a reason that the raptor is in high demand in the mid east right now, and as we have seen in the trilateral exercise its able to be a mini awacs for the typhoon and rafale while using a bacn, its second only to the f-35 in data fusion, thats not me being a 5th gen snob. Thats what generals and pilots are saying

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/12/f-22 ... l-wargame/

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 13:20
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:I don't think anyone on this thread is denying that the euro-canards are good airplanes, or that they have sensor fusion, but I don't believe they "fuse" to the same degree as the U.S. 5th gens.


It's not about good or bad here for myself. It's more about the somewhat ill perception, let alone acknowledgement of what others are capable of in this particular field. People are deluded by generation labels and conclude automatic superiority on all fronts for the sake of one platform having a 5th gen label attached to it and the other only a 4th gen label. The F-35 is certainly at the forefront of sensor fusion capability, that's nothing I dispute and obviously something that's being overlooked by the black and white thinkers. To use the rather generic "generation" labels to describe the entirety of these aircraft is misleading for the simple reason that aircraft like Rafale, Typhoon or even the Super Bug were developed around the same time as the F-22, the same certainly doesn't apply to the F-35 which is a newer platform. Those 4th gens are still in production and the completely re-designed ones like the Su-35 or F/A-18 SH as well as the newly designed ones like Rafale or Typhoon are fitted with technologies already that are possibly even newer and more advanced than some stuff found on the Raptor whose production ceased some years ago. That's a reality, albeit one that's to often overlooked.


Could you tell what more advanced technologies any 4th gen fighter has that F-22 lacks besides IRST?

Scorpion82 wrote:As far as the stated "correlation of tracks" vs "internal fusion" statement is concerned you have to keep in mind that every fusion engine needs to correlate its feeds from various sources to determine whether individual sensor detections or tracks correspond to each other. Otherwise you can't de-conflict the various feeds. Tracking is the correlation of successive detections and I doubt that single detections are output as tracks to the F-22 or F-35 displays either. At best an internal track is formed pending for confirmation of at least a second detection otherwise there is a very real risk of false alarms and display clutter.


All sensor fusion engines give tracks as outputs but the methods to get there are different.

What 4++ gen (Rafale, EF Typhoon for example) sensor fusion does is:
1. Pilot operates and tasks the sensors how he sees fit.
2. Datalink shared tracks between fighters within seconds from commencing tracking and update interval is usually several seconds so accuracy is pretty poor for sensor fusion
3. Each sensor generate detections and correlates them to tracks inside the sensor. ID is done by individual sensors if possible.
4. Tracks from each sensor is sent to sensor fusion engine
5. Sensor fusion engine correlates tracks to single displayed track file.
6. Single track is displayed to pilot



5th gen sensor fusion works differently:
1. Sensor fusion engine tasks the sensors automatically
2. High-speed intra-flight datalinks (IFDL and MADL) share sensor data between aircraft very quickly and target data accuracy is very high and up-to-date.
2. Each sensor sends all the information they generate to sensor fusion engine after some preprocessing. Each sensor can still generate detections and tracks by themselves also if tasked by sensor fusion engine
3. Threat libraries and other such data are used by sensor fusion for example to ID targets from all the sensor data available
4. Sensor fusion engine generates detections from all the sensor data and correlates them to tracks
5. Single track is displayed to pilot

http://www.defensetech.org/2014/06/18/air-force-develops-threat-data-base-for-f-35/

“A sensor receives input. Then, the aircraft’s fusion engine takes that input and fuses it with other input from other sensors. It then takes that information and balances it against the mission data. Based on that match it can tell you what the threat is,” he explained.


So 5th gen sensor fusion is done at lower level and sensor fusion gets to handle much more information sooner and fuse it together. End result is that fused tracks show up quicker and sensors contribute to sensor fusion even if they are incapable of actually tracking the target but can detect it at least sporadically. Targets are also more likely to be accurately ID'd. It also allows much more complex fusion processes to be made like image data fusion (like fusing EOTS, EODAS and radar SAR images)

Downside is the much increased need for data transfer bandwidth within aircraft and between aircraft along with increased data processing capabilities. Also the threat libraries and sensor information need to be very good, thorough and accurate to help fusion. This is likely why F-35 threat library database development has been laborous.

Scorpion82 wrote:If you try to build tracks from individual sensor detections you are at risk that there is no subsequent detection or that closely spaced targets are errourneously fused. It actually takes two successive detections within a defined scan/time frame to build a track.


I don't see any difference to fusing tracks. There might similarly be no subsequent detection or that closely spaced targets are erraneously fused. It depends on sensor fusion algoritms to handle such problems. Actually fusing at lower level gives a lot more tools to handle them, although it's admittedly more difficult to do properly.

Scorpion82 wrote:Another consideration must be given to the fact that not all sensors necessarily detect and track the same objects at the same time either due to the vastly different characteristics of these sensors. Whether there is a centrailized processing unit that does all raw data processing or not, track/track correlation remains a necessity and is performed by the fusion engines of the F-22 and F-35 alike.


There is definitely need for data correlation but not track correlation if sensor fusion is done at lower than track level. Track correlation is by far the easier option, but data correlation allows much better performance potential.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/vistas/sench3.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a392879.pdf

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 13:42
by jetblast16
"Not responding to you specifically jetblast, but the "opinion" in general.

My response is - ACTUALLY it (F-22/35 fusion) is by all means unique. "

I get what you're saying blindpilot. Remember the F-117? It had a LO thermal imaging device (sensor) and laser
designator. Again, from the manufacturer, http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/F-35LightningIIEOTS.html...'As the first sensor to combine forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track functionality' (I will give you that). Even Lockheed acknowledges the device needs to be upgraded; 'Advanced EOTS, an evolutionary electro-optical targeting system, is available for the F-35’s Block 4 development. Designed to replace EOTS'.

Again, not terribly unique. Its design requirement is simple: provide passive sensing with targeting on a LO platform without compromising the aforesaid's LO characteristics. This was done on the F-117 previously. I suppose some of this is open to debate, but to me, as it is, it is not revolutionary or truly unique. I am not talking about 'sensor fusion' that's something entirely else; just the electro-optical device on the jet.

800px-F-117_Front_View.jpg

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 13:49
by hornetfinn
jetblast16 wrote:Even Lockheed acknowledges the device needs to be upgraded; 'Advanced EOTS, an evolutionary electro-optical targeting system, is available for the F-35’s Block 4 development. Designed to replace EOTS'.


I think they acknowledge that it can be upgraded, not that it really needs to be upgraded. There might be some podded systems just coming out with partially better specs, but how much that matters when put on a non-VLO platform? F-35 with regular EOTS targeting from 10 km away is likely much better than non-VLO platform targeting from 200 km away with some uber-targeting pod.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 14:20
by jetblast16
'F-35 with regular EOTS targeting from 10 km away is likely much better than non-VLO platform targeting from 200 km away with some uber-targeting pod'?

That makes no sense. In a hypothetical world, however unlikely, what's better? Detect something from 200 km away moving through the air or 10 km?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 14:39
by XanderCrews
I feel like this whole thing is trying to explain the F-22.

"it has thrust vectoring"

So? so does the Harrier!

"it can super cruise"

So? So did the EE lightning back in the 1950s!

"It is stealth"

So? The F-117 is too!

There is nothing unique about the F-22!!


Without a lot of context and details, people take the similarity and decide there is nothing more. This logical "short circuit" is then used as evidence that the newer aircraft is nothing special

(for you eurocanard fans, the Wright Flyer used Canards, thus CCC is by no means unique...)

blindpilot wrote:
jetblast16 wrote:Straight from the manufacturer:...

Basically, it was designed to provide thermal imaging/targeting in a low RCS manner. It is by no means unique.


Not responding to you specifically jetblast, but the "opinion" in general.

My response is - ACTUALLY it (F-22/35 fusion) is by all means unique.

For example the "manufacturer" Apple would say the iPhone has a GPS sensor that can tell you where you are, and use it to work with maps.

AND Blackberry and Microsoft, and Garmin would have said the "iPhone is by no means unique," as they had their a$$'s - (cell phone business) handed to them on a platter. As they responded to stockholder meetings, they continued to whine that the iPhone was "by no means unique," right out the door with all the profits that never happened, and didn't have to be fired because their jobs disappeared out from under them.

If you don't understand why BlackBerry crashed and burned, (41% market 2010, 1.2 % share 2015) then - you won't get it. I mean after all the iPhone was by no means unique.

MHO
BP

PS my background was designing and selling, "factory simulators" that became realtime on line AI robotics reprogrammers, on the fly during live factory production, using simple high level(we need twice as many fan belts this month) inputs. We aren't in Kansas any more and no one is impressed with "can do the same thing," BlackBerries


This^

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 16:09
by les_paul59
The unique elements of the raptor and f-35 are the great situational awareness with the lo. Jets have been lo before but they have never been lo and had great s.a. and networking capability. This combination is what changes the game.

The f-22 will eventually be a fully networked player in the f-35, f-22 5th gen. team going forward. And in the meantime there are ways to get around it's lack of relevant datalinks

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 17:18
by cantaz
Other than the EOTS, which sensor has a known/demonstrated combination of TFLIR and IRST functionalities?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 17:24
by vanshilar
blindpilot wrote:For example the "manufacturer" Apple would say the iPhone has a GPS sensor that can tell you where you are, and use it to work with maps.


OT but there's no way anybody's going to want to buy an iPhone. I've been told by the internet over and over that as soon as you go multirole, you're sunk. The iPhone is supposed to call people, surf the internet, play videos, play games, take pictures, take videos, geolocate (GPS), and run onboard programs called "apps", among other things. There's too many design compromises involved in doing all of these so it's going to do all of those roles poorly. "Jackass of all trades." You want a good GPS, you should be buying a dedicated GPS receiver. I mean videophones were tried in the 1960s and never caught on, so it's never going to work. This is 2016 why are we still trying to do something that didn't work in the 1960s. It's never going to work, everybody's going to stick with voice calls, they've worked for 100 years, they're proven technology, people are going to want something that's already been proven. iPhones are going to cost the world over a trillion dollars, they're the most expensive phone in history. The Russians and the Chinese already have phones that are much better anyway. Anybody who buys an iPhone was obviously bribed to do so, there's no other reason to get one.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 18:26
by les_paul59
lol vanshilar, it's so true about your multi-role analogy. I think the Iphone is a great comparison because it was the first smart phone to have a great easy to use interface that allowed users to access apps with efficiency.

In the future the f-35 is going to get many new abilities by simply downloading a new software upgrade or in the analogy an "app" This wasn't possible in older fighters, hence the disconnect for people. They just havn't realized what's possible with the software yet

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 19:12
by blindpilot
vanshilar wrote:
blindpilot wrote:For example the "manufacturer" Apple would say the iPhone has a GPS sensor that can tell you where you are, and use it to work with maps.


OT but there's no way anybody's going to want to buy an iPhone. I've been told by the internet over and over that as soon as you go multirole, you're sunk. ... they're the most expensive phone in history. The Russians and the Chinese already have phones that are much better anyway. Anybody who buys an iPhone was obviously bribed to do so, there's no other reason to get one.


LOL, great summary.

I'll continue to use this thread to point out some points on "paradigms," how things work.

I mentioned I designed and programmed some factory robotics "systems." I'll use this to show what a
"System" of systems is.

Previously, (and even today in many factories still) to change the production plan, you had to shut down the robots, take them off line (ie. not making any products per hour - bad thing!), then reprogram the robots. Test them offline, to make sure the little robot car didn't crash into the accounting offices (true story really happened). Then bring the system back on line, to "make twice as many fan belts this month." The programming was often complex detail level ladder logic at the device levels. Every time you wanted to change the output.

A system - of systems, does things differently. You create virtual blocks (little systems) with higher level interfaces. This might be little more than creating command sets of very complex "functions." Then you collect these systems into a "system" or paradiigm of operations. This may be something as basic as "make the car go forward." these blocks are collected into higher level function/systems such as "make the car go to Station one." The "car" for these command sets is actually virtual and is connected via "drivers" for specific devices.

When you build systems like this a whole new level of operation unfolds. You can literally reprogram/operate with such thoughts as "we need twice as many fan belts." More than this you can get high level input with requests such as "Gather ever how many buckets of rubber are over there."

These are very powerful when it comes to doing something productive. It is like driving a car, only instead of stepping on the clutch, shifting the lever, releasing the brake, and then releasing the clutch and steadily add gas pedal while steering ... etc. etc.. instead of that you tell the driverless car, "Go to grandma's house." and .... it tells you ..

"Not until you fasten your seatbelt, I won't !!!!"

Just like the iPhone, a system of systems like this creates an entirely new paradigm of engaging the issues of the system. It can even go "outside the box."

Outside the Box

This is the part the F-22 guys and Marines are trying to tell us. They don't really know yet, what is outside the box. With this new system I might tell the factory robot, go the shortest way to the fan belt machine with the rubber. It MIGHT decide that the best way is to go out the building in door one and in the building at door 5, instead of going all the way around the horseshoe hallway. When the stealth platforms created systems of world awareness, (to map the stealth effect) such as radars in the environment, threat libraries, range boundaries, and environment templates, it introduced "doors going out the building." The F-22/35 system works outside the box even when it is doing normal 4th gen type work.

All we need to understand is that the F-22/35 system of SA is outside the box, and we (the users, f-22/35 pilots, and commanders) don't even know yet what is outside that box .... but we know because we saw it happen .. it can get the car from point A to point B three times faster than going down the hall, and we haven't even determined what that means yet.

Systems of systems are radically different than collections of stove pipe capabilities.

And no, 4th ++ Gen Aircraft do not have this type of "fusion of systems." They still use the basic 4th Gen framework of operating.

FWIW,
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 19:53
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:Could you tell what more advanced technologies any 4th gen fighter has that F-22 lacks besides IRST?


You mean besides JDTIS vs MIDS, lack of HMD, a pending MODE 5 IFF capability for example?

hornetfinn wrote:All sensor fusion engines give tracks as outputs but the methods to get there are different.

What 4++ gen (Rafale, EF Typhoon for example) sensor fusion does is:
1. Pilot operates and tasks the sensors how he sees fit.
2. Datalink shared tracks between fighters within seconds from commencing tracking and update interval is usually several seconds so accuracy is pretty poor for sensor fusion
3. Each sensor generate detections and correlates them to tracks inside the sensor. ID is done by individual sensors if possible.
4. Tracks from each sensor is sent to sensor fusion engine
5. Sensor fusion engine correlates tracks to single displayed track file.
6. Single track is displayed to pilot



5th gen sensor fusion works differently:
1. Sensor fusion engine tasks the sensors automatically
2. High-speed intra-flight datalinks (IFDL and MADL) share sensor data between aircraft very quickly and target data accuracy is very high and up-to-date.
2. Each sensor sends all the information they generate to sensor fusion engine after some preprocessing. Each sensor can still generate detections and tracks by themselves also if tasked by sensor fusion engine
3. Threat libraries and other such data are used by sensor fusion for example to ID targets from all the sensor data available
4. Sensor fusion engine generates detections from all the sensor data and correlates them to tracks
5. Single track is displayed to pilot


That's 1. a mere listing that doesn't distinguish between what individual platforms are capable of and 2. not entirely accurate with regards to what the sensor fusion process looks like on the Typhoon or Rafale for example. I can't say too much about the Rafale here, though there is some evidence that it performs better in this field than Typhoon does. The DL limitations in their present form are granted, as are the limitations of the M-Scan radar onboard the aircraft, but ID fusion is done by these aircraft's fusion engine as well with the ID data being weighed according to mission data tuneable rules to produce a reliable single target type identity and allegiance. The tasking of the sensors is to some extend automated as well, but not fully automated. One also needs to detail what tasks exactly are automated, but that's apparently something which goes into the realms of classification and that's the problem with this discussion in general, generic statements and buzz words are thrown around but little apparent detail is provided to actually work out the actual differences and not the gross unspecific listing on the slides of one manufacturer's presentation.

hornetfinn wrote:I don't see any difference to fusing tracks. There might similarly be no subsequent detection or that closely spaced targets are erraneously fused. It depends on sensor fusion algoritms to handle such problems. Actually fusing at lower level gives a lot more tools to handle them, although it's admittedly more difficult to do properly.


If you have a track you have a confirmed target, ofcourse you can lose that one, but if you have a single detection you have an intermediate bearing and/or range only which is static by nature. Only through the correlation of succesive detections it is actually possible to determine a target's velocity, closure rate, heading etc., also enabling the fusion engine and/or sensor to calculate a track's likely position within the next scan frame. Arguably initiating tracks is not to difficult for an AESA radar or starring IIR array and almost instant. The building of tracks within a centralized place still requires processing to be performed on all individual sensor detections, whether that's done by distributed units or within a single unit doesn't make too much of a difference. But yes there is one particular advantage of doing it this way you may use spurious sensor detections to update existing tracks, whereas such detections would be displayed as such or surpressed altogether when the processing is done elsewhere but no correlation with existing tracks would occur. Raw detections could however also be passed to the fusion engine without further processing in theory, there is no apparent technical limitation that would prevent this within a distributed architecture. The main difference between the federated and distributed systems architecture is that in the former case the processing cards are spread across multiple LRIs, whereas in the latter case they are cramed into a single LRI. You still have the distribution of data processing among the different modules that's why for example there are 66 slots per ICP on the F-22.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 20:12
by les_paul59
Scorpion do you honestly believe that in 5 years after the raptor gets a helmet and a 5th to 5th datalink, and a mode 5 iff that this discussion will even be relevant....honestly wake me up when the uk retrofits most of their typhoons with an AESA radar. The raptor had one in 03

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 20:56
by charlielima223
my :2c: and a question

I remember when the F-22 was coming out, one of the things that was touted about the F-22 was it's integrated avionics. Pilots often praised it as making their job easier. Now the F-35 is touted with sensor fusion. Obviously the F-35 has more processing power than the Raptor and now it would seem that for the Raptor "to be relevant" (was there ever a time when it wasn't?) it now has sensor fusion.

Integrated avionics... The Super Hornet has it. Typhoon has it. Rafale has it. Su-35 has it. F-16V will have it. F-15SA has it. So it seems that to look or stay relevant sensor fusion is being tossed around to every aircraft that has any level of systems integration. Other than wording was there any difference between the Raptor's "integrated avionics" and now this "sensor fusion"?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 21:19
by les_paul59
The sensor fusion term has been thrown around a lot, you are correct charlie. Lockheed's version of sensor fusion is different from the eurocanard's by being more advanced in nature. The f-35's avionics were based off of the successful maturity of the f 22

That being said other jets have some level of sensor fusion but its widely agreed upon that the f22 and f35 have the best

The raptor has had subsequent upgrades to improve the fusion since ioc, and to answer your question: All of the 4.5 gen jets have some fusion or "integrated avionics" but each jet is unique in the quality and level of sophistication inherent in the software.

its not black and white there are varying degrees of quality in between...case in point the euro-canards

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 21:50
by Scorpion82
les_paul59 wrote:Scorpion do you honestly believe that in 5 years after the raptor gets a helmet and a 5th to 5th datalink, and a mode 5 iff that this discussion will even be relevant....honestly wake me up when the uk retrofits most of their typhoons with an AESA radar. The raptor had one in 03


The point of this discussion from my point of view is that it's not all black and white, unfortunately most people limit themself to this. It's as if one would say all Chinese are small, all Russian drink Vodka, all French are arrogant or all Americans are fat. These are stereotypes like 5th gens are superior and more advanced than anything else in every conceiveable aspect just by the virtue of being labeled 5th gen. Some people here are making fun joking about silly analogies. In comparison to the F-22 in particular the Rafale and Typhoon were both designed around the same time with only not decades appart where entirely different philosophies and technologies exists. That's being overlooked here completely and I'm convinced that any of the great analogy creators and distributors of silly one liners would be quite quick in pointing out that an advanced F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 variant is still very competitive to a Rafale or Typhoon. They would be right on that, but if they follow their own logic then it's impossible because "you can't retrofit", "they weren't designed to be capable of this or that" etc. I'm trying to create some awareness here and to motivate people to look beyond the horizon of buzz words and stuff randomly thrown around in such discussions in order to make a case, ignoring facts and avoiding common sense because it's so much easier to stick to black and white.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 23:50
by les_paul59
I agree with you scorpion, people shouldnt assume that the f-22 is superior in every way over a 4.5 gen but there ia a reason people called the raptor 5th gen in the first place

When it came out it was vastly superior than any other jet, recently the 4.5 gens have caught up by adding aesa radars and upgrading their esm suites.

I still think the fusion on 5th gens is better

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 01:52
by blindpilot
Scorpion82 wrote:... I'm convinced that any of the great analogy creators and distributors of silly one liners would be quite quick in pointing out that an advanced F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 variant is still very competitive to a Rafale or Typhoon. They would be right on that, but if they follow their own logic then it's impossible because "you can't retrofit", "they weren't designed to be capable of this or that" etc. I'm trying to create some awareness here and to motivate people to look beyond the horizon of buzz words and stuff randomly thrown around in such discussions in order to make a case, ignoring facts and avoiding common sense because it's so much easier to stick to black and white.


I appreciate your perspective on black and white versus grades of grey, but there comes a point where paradigm shifts need to have light shown brightly on the subject.

From 2006's Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska where the blue force (with 4th gen fighters working with a handful of F-22s) scored a 241-2 kill ratio, to later examples of F-22 doing ISR type coordination work over 2016 Syria, it becomes obvious that the subject is a lot more black and white than some would imagine. The game has changed, and the change is not just, or even mostly, stealth related. It is what is happening when the "integrated fused sensor network" whatever that is, is implemented at upper decision levels. It's not the integration per se, but the implementation that emerges at high level objective management.

So I return to a buzzword analogy one liner. The BlackBerry in 2011 was certainly technologically comparable to the iPhone, (gray) .... but RIM did not even know it was out of the game (black and white). Those are the facts, ignoring nothing. And the RIM folks on the unemployment line can see that clearly now, ... with their own 20/20 hindsight common sense.

Pretending a software and pod upgrade to an F-15 will be 90% effective all alone may end up becoming tragically delusional, unless it is flying wing on an F-35, where it "?""magically ""?" becomes 110% effective, with lesser upgrades. The framework has changed. When frameworks change, that is the definition of black and white. And just like what was shown in 2006, the Typhoons and Rafales can indeed be even more effective ... if they have a couple F-22/35s integrated into the blue force. I would assert these things unfolding in the F-22/F-35 are unique, and not evolutionary of things seen in other aircraft. That may be a difference of opinion. I'm sure President Obama thinks the BlackBerry is just as good/superior as an iPhone/Androids. That's an opinion too, held by 1.2% (well probably < 1.2% by now) of cell phone users.

Just saying,
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 06:56
by hornetfinn
jetblast16 wrote:'F-35 with regular EOTS targeting from 10 km away is likely much better than non-VLO platform targeting from 200 km away with some uber-targeting pod'?

That makes no sense. In a hypothetical world, however unlikely, what's better? Detect something from 200 km away moving through the air or 10 km?


Detecting something isn't targeting it. We are comparing targeting pods here and this means targeting things on ground. Targeting something 10 km away is far easier than targeting it 200 km away. First the sensor resolution and sensitivity would need to be at least 400 times higher in the latter case to have equal performance. Even if that was possible, the target would need to be on a perfectly flat ground without any obstacles (hills, mountains, trees, buildings) between it and targeting system. This would be very unlikely in real world situation 200 km away but would not be a problem 10 km away. Of course then there is the problem that no targeting system has laser or other methods to measure accurate range to target 200 km away.

Basically what I'm saying that being VLO gives F-35 possibility to go much closer to target and be much more effective than non-VLO platform even if the latter had much superior sensors. Of course EOTS is extremely good targeting pod and only some very latest podded systems have equal or possibly slightly superior performance. There is no podded system in existence or even in any designer dreams that would negate the advantages of stealth technology allowing going much closer to targets. Like every other targeting system, EOTS is going to be upgraded in the future. Right now it's very close to top when it comes to targeting systems anyway. What makes it even better is the fact that it's very tightly connected to sensor fusion engine of the jet unlike any podded system is.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 07:23
by KamenRiderBlade
I can't wait till they port the Sensor Fusion technology to other platforms.

Imagine Tanks with Sensor Fusion.

Soldiers with Sensor Fusion.
- Helmets having 360 EO/IR degree camera's fused with GPS data.

Ships with Sensor Fusion

Subs with Sensor Fusion

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 13:27
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Could you tell what more advanced technologies any 4th gen fighter has that F-22 lacks besides IRST?


You mean besides JDTIS vs MIDS, lack of HMD, a pending MODE 5 IFF capability for example?


Those have almost zero impact on sensor fusion though and all are going to be implemented in near future AFAIK. Btw, I don't get what you mean with "JDTIS vs MIDS"? F-22 currently can receive Link-16 messages which it can use in sensor fusion just like other fighters. Sending Link-16 messages would have zero impact on F-22 effectiveness although it will improve capabilities of other fighters using Link-16 only.

I agree though that there are some features in some advanced 4th gen fighters that F-22 currently lacks. However when it comes to sensors and sensor fusion, IRST is really the only thing F-22 lacks.

Scorpion82 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:All sensor fusion engines give tracks as outputs but the methods to get there are different.

What 4++ gen (Rafale, EF Typhoon for example) sensor fusion does is:
1. Pilot operates and tasks the sensors how he sees fit.
2. Datalink shared tracks between fighters within seconds from commencing tracking and update interval is usually several seconds so accuracy is pretty poor for sensor fusion
3. Each sensor generate detections and correlates them to tracks inside the sensor. ID is done by individual sensors if possible.
4. Tracks from each sensor is sent to sensor fusion engine
5. Sensor fusion engine correlates tracks to single displayed track file.
6. Single track is displayed to pilot



5th gen sensor fusion works differently:
1. Sensor fusion engine tasks the sensors automatically
2. High-speed intra-flight datalinks (IFDL and MADL) share sensor data between aircraft very quickly and target data accuracy is very high and up-to-date.
2. Each sensor sends all the information they generate to sensor fusion engine after some preprocessing. Each sensor can still generate detections and tracks by themselves also if tasked by sensor fusion engine
3. Threat libraries and other such data are used by sensor fusion for example to ID targets from all the sensor data available
4. Sensor fusion engine generates detections from all the sensor data and correlates them to tracks
5. Single track is displayed to pilot


That's 1. a mere listing that doesn't distinguish between what individual platforms are capable of and 2. not entirely accurate with regards to what the sensor fusion process looks like on the Typhoon or Rafale for example. I can't say too much about the Rafale here, though there is some evidence that it performs better in this field than Typhoon does. The DL limitations in their present form are granted, as are the limitations of the M-Scan radar onboard the aircraft, but ID fusion is done by these aircraft's fusion engine as well with the ID data being weighed according to mission data tuneable rules to produce a reliable single target type identity and allegiance. The tasking of the sensors is to some extend automated as well, but not fully automated. One also needs to detail what tasks exactly are automated, but that's apparently something which goes into the realms of classification and that's the problem with this discussion in general, generic statements and buzz words are thrown around but little apparent detail is provided to actually work out the actual differences and not the gross unspecific listing on the slides of one manufacturer's presentation.


Can you show me any documentation that supports your claims? All I've found is what I described above. Sure there might be some similarities to 5th gen sensor fusion, but there are still several factors severely restricting sensor fusion capabilties in all 4th gen fighters:

1. Connection from sensors to sensor fusion. This means databus architecture, bandwidth and latencies. Best 4th gen systems have 20 Mbps max speed databuses (STANAG 3910 type). Most F-22 and F-35 have 20 times higher speed databuses (IEEE 1394b) with growth potential to at least 8 times higher speed still. In real life the difference is larger due to many factors. That is huge difference for sensor fusion and presenting information to pilot also. You have to remember that AESA radars and modern IRST systems can generate data at very high rate.

2. Data transfer rate between fighters. Like I said earlier, the data transfer speed is likely tens if not hundreds of times faster between F-35s and F-22s than in 4th gen fighters which all have Link-16 or equal datalink. All aircraft and all their sensors in F-35 or F-22 flight contribute a lot to sensor fusion whereas it's not really so with 4th gen fighters. Basically 5th gen systems are fusing information from many different sensors geographically separated by tens of kilometers.

3. Stealth. This means ability to go closer to enemy without being detected and thus being able to gather more and more accurate information using the sensors. Even if sensors and sensor fusion were equal, this still gives huge advantage in SA.

While first two could theoretically be installed on 4th gen fighters, their architectures and avionics systems would have to be totally rebuilt. Since the systems have these limitations, it's likely the computing and signal processing systems in sensor fusion engine would need to be significantly upgraded also along with a lot of software. It's like nothing stops installing sensor fusion engine and advanced sensors to 1st gen jet fighters if you modify them enough. Theoretically doable but nobody is going to do it since it costs a lot of money.

Scorpion82 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I don't see any difference to fusing tracks. There might similarly be no subsequent detection or that closely spaced targets are erraneously fused. It depends on sensor fusion algoritms to handle such problems. Actually fusing at lower level gives a lot more tools to handle them, although it's admittedly more difficult to do properly.


If you have a track you have a confirmed target, ofcourse you can lose that one, but if you have a single detection you have an intermediate bearing and/or range only which is static by nature. Only through the correlation of succesive detections it is actually possible to determine a target's velocity, closure rate, heading etc., also enabling the fusion engine and/or sensor to calculate a track's likely position within the next scan frame. Arguably initiating tracks is not to difficult for an AESA radar or starring IIR array and almost instant. The building of tracks within a centralized place still requires processing to be performed on all individual sensor detections, whether that's done by distributed units or within a single unit doesn't make too much of a difference. But yes there is one particular advantage of doing it this way you may use spurious sensor detections to update existing tracks, whereas such detections would be displayed as such or surpressed altogether when the processing is done elsewhere but no correlation with existing tracks would occur. Raw detections could however also be passed to the fusion engine without further processing in theory, there is no apparent technical limitation that would prevent this within a distributed architecture. The main difference between the federated and distributed systems architecture is that in the former case the processing cards are spread across multiple LRIs, whereas in the latter case they are cramed into a single LRI. You still have the distribution of data processing among the different modules that's why for example there are 66 slots per ICP on the F-22.


The difference is that in 5th gen system that all the data from all the sensors is handled in one system whereas in 4th gen systems the individual sensor handle their own data and then handle only the data they consider important (their own tracks or possibly detections) to sensor fusion engine. The sensor fusion in 4th gen systems is unaware to how the sensors decided what signals are important and what not. 4th gen systems don't have data transfer and likely also computing capacity to do it otherwise.

One significant advantage of 5th gen sensor fusion systems is that in the event of one sensor detecting something, but still not strong enough to create a track or even good detection, the sensor fusion can use other sensors to try to find out if that was actually something important.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 13:56
by hornetfinn
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can't wait till they port the Sensor Fusion technology to other platforms.

Ships with Sensor Fusion


Ships are one of the first platforms where sensor fusion has been implemented. They have all the sensors and are easy to install computing systems as weight and volume is not much of a problem compared to fighter aircraft.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 14:27
by bigjku
I question the basic assumption that it is even relevant if some aircraft is 80% as effective as what it is up against when it comes to sensors and stealth. If we put both up against a 4th generation opponent that is great I suppose. But if they are up against an F-22 or F-35 or Pak-fa (assuming it has a lower RCS than existing aircraft which seems slightly questionable) then what good does that performance do you? The Eurofighter or Su-35 is still going to be shot down in appealing numbers before they even know what is around. In the vast majority of scenarios those with 5th generation aircraft can collect their disproportionate kills go home and come back and do it again until the other side is dead or so terrified of flying they won't go up anymore.

Look at the history of near peer air combat. Small technical advantages have led to huge kill disparities until corrected. The main difference being you can't as easily make up the difference now as you could in WWI or WWII. But you can see periods where one side enjoyed a technological edge and would obtain a massive kill ratio in its favor. The results of the exercise pitting the F-22 against other aircraft aren't a mistake. The F-35 wil do nearly as well. They will see first, dictate terms of engagement and fire first almost every time. And history tells us those are the most highly correlate things to winning in the air.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 14:35
by flighthawk128
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can't wait till they port the Sensor Fusion technology to other platforms.

Imagine Tanks with Sensor Fusion.

Soldiers with Sensor Fusion.
- Helmets having 360 EO/IR degree camera's fused with GPS data.

Ships with Sensor Fusion

Subs with Sensor Fusion


As Hornetfinn said, ships already have sensor fusion. That's how they network the battlespace within a carrier group; I believe you can link the fire control radars together if necessary as well. Some ground vehicles also already have sensor fusion; it's called IVIS. It's in Abrams and Bradleys, and networks information throughout all other IVIS equipped vehicles.

Soldiers and subs will be more difficult. Soldiers will have to be able to see the data in real time, while also remaining vigilant to their surroundings; quite a difficult design challenge. Subs can't even communicate via normal means without nearing the surface, so there's physically a communication barrier that must be overcome first; also quite a daunting design challenge. I'm sure they've looked at possible solutions to these, but decided they weren't feasible (Future Solder program for the grunts; I don't have any data regarding the subs although I'm sure they've tried). Maybe when tech advances a little more, we may be able to accomplish these.

Now... I'm more curious as to linking ground vehicles' IVIS with the ships' sensors with the planes' sensors. THAT is a challenge to do, but will grant command (and individual elements) almost a complete holistic view of the battlefield. Pretty cool stuff, and it's starting to advance to a hyperwar stage where all the friendlies know where each other are, and have a fairly good/clear picture of the opposition. As it shows time and time again, good accurate information is the key. All the better to smash them with! :mrgreen:

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 21:50
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:Those have almost zero impact on sensor fusion though and all are going to be implemented in near future AFAIK. Btw, I don't get what you mean with "JDTIS vs MIDS"? F-22 currently can receive Link-16 messages which it can use in sensor fusion just like other fighters. Sending Link-16 messages would have zero impact on F-22 effectiveness although it will improve capabilities of other fighters using Link-16 only.


I was talking about technologies employed here in general based on my previous statement which you queried. But as we are at it, IFF is very relevant for sensor fusion! A friendly IFF response not only tells you friend or unknown, it can also tell you a lot more things such as altitude, more detailed ID data etc. very valuable in and contributive to maintain awareness of friendlies and to avoid fracticides. It is theoretically even possible that in case of sector interrogations you may detect objects that are not yet detected and tracked by your onboard sensors. Transponder detections could be correlated with other sensor tracks to help obtaining ID data without interrogating platforms, so it's very relevant for the sensor fusion process and MODE 5 offers quite some interesting new capabilities that are not present on MODEs 1 to 4.

As far as the JTIDS onboard the F-22 is concerned it would be interesting to know to what extend it has been updated to cope with the steadily growing data sharing capabilities of MIDS in general. It's true that "sending" JTIDS messages would have no apparent impact on the F-22's own capabilities, but it also contradicts what people here generally attribute to 5th generation fighters, the "data distributors and gatherers". Right now the F-22 can benefit from LINK16 networks and from data sharing between F-22s via IFDL (btw is it known how many F-22s can be linked up through IFDL at once?), but itself can't share anything with the rest of a fighting force, unless you have some relaying platforms such as BACN which I consider as an "okay workaround" but not as an optimal solution, especially in contested environments, Raptors can only share data among each other. This may well change in the future, but it remains to be a limitation for the time being. That's also a reason why I personally prefer to discuss more specific examples instead of generalising it to 5th gen or whatever. The F-35 is in this department a very different beast. Btw, albeit I have outlined it before the F-22 only fuses LINK16 feeds since Inc. 3.2A, or in other words "the all fusing" super fighter didn't fuse the feeds from anyone other than his own breed for about a decade!

As far as the HMD is concerned, yes it's not a sensor itself, though it can be used to cue sensor and weapon seekers or to designate targets in head up conditions or to generate a rapid waypoint or point of interest shared via DL at a glance into the outside world. Displaying tracks/targets inline with the HMDs FoV additionally enhances the pilots SA and enables him to keep his head up more often and for longer periods.

hornetfinn wrote:Can you show me any documentation that supports your claims? All I've found is what I described above. Sure there might be some similarities to 5th gen sensor fusion, but there are still several factors severely restricting sensor fusion capabilties in all 4th gen fighters:

1. Connection from sensors to sensor fusion. This means databus architecture, bandwidth and latencies. Best 4th gen systems have 20 Mbps max speed databuses (STANAG 3910 type). Most F-22 and F-35 have 20 times higher speed databuses (IEEE 1394b) with growth potential to at least 8 times higher speed still. In real life the difference is larger due to many factors. That is huge difference for sensor fusion and presenting information to pilot also. You have to remember that AESA radars and modern IRST systems can generate data at very high rate.


For the Typhoon, which is the aircraft I'm best informed about, there are some direct highspeed connections between specific LRIs beyond the STANAG3838 & 3910 busses utilized by the 7 sub-systems. T3 aircraft are designed with a high speed data network specifically to cope with the growing demands of data transfer capabilities and with hindsight of future, more capable sensors incl. Captor-E, but also others. There are also provisions for a GPMC, whereas the existing processing systems have been upgraded a couple of times already.

2. Data transfer rate between fighters. Like I said earlier, the data transfer speed is likely tens if not hundreds of times faster between F-35s and F-22s than in 4th gen fighters which all have Link-16 or equal datalink. All aircraft and all their sensors in F-35 or F-22 flight contribute a lot to sensor fusion whereas it's not really so with 4th gen fighters. Basically 5th gen systems are fusing information from many different sensors geographically separated by tens of kilometers.


LINK16 DLs have seen a couple of upgrades themselves incl. the ability to share data a high rates, with update rates being boostable for specific tasks to be accomplished. How that actually compares to the performance of IFDL or MADL escapes me, though I believe that at least MADL and possibly IFDL as well maintain a sizeable advantage here. Apparently the USAF has at leased raised the idea to integrate MADL on 4th gens as well, whether that's just a fictional consideration or something that has been accessed as part of a feasibility or risk mitigation study already is unknown to me, however.

3. Stealth. This means ability to go closer to enemy without being detected and thus being able to gather more and more accurate information using the sensors. Even if sensors and sensor fusion were equal, this still gives huge advantage in SA.


This is indeed a very real advantage and the reason why I consider VLO in combination with fighter performance as the real discriminator of 5th gens in comparison to 4th gens. That's definitely a capability that you are not going to retrofit.

While first two could theoretically be installed on 4th gen fighters, their architectures and avionics systems would have to be totally rebuilt. Since the systems have these limitations, it's likely the computing and signal processing systems in sensor fusion engine would need to be significantly upgraded also along with a lot of software. It's like nothing stops installing sensor fusion engine and advanced sensors to 1st gen jet fighters if you modify them enough. Theoretically doable but nobody is going to do it since it costs a lot of money.


That analogy is far exaggerated and I hope it's only presented that way for illustrative purposes, because it's not doable to fit a 1st gen aircraft with such technologies, not even theoretically. For advanced 4th gens still in production it's still a very real prospect of achieving this. Many of the technologies employed on these aircraft are quite competitive and I'm not talking about individual systems that are missing on this or that platform, but systems similar in function, i.e. navigation sensors and systems, radios, recording equipment, armament control systems, but also sensors. Certain technologies developed for the F-22 for example have been leveraged to design systems for other aircraft, the AN/APG-80 for example though it's probably no the best one.

The difference is that in 5th gen system that all the data from all the sensors is handled in one system whereas in 4th gen systems the individual sensor handle their own data and then handle only the data they consider important (their own tracks or possibly detections) to sensor fusion engine. The sensor fusion in 4th gen systems is unaware to how the sensors decided what signals are important and what not. 4th gen systems don't have data transfer and likely also computing capacity to do it otherwise.


Within one LRI, but not necessarily within one processing module, that's why there are 66 processing cards within the CIP! The ICP is in comparison significantly more performant with fewer modules to begin with. Some dedicated processing modules are required as certain types of data need certain types of processing and there is subsequently still the need to process data from different sources on different boards, which is like processing data in different LRIs which are fully interconnected. There are two key advantages for the modular processing unit however, first the boards pass data internally and not through data busses interconnecting different LRIs (particularly useful when the interconnecting busses are limited in performance) and you can emulate the software on identical boards providing some more redundancy. Other advantages of such a configuration, but unrelated to the avionics capabiliities itself are lower weight, volume, cooling and power consumption weighing 1 or 2 such LRIs against potentially many. The "many" is relative however as all modern 4th gens meanwhile process an increasing amount of data in fewer processing LRIs which could be described as some kind of cut down CIP/ICP. In some cases such as the Rafale the aircraft in fact features a very similar architecture to the ICP/CIP with its MDPU. There is a presentation available here: http://www.docdatabase.net/more-dassault-aviation-feedbacks-on-its-military-and-civil-ima-applications-273187.html

One significant advantage of 5th gen sensor fusion systems is that in the event of one sensor detecting something, but still not strong enough to create a track or even good detection, the sensor fusion can use other sensors to try to find out if that was actually something important.


There is no real practical limitation why that shouldn't work on 4th gens either, though I doubt that any of them does this at this point. However, there are two fold limitations to this philosophy, first stong enough single detection to track isn't going to work as tracking is a continues process as I have explained before already. Secondly there are limitations wrt to cueing/looking after something. The only two sensors capable to actually look for something onboard the F-35 are the radar and the EOTS. The DAS "sees" or not, ESM receives or not neither can be cued, but both can cue the radar or EOTS. In case of the F-22 only the AN/APG-77 could look after, but one would assume that it can't be in the interest of a VLO platform to ping at any conceivable position where something has been noticed briefly as this would compromise LO. In some situations it might surely make sense, though but there are both limitations and trade offs to accept when doing so.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 07:10
by cantaz
Maybe BP can chime in on this, but aren't all databus in use on 4th gen variations of 1553? Meaning architecturally limited to half-duplex, command/response? Doesn't matter if the implementation is copper or fiber. That should by definition differentiate how each gen does fusion, given that beside the massive difference in speed between even the fastest 1553 implementation vs the slowest 1394, the way data can be routed within each bus type is quite different.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 12:06
by hornetfinn
cantaz wrote:Maybe BP can chime in on this, but aren't all databus in use on 4th gen variations of 1553? Meaning architecturally limited to half-duplex, command/response? Doesn't matter if the implementation is copper or fiber. That should by definition differentiate how each gen does fusion, given that beside the massive difference in speed between even the fastest 1553 implementation vs the slowest 1394, the way data can be routed within each bus type is quite different.


Yes they do. Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Super Hornet have STANAG 3910 type fast (20 Mbps) databus channel which is basically faster 1553 databus. It's definitely possible to improve the speed of these systems with many types of upgrades but there are still serious limits to what could be done with these types of databuses. They are great for many applications where speed and low latency is not really required. IEEE 1394b type databuses are much better where high speed and low latency is required due to their higher speed (400 Mbps standard to 6400 Mbps currently possible) and asynchronous transmissions (lower latency and responsiveness). They also offer the advantage of lower weight and volume requirements which means more channels can be easily installed. For example AFAIK, F-35 has far more databus channels than any other fighter aircraft which leads to massive advantage in terms of data transfer capabilities. I don't know of any 4th gen system that has anywhere even remotely similar capabilties even planned.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 15:16
by jetblast16
'...the F-22 only the AN/APG-77 could look after, but one would assume that it can't be in the interest of a VLO platform to ping at any conceivable position where something has been noticed briefly as this would compromise LO...'

Not necessarily. That is where LPI(R) comes into play. Passive detection (photon catching) is best in certain situations, but it has its limitations (range, atmospherics, etc)

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 16:58
by blindpilot
cantaz wrote:Maybe BP can chime in on this, but aren't all databus in use on 4th gen variations of 1553? Meaning architecturally limited to half-duplex, command/response? Doesn't matter if the implementation is copper or fiber. That should by definition differentiate how each gen does fusion, given that beside the massive difference in speed between even the fastest 1553 implementation vs the slowest 1394, the way data can be routed within each bus type is quite different.


Hornetfinn's answer is sufficient and I am not going here to various technical points. First we'd eventually just get to eyes glazing over. Let's let garrya collect that info.

Secondly, the purpose of my input here, is understanding how things change at the application level when the system structure makes a paradigm shift created by new technologies. The best way to look at that, from a reasonably informed lay perspective follows.

I can collect information from several sources and filter, process, that info to a specified output for use. This is several pipes preprocessed and results coming into a central location(ex: display), all programmed to provide a predetermined output. But if you are familiar with metadata, things work differently. As large throughput channels and storage technologies grow, we can bypass the "hardcoding," to a purpose. That "hardcoding" is typical of the evolved 4th Gen fusion systems.

Rather, if we get to a point where the speed/size of the technology can "grab it all" and "hold it all," things change. I can just throw all the data into a big pot with some form of metatagging. Think Google, or NSA phone searches.

At this point the "Apps" can be built to reach into the information sources and construct new "metadata" responses that are not even collected or stored anywhere. Siri does not store a table of "If I 25 has traffic, take an alternate route from this table of choices." It looks at the metadata, position/speed of all the cell phones on the highway, and calculates real time "what if" responses. The reply, "turn left" may not even be in a look up of phrases. Siri will construct the grammar on the fly --- we need to go that way = "turn", that way = "right," conversation party = "BP" -- grammar engine yields > "BP turn right." There is no lookup phrase "BP turn right" in the working data engine.

The main point of this 5th gen evolution is not that this metadata approach is better or faster than a hardcoded "track generator" from installed inputs. It is that the approach allows queries and responses, frameworks and decision matrices, that aren't programmed at all in the classic sense.

"Siri, if it looks like I'm going to be late, please buy me a ticket for the movie and save the ticket on the phone that I can use when I get there." A 4th gen written program that "checks time of arrival and buys ticket" is not the same thing, although it appears to provide the same response. (maybe even quicker) The advantage of the 5th gen fusion models is that

- We don't know yet what all we can do with this system, -

but we are seeing that the possibilities are nearly limitless. If I can think it, it can do it. In general brute force 4th gen improvements do not do this, even if their responses seem faster or better to a specific task here or there. That's not the point. The point is that some 23 year kid pilot, is going to strap in and wave his hands, and create a whole new operating environment, that his instructor didn't even know existed. And with that, change the battlespace.

That is why the F-22 experience puts US (and cross assigned) users over a decade ahead of someone (Chinese/Euro types) trying to build a copy "just like the F=22."

FWIW,
BP

PS Its not just this working with metadata approach. 5th gen differences include more paradigm changing features. (Think clouds and megadata collecting, totally different competing cell technologies talking on the same virtual "phone network," lego style display changing, etc etc.)

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 18:15
by jetblast16
Here's a digestible link over at GlobalSecurity about the F-22's (Raptor's) avionics.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm

An interesting excerpt:

Integrated avionics means different things to different people.

To the pilot, it means all the information is coordinated and available from a single source.
To the software engineer, it means access to shared data about the situation, the mission, and the aircraft systems.
To the hardware designer, it means common modules in a single backplane with the connectivity and bandwidth to support the required processing.


To me, you can put all the sensor fusion and networking you want on non-(V)LO craft, but if you can't hide and don't have sufficient weapons to employ, then your advantage is marginal (debatable of course). However, if you have sensor fusion with advanced (high-speed / secure) networking AND you are stealthy; there is a paradigm shift in capability. You now have a 'multiplier' effect, whereby mass surveillance of the battle space can be done fairly clandestinely.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2016, 14:48
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:
One significant advantage of 5th gen sensor fusion systems is that in the event of one sensor detecting something, but still not strong enough to create a track or even good detection, the sensor fusion can use other sensors to try to find out if that was actually something important.


There is no real practical limitation why that shouldn't work on 4th gens either, though I doubt that any of them does this at this point. However, there are two fold limitations to this philosophy, first stong enough single detection to track isn't going to work as tracking is a continues process as I have explained before already. Secondly there are limitations wrt to cueing/looking after something. The only two sensors capable to actually look for something onboard the F-35 are the radar and the EOTS. The DAS "sees" or not, ESM receives or not neither can be cued, but both can cue the radar or EOTS. In case of the F-22 only the AN/APG-77 could look after, but one would assume that it can't be in the interest of a VLO platform to ping at any conceivable position where something has been noticed briefly as this would compromise LO. In some situations it might surely make sense, though but there are both limitations and trade offs to accept when doing so.


Tracking is continous process but that doesn't mean every update has to come from same sensor or even same type of sensor and that every update has to be full update and every sensor has to be able to get detections continously. Even tracking does not necessarily have to be totally continous and modern sensors can miss detections and still continue tracking successfully without dropping tracks.

And yes, even EODAS can be cued as can ESM systems. Signal to noise threshold can be altered by software in modern digital systems and it can be done even within small area within the whole sensor field of view. For example let's say Barracuda hears something interesting behind and above the F-35 but can not tell exactly what. Sensor fusion engine then cues EODAS by lowering signal to noise threshold of part of images coming only from angle where Barracuda received interesting signals. Lowering the S/N threshold everywhere would result in large amount of false targets and other similar problems. S/N threshold is usually pretty high because of this. However doing so in very limited part would not do so and would improve target detection probability if there is target to detect. Sensor fusion could also cue EOTS to do the same and also control FOV (magnification) to maximum performance in finding a possible target. Similarly other sensors can cue Barracuda in concentrating on some part of electromagnetic spectrum. For example if other sensors tell that target is fighter, Barracuda can concentrate on X-band emissions for the most part. Of course with F-35 and F-22 it does not have to be same jet, but several jets can be part of the sensor fusion process. I agree that currently there are many limitations in sensor fusion with F-35 as things get complex when more sensors and participants are added to equation.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2016, 19:48
by Scorpion82
Is that image processing optimization, let alone electronic zoom capability or selective listening by the ESM even a confirmed and actually implemented capability? There is a lot of talk about capabilities, but I sometimes can't get rid of the feeling that people consider the potential and talk about imaginary capabilities as if they were for real.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2016, 22:28
by les_paul59
Scorpion this jet just hit ioc last year and it's revolutionary out of the box, in 20 years the f-35 will have capabilities that we havn't even thought of yet because of the open avionics architecture and it's ability to integrate new software

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2016, 17:39
by Scorpion82
@les_paul

that's all well and fine, but some realism should be applied and the differentation between what's in now, what's planned for the future and what could possibly be feasibile even further down the road, should be made. Otherwise we're discussing a mix of current, future and what if capabilities.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2016, 13:30
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:Is that image processing optimization, let alone electronic zoom capability or selective listening by the ESM even a confirmed and actually implemented capability? There is a lot of talk about capabilities, but I sometimes can't get rid of the feeling that people consider the potential and talk about imaginary capabilities as if they were for real.


I'm sure many of the potential features have not been implemented and currently implemented features are likely not nearly perfect. I'm also sure that we will not hear much details about all the capabilties these systems have as they are the core of combat effectiveness. What is certain is that 5th gen systems have far more potential and room for growth than any known 4th gen system. I also don't doubt that sensor fusion in advanced 4th gen systems (like Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon) gives them serious advantages compared to earlier 4th gen systems.

Currently F-35 sensor fusion alone is about half a million lines of code, so I'm sure there are a lot of features already implemented. I'm also sure the amount of code will grow a lot during the lifetime of F-35.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/072015-f35-supercomputer.html

Highly sophisticated software enables the game-changing capabilities of the F-35, operating its navigation, communications and targeting systems. Each jet will have more than 8 million lines of code—more than any other U.S. or allied jet in history.

On board each F-35, nearly half a million lines of code are dedicated to capturing, analyzing and combining stunning amounts of information into an integrated picture for F-35 pilots. The F-35’s supercomputing brain even tracks maintenance needs and trends for the global fleet, thanks to the Autonomic Logistics Information System, better known as ALIS.


Btw, there is a lot of interest in image sensor fusion:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431292/

Interesting read about detecting point targets with omnidirectional IR cameras (like EODAS):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4168490/

Very interesting patent from Lockheed Martin about data and sensor fusion:
https://www.google.ch/patents/US7283938

This patent sound an awful lot like F-35. From the patent:

Thus, in a very general aspect of the invention, a plurality of sensors observe an object, the sensor characteristics are fused to generate fused or combined sensor characteristics, and the raw sensor data is processed to produce evidence signals representative of characteristics which may be used to classify the object as to type. Thus, the fused sensor characteristics are equivalent to the characteristics of a single virtual sensor. The evidence and fused sensor characteristics are applied to a taxonomic classifier to determine the object type. Put another way, a virtual sensor according to an aspect of the invention incorporates fused sensor characteristics from plural sensors, together with a taxonomic classifier operating on (a) the unfused individual sensor evidence or information, (b) the individual sensor taxonomic classifications, and (c) the fused sensor characteristics, and classifies the target or object. While only three sensors have been illustrated in the arrangement of FIG. 4, any number of sensors may be included.

More particularly, a method according to an aspect of the invention is for fusing information from plural sources (312 1, 312 2, and 312 3). The method comprises the step of observing an object with at least first (312 1) and second (312 2) sensors, each of which (a) evaluates evidence or information and (b) based on the evidence, assigns a taxonomic classification to its observation of the object. The method further comprises the step of fusing the sensor characteristics (block 426) from the first and second sensors to produce compound sensor characteristics. The fusion of sensor characteristics may occur at any time prior to the combination of evidence and fused sensor characteristics. A classification is assigned (block 414) based on the evidence and compound sensor characteristics. In a particular embodiment of the invention, the classification based on compound evidence is taxonomic or type classification.

Fusion may be performed using any of a number of known methods including Bayes, Dempster-Shafer, evidence fusion, and other methods. An exemplary case is Bayes fusion resulting in probabilities P(a|E1,E2) that a given object type a, and P(b|E1,E2) that a given object type b, was observed when evidence E1 results from the observation by sensor 1, and evidence E2 results from the observation of the same object by sensor 2. No fusion of evidence from the actual observation is necessary, although additional fusion and other processing is not excluded.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2016, 14:41
by hornetfinn
Dug some more patents from Lockheed Martin or their personnel to learn more about how F-35 sensor fusion works. Here are some:

Method and system for multi-sensor data fusion using a modified dempster-shafer theory:
http://www.google.com.gh/patents/US6944566

Method and system for data fusion using spatial and temporal diversity between sensors:
http://www.google.com.gh/patents/US6909997

Target detection improvements using temporal integrations and spatial fusion
http://www.google.com.gh/patents/US7742620

Bernoulli taxonomic discrimination method:
https://www.google.si/patents/US7499833

Determination of the presence of closely spaced targets
https://www.google.si/patents/US7221307

Of course these are not said to be about F-35 sensor fusion, but the descriptions fit it extremely well as do dates of these patents. I'd be really surprised if they'd be about anything else besides F-35 sensor fusion.

Some interesting points can be found. What I gather is:

Sensor fusion described in these patents s concentrating a lot towards detecting difficult targets in difficult situations and then ID'ing them with high accuracy and reliability. We are talking about doubling the detection range with sensor fusion system vs. using sensors by themselves (like 4th gen systems do) in demanding situations. Of course the sensors themselves in F-35 are really good, which means the difference is likely even larger.

This sensor fusion system uses all the sensors basically like one virtual sensor with many kinds of ways of detecting and ID'ing targets. It's not about combining tracks to single track file but rather actually creating detections and tracks from scratch using all the signals coming from all the sensors.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2016, 12:13
by hornetfinn
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can't wait till they port the Sensor Fusion technology to other platforms.

Subs with Sensor Fusion


Subs are definitely potential candidate for sensor and data fusion technologies. There is this for example this project:
http://www.navysbir.com/n15_1/N151-035.htm

Basically you could do sensor and data fusion using all the sensors, databases and other such systems all around the submarine. One could probably use for example acoustic noise sensors around the submarine and fuse their information with sonar array information to lower the effect of noise generated by the submarine itself.

Of course even one sensor can be used with sensor and data fusion. For example it's possible to generate significantly sharper pictures with a camera when you take several pictures from same object and fuse the pictures together. Similar techniques can probably be used in sonar systems to improve their performance although here the problem is low resolution of the main sensors. Of course most submarines have several sonar arrays (fixed and towed) which are distict sensors themselves and can be used as such for sensor fusion. We could also add the torpedoes to sensor fusion in the case of wire guided torpedoes. A torpedo closing in to enemy ship or submarine might get pretty good sonar image from the target which migth be very useful especially if the torpedo didn't kill the target (missed or didn't detonate for example).

I see sensor and data fusion being the next very big thing. We have a large amounts of sensors and data available but getting most out of them we need better and better automated fusion systems. For example self driving cars need very good sensor fusion to really work in real world.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2016, 15:35
by KamenRiderBlade
hornetfinn wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can't wait till they port the Sensor Fusion technology to other platforms.

Subs with Sensor Fusion


Subs are definitely potential candidate for sensor and data fusion technologies. There is this for example this project:
http://www.navysbir.com/n15_1/N151-035.htm

Basically you could do sensor and data fusion using all the sensors, databases and other such systems all around the submarine. One could probably use for example acoustic noise sensors around the submarine and fuse their information with sonar array information to lower the effect of noise generated by the submarine itself.

Of course even one sensor can be used with sensor and data fusion. For example it's possible to generate significantly sharper pictures with a camera when you take several pictures from same object and fuse the pictures together. Similar techniques can probably be used in sonar systems to improve their performance although here the problem is low resolution of the main sensors. Of course most submarines have several sonar arrays (fixed and towed) which are distict sensors themselves and can be used as such for sensor fusion. We could also add the torpedoes to sensor fusion in the case of wire guided torpedoes. A torpedo closing in to enemy ship or submarine might get pretty good sonar image from the target which migth be very useful especially if the torpedo didn't kill the target (missed or didn't detonate for example).

I see sensor and data fusion being the next very big thing. We have a large amounts of sensors and data available but getting most out of them we need better and better automated fusion systems. For example self driving cars need very good sensor fusion to really work in real world.


The brit's latest Sonar system is effectively DAS but with Hydrophones, lots of little Hydrophones surrounding the sub.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2016, 17:17
by flighthawk128
Huh....

Is... is this one of us? It's much too reasonable for a random basement dweller...

http://dsmboarder.kinja.com/why-the-f-3 ... 1769973618

I ran into this article while going through http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/ for the photos :mrgreen:

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 04:33
by XanderCrews
flighthawk128 wrote:Huh....

Is... is this one of us? It's much too reasonable for a random basement dweller...

http://dsmboarder.kinja.com/why-the-f-3 ... 1769973618

I ran into this article while going through http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/ for the photos :mrgreen:


Cool!

Christ on a cracker again with this A-10 stuff in the comments? Jesus.why?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 09:15
by hornetfinn
flighthawk128 wrote:Huh....

Is... is this one of us? It's much too reasonable for a random basement dweller...

http://dsmboarder.kinja.com/why-the-f-3 ... 1769973618

I ran into this article while going through http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/ for the photos :mrgreen:


Pretty rare to see such a good article about current 5th gen fighters and the potential they offer. I have to object this part though:

This isn’t because the F-35 blows you away in the traditional fighter jet metrics that we often compare different 4th generation fighter jets with (it doesn’t). Its because the F-35 will fundamentally alter which metrics are truly important. Range, speed, maneuverability etc. are still highly important, but they have been usurped by sensor fusion and its close, but arguably more important cousin data fusion.


Almost all 4th gen fighters offer equal traditional fighter jet metrics range, speed and maneuverability only when you compare one or two of them at the same time when those 4th gen fighters are not carrying weapons. F-35 seems to have pretty unique range, speed and maneuverability (all at the same time) especially in air-to-ground combat configuration. Even in air-to-air combat configuration, I think only the much larger and heavier Su-35S might equal it and all else have to carry several EFTs which they have to drop to have equal speed and maneuverability. That blows me away especially considering the other capabilities.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2016, 00:00
by les_paul59
that link above was a pretty reasonable analysis of 5th gen. fighters....wish more people viewed the f-35 in the same light.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2016, 02:15
by KamenRiderBlade
les_paul59 wrote:that link above was a pretty reasonable analysis of 5th gen. fighters....wish more people viewed the f-35 in the same light.

I wished more people could get away from their confirmation bias and use pure logic without bias.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 13:38
by spazsinbad
A Qualitative Advantage [BEST READ it all at source]
30 Aug 2016 Lt. Col. David Berke

"...If you’re trying to measure the capability of a 4th generation aircraft to the F-35, it’s like measuring the capability of a wall phone versus a smartphone. If I held up an iPhone and started asking questions about the phone, you’d want me to ask about how good is the screen, and how fast is the processor? I wouldn’t ask you how easy is it to dial numbers or how clear is the sound quality. It’s not to say you don’t care about it, but if somebody is holding an iPhone, he’s going to be really shocked if you ask a bunch of questions about the phone quality, especially because if all you want to know is how quickly you can dial, or how crisp the sound quality is, then the iPhone is going to lose out to your wall phone by every measure of how to historically measure a phone.

The problem with the F-35 is how you used to measure an airplane is no longer relevant to how you measure this platform, because this platform is doing missions well beyond the missions that a fourth generation airplane was asked to do....

...For someone who is pretty familiar with the role and the impact of tactical aviation in a joint warfight – and I’ve been in combat in the F-18 numerous times – I’m very comfortable saying that the F-35 is a much more capable aircraft in terms of missions. It gives us a qualitative advantage, but more importantly, it has, inherent in its existence, an ability to adapt to missions we’re not even familiar with right now. It’s going to create an ecosystem, and it’s going to facilitate a whole host of other contributors to a network of warfighting information without which we would be at a huge disadvantage.

A lot of people either underestimate or misunderstand the actual capabilities of the F-35. It’s almost impossible to overstate how significant the emergence of this airplane is for the Marine Corps and the joint war force in general. Then you start to incorporate concepts like the F-35B and how expeditionary it is, and where it can operate. It can contribute to joint force missions and provide combatant commanders with a specialized aircraft that offers a persistent capability that may not represent 100 percent of what they need, but it’s available to them all the time....

...I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted.

The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it."

Source: https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/ ... ntage-1091

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 16:09
by maus92
Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 16:16
by spazsinbad
Oooh - sad faces all round eh. How's it goin' on pPrune? Are Hornets in vogue there? BERKE knows the Hornet/F-16/F-22.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 16:33
by bigjku
maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.


A question on collateral damage line of thought. Given the procurement holiday the US basically took on fighters in the late 90's and 2000's are we in agreement that unless you want to change the mission assignments and force structures that all the services need a lot of fighters simply to replace what is warring out? Presuming we are all in agreement that lots of equipment needs to be purchased then it's really a question of what do we buy isn't it?

The way I see it you basically had three options.

1. The F-35 approach with one development program that basically puts in place a baseline capability for all fighter forces across the services.

2. Some mix of new, evolved and legacy equipment that we can all hope is cheaper and still effective.

3. New equipment for all three services.

The problem with 2 and 3 is I am not sure how it works out any cheaper. Option 2 might well do it if you can hold to a single new development in the process but I am not sure it saves you that much. Eurofighter wasn't cheap to develop. The PAK-FA seems to be stuck in never ending development hell too.

Yes we could do things more cheaply if we went with warmed over F-16 and F-18's. No one disputes that. What exactly are you suggesting we do differently?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 16:51
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.


Unlike some Navy/Boeing spin artists, Chip Berke flew F-18C, deployed aboard STENNIS, was an instructor at TOPGUN, flew F-16Cs on exchange with the USAF, flew F-22s on exchange with the USAF, and was the CO of the first USMC F-35 squadron -- VMFAT-501. He understands exactly what a Block II SH does or doesn't do.

Try again.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 17:04
by blindpilot
maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics ...


I'll bet he has more hours in 4th/5th Gen aircraft (other than f-18old) than you have on your tricycles as a youth.

Now tell me how many "knowledgeable" hours you have in any aircraft beyond airline passenger seats, and combat hours, and we'll talk about what your post "sound's like a man who ... tbd"

MHO

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 17:20
by mk82
maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.


Sour grapes much?

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 18:16
by les_paul59
The block 2 super hornet has some great new features that the legacy hornet didn't have, AESA radar, better ew, but to be fair the f-35 is another league compared to any jet when it comes to sensors and avionics.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Sep 2016, 23:15
by popcorn
maus92 wrote:Spoken like a man who mainly flew the F/A-18A+ dinosaur (and not a Block II Super Hornet)....

His argument is most a Red Herring. The problem knowledgeable critics have with the F-35 is not with it's avionics and the new capabilities and higher level of systems integration they (will eventually) bring, it's with the overall management and expense of the program, and the collateral damage it's acquisition inflicts across the many other programs the Marines and the department must fund. It is as simple as that.



More sage wisdom from the horse...

The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it
Lt.Col. Chip Burke

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2016, 19:52
by spazsinbad
Carlisle: F-35A is fusion warfare key component
21 Sep 2016 Tech. Sgt. Natalie Stanley, Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. (AFNS) -- During a panel session at the Air Force Association Air, Space and Cyber Conference here Sept. 20, F-35A Lightning II senior leadership discussed the future of the multi-role aircraft.

Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the Air Combat Command commander, declared the F-35A the key component of fusion warfare.

“It changes the game,” Carlisle said. “It is going to be the difference maker and the backbone of the interoperability capabilities of the future.”

Carlisle acknowledged the evolution of the F-35A has been a “challenging endeavor.”

“It would have been easier to take a different path,” Carlisle said. “But it would have been the wrong answer.”...

...The F-35A program is continuing to move forward with plans to obtain full operational capabilities.

“This is a fantastic airplane,” Carlisle said. “Although there are bumps in the road, I firmly believe this aircraft will only get better and better, and will prove to be one of the most valuable assets in our United States Air Force.”"

Source: http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... onent.aspx

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 15:40
by Dragon029
LtCol David 'Chip' Burke gets interviewed on the Aviation Week podcast:

http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast ... -35-can-do

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 18:05
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that - well worth the time to listen to some 'difficult' answers "why the F-35 with newbie sprog nugget pilots" is different and that combo will be much different as they learn how to use the capabilities they have today - TOMORROW.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 23:41
by count_to_10
Dragon029 wrote:LtCol David 'Chip' Burke gets interviewed on the Aviation Week podcast:

http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast ... -35-can-do


A couple of good comments, and then these:

Much of the current publicity problems of the F-35 are rooted in many years of misrepresentations, development troubles, and lies about them, by the people running the program in the period 2001-2013.

So the fact that the program is finally succeeding is obfuscated by past dissembling.

The twaddle pumped out by some supporters for the last 15 years has discredited people who speak for it now.

The program is essentially 8 years behind schedule. The airplane still has the type of problems that programs usually have at this stage of development. The program is way over cost and development is still far short of what was promised.

Attempts to claim the program is on schedule and at costs by setting the start date for determining those "facts" forward from the Early Bush administration to the very late Obama administration at best only discredit those making the assertion, and at worst "prove" to opponents that the lies continue.

:roll:
"With today's missiles and radar The F-35 shoots down the fourth generation opponent and never gets within 30 miles."

With the Chinese J-20 becoming operational how do the numbers look?

A meeting engagement within visual range and the F-35 switches to Fox 2, oh. Well it's Guns, Guns, Guns. Damn, a miss . . .

"That's it, man. Game over, man. Game over! What the f. . . are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"
- Private Hudson. Ailens


Shaka, when the walls fell.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 23:49
by popcorn
as an aside, Bill Paxton passed away recently.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 00:42
by spazsinbad
Why The F-35 Is The Iphone Of Fighter Aircraft
13 Mar 2017 Russ Read

"...Berke compared the introduction of the F-35 to the introduction of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs. The iPhone single-handedly redefined what we expect our cell phones to do. In turn, the F-35’s capabilities are redefining what a fighter aircraft is expected to do. Like the iPhone, the F-35’s introduction is disruptive, and Berke claims we are only on the cusp of discovering what it might be able to do in the future.

Berke outlined three major differences that put the F-35, and other fifth-generation aircraft (like the F-22), in a league of their own.... [BEST to READ at Source]

...F-35 manufacturer Lockheed-Martin offered the following example as to why to the sensor-fusion engine is a crucial addition in a white paper: http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... or-fusion/

"An enemy pilot effectively neutralizes sensor A from one F-35 in a formation of several. The likelihood that enemy will be able to do the same to another F-35 in the same formation is slim to none. It is extremely difficult for the enemy to defeat multiple sensors on multiple F-35s simultaneously. Because the sensors between the F-35s are fused, the pilot in aircraft #1 can simply tap in to aircraft #2’s sensor suite."


...What makes the F-35 most like the iPhone is its user potential. Berke explained that the original iPhone was branded as an Mp3 player, cell phone and internet device, but developers have now made it so much more. Similarly, now that F-35 operators have their hands on the aircraft, they are likely to continue to develop its capabilities, according to Berke.

“The F-35, it’s light years beyond anything we already have,” said Berke. “The only way I know that is I flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s operationally for 23 years, that’s how I know that.”

Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/13/why-t ... -aircraft/

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2017, 00:43
by blindpilot
Ok after trying to answer the 9X thread, I`ve decided to detour from the Cell Phone example a little.

There`s a great article that touches on what 5th Gen fusion and networking is all about, and echos some of what Berke has been trying to say about how we think.

Here`s the story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 3b887f8924

It`s about wearables, specifically about a new Levis jacket Levis and Google are releasing.

So let`s start - 4th gen thinking. We have all sorts of gizmos these days. Smart Watches, Iwatch, Fitbit etc. and we get them why? Well we start with "What can it do?" And if as with the Fitbit, some customers say, "Cool I I like that, I've always wanted to do that." And the market explodes and subsides, as the "wearable" just becomes another gadget to go with your google glass in the closet.

Now 5th Gen thinking. (IE think F-35)
Levis is going to make a jacket. You don`t ask, "what does it do?" It`s a jacket! You wear it. It`s a jacket for cyclist. It`s kinda stylish. I don`t ask what it can do. I ask, "So what can I do if I had this jacket?" And the answer is you wear it, like when it`s cold when you are biking to work.

Sooooo... the fifth gen question - well what else does it have and what can I do with that. Well, it has a little cpu unit in the cuff link, and the threads are conductive, and it`s smart like maybe a smart coffee pot. And it does computer stuff, talk to other computer stuff, and it can play on your bluetooth headset, and just normal technology stuff.

And I begin to ponder ... what can I do with that jacket? I can find the directions, I can swipe my sleeve to .... hmmm... there could be a lot of things I could do with this ...

That`s 5th Gen. What can I do with this,(it could keep me dry and warm, help update me on info, get directions on my bike without dropping my phone in the puddle) not what can it do.(how fast, how high, how far)

It`s just a jacket! What it does is "be a jacket." It is not a new wearable gizmo.

FWIW
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2017, 04:08
by les_paul59
Thx blind pilot for the heads up

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2017, 05:05
by blindpilot
les_paul59 wrote:A basement dweller manifesto
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ightweight
....


Already posted and discussed in the More stupidity thread.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52860
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 00:30
by popcorn
This looks to provide the sensor fusion advantage to all sort of platforms, including drones. Sensor data to be pre-digested prior to sharing allowing for a more expansive SA picture of the battle space ie. a Common Combat Picture.


https://defensesystems.com/articles/201 ... ensor.aspx

Pentagon evaluates new Lockheed Multi-INT sensor technology

Pentagon weapons developers are analyzing emerging airborne sensor technology designed to fuse and organize data from multiple sources to provide faster and more accurate intelligence information.

Lockheed Martin is testing computer processing improvements to an Airborne Multi-INT Lab (AML) technology which integrates electro-optical sensors with synthetic aperture radar and other kinds of electronic intelligence gathering mechanisms to expedite the delivery of decision-quality intelligence, a company statement said.

The AML system, which has been tested at altitudes from 15,000 feet to 40,000 feet, is currently configured to fly from a Gulfstream business jet; however, in the future, Lockheed plans to work closely with the military services to equip drones and fixed-wing aircraft with the technology.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 09:53
by hornetfinn
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=397268&hilit=Fusion#p397268

Dragon029 wrote:Air System Design Papers:
F-35 Information Fusion 6.2018-3520.pdf


This document seems to offer some very interesting new info about F-35 sensor fusion system and capabilties. It definitely gives some insight to the references about "God's eye view" comments coming from pilots. F-35 just has some immense advances in sensor fusion:

1. Sensor measurements are fused, the system basically uses all the sensors as one enormously capable sensor.

2. Sensor data from other F-35s coming through MADL is something extraordinary in quality and quantity compared to legacy data links making flight(s) of F-35s far more powerful in gathering and sharing information than without it

3. Combat Identification system that is probably closer to E-3 AWACS in capabilities than legacy fighters. In some ways it probably exceeds even AWACS due to having EO/IR and higher frequency radar system along being able to get closer.

4. Autonomous sensor manager is like having Superman as your RIO/WSO. This means the system can use all the sensors to their fullest all the time and makes the sensor system far quicker to detect/track/ID targets. It likely also makes target tracks much more robust and improves their quality in difficult situations. Without this capability much of the sensor capability in F-35 would be lost as human being would not be able to manage all that for long.

I think the sensor fusion system in F-35 improves both lethality and survivability so much that it's really difficult to understand. Sensor fusio along with VLO stealth also makes F-35 incredibly important ISR asset for higher command. I think the most limiting factor now are the weapons and their capabilties.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2018, 01:55
by elvis1
hornetfinn wrote:http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=12237&p=397268&hilit=Fusion#p397268

Dragon029 wrote:Air System Design Papers:
F-35 Information Fusion 6.2018-3520.pdf


This document seems to offer some very interesting new info about F-35 sensor fusion system and capabilties. It definitely gives some insight to the references about "God's eye view" comments coming from pilots. F-35 just has some immense advances in sensor fusion:

1. Sensor measurements are fused, the system basically uses all the sensors as one enormously capable sensor.

2. Sensor data from other F-35s coming through MADL is something extraordinary in quality and quantity compared to legacy data links making flight(s) of F-35s far more powerful in gathering and sharing information than without it

3. Combat Identification system that is probably closer to E-3 AWACS in capabilities than legacy fighters. In some ways it probably exceeds even AWACS due to having EO/IR and higher frequency radar system along being able to get closer.

4. Autonomous sensor manager is like having Superman as your RIO/WSO. This means the system can use all the sensors to their fullest all the time and makes the sensor system far quicker to detect/track/ID targets. It likely also makes target tracks much more robust and improves their quality in difficult situations. Without this capability much of the sensor capability in F-35 would be lost as human being would not be able to manage all that for long.

I think the sensor fusion system in F-35 improves both lethality and survivability so much that it's really difficult to understand. Sensor fusio along with VLO stealth also makes F-35 incredibly important ISR asset for higher command. I think the most limiting factor now are the weapons and their capabilties.


I am not an expert, but I was certainly fascinated by it--thanks for pointing it out. I keyed on the part that noted
The goal is not to drive each track to the best accuracy, but to instead drive it to sufficient accuracy and information content. In practice, for situational awareness, there is a level of component accuracy (e.g., range, angle) where the information is sufficient to support the pilot’s understanding of the environment to decide. Additional accuracy beyond this point does not significantly improve the pilot’s awareness or decision-making ability.


I would think that this would have the impact that the amount of energy being directed to any one location would be minimized and that balance of passive to active sensor utilization would be biased to a more passive mix as more sensors (more platforms) were added to the network--reducing the uncertainty and the need to radiate (to reduce uncertainty). Coupling this with the fact that as there are more platforms networked together, the amount of energy being directed from any one platform by the Autonomous Sensor Management is reduced.

By the same token, as the number or networked F-35s decreases the remaining ones would become more vulnerable due to having to become more active with their sensors to have the same awareness. . . . . perhaps to the point of needing to retreat / regroup.

I would think the same thing would be true with networked IAD system is its numbers are reduced. . . but it can't retreat.

The whole probability approach was really interesting. Apologies in advance is this has been discussed to death in the past (and I am just now realizing the importance of effectively diluting the emitters into the background). I just think it is very cool.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2018, 07:04
by hornetfinn
Totally agree lrrpf52. I think we are just starting to understand just how powerful the F-35 sensor fusion and networking really is. Some of the quotes about F-35 from their pilots and program officials just start to make even more sense. Like General Hostage said:

Hostage: You mean the re-norming air operations, if I were to steal a term? Well, I was fortunate to fly the airplane; I learned what I didn’t know.

I was writing war plans in my previous job as a three star using the F-22s in a manner that was not going to get the most out of them that I could’ve because I didn’t truly understand the radical difference that the fifth gen could bring.

People focus on stealth as the determining factor or delineator of the fifth generation. It isn’t; it’s fusion. Fusion is what makes that platform so fundamentally different than anything else. And that’s why if anybody tries to tell you hey, I got a 4.5 airplane, a 4.8 airplane, don’t believe them. All that they’re talking about is RCS (Radar Cross Section).

Fusion is the fundamental delineator. And you’re not going to put fusion into a fourth gen airplane because their avionic suites are not set up to be a fused platform. And fusion changes how you use the platform.


This is so true. People often focus on stealth and beating it would make F-35s just targets, even though sensor fusion system (including networking) is even more profound change. Even if F-35 had 4th gen RCS, it would still be immensely powerful system with the level of SA it can produce with all those sensors and sensor fusion. It doesn't do it just for the pilot of one F-35, but all the F-35s, F-22s, all 4th gen aircraft and all other assets and higher command. Of course VLO stealth is huge thing and can not be underestimated.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 17:31
by SpudmanWP
Sprinkle in some BACN and this is where we're headed :)

Image

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2018, 18:40
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:Sprinkle in some BACN and this is where we're headed :)

Image


I see that, consider how thoroughly and effortlessly China has penetrated secure networks in the US, and it gives me the chills.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 09:28
by hornetfinn
sferrin wrote:I see that, consider how thoroughly and effortlessly China has penetrated secure networks in the US, and it gives me the chills.


Penetrating networks that are connected to Internet is not that problematic as there is easy connection to them and usually a lot of weak spots along with almost endless amount of time to hack into them. Security measures are often pretty simple and stagnant and a lot of people have access to a lot of information. Security is often pretty much an afterthought as data availability, low cost, ease of use and throughput are most important things. Once security measures are breached, hackers will have a lot of time to pull all the data they can find. Pure military networks are very different and are designed to be far more secure and robust. It would be very difficult to even connect to such network.

Here is a good description about the differences: http://www.satelliteevolutiongroup.com/ ... s-2017.pdf

Not to say that military networks could not be penetrated, but it's far more difficult and damage would be more contained as only very limited amount of data would be available in one network.

Another thing is that without networking your assets, overall force will be far less effective. Increasing communications between units and assets has been the trend from the beginning of military operations. So only real option is to design networks and procedures that are secure enough.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2018, 23:31
by spazsinbad
'SWP': "Sprinkle in some BACN..." MORE BACON BITS TO 'SPRINKLE' with....
BACN program seeks new Bombardier Global 6000
18 Oct 2018 Rachel Cohen

"The Air Force needs another Bombardier business jet to bolster the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node fleet, the service said in an Oct. 15 notice. The BACN program office seeks one new, "green" Bombardier Global 6000 outfitted with specialized antennas, radios, flight-tracker inhibition system and more. The jet would be the fifth of its kind in the fleet, which would grow to nine total aircraft.

BACN-equipped G6000 aircraft, dubbed the E-11A, are manned counterparts to the EQ-4B, a modified version of Northrop Grumman's Global Hawk. The platforms use beyond-line-of-sight communications systems to connect air and ground assets in combat areas, primarily in the Middle East…."

Source: https://insidedefense.com/insider/bacn- ... lobal-6000

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 18:44
by citanon
According to Fox, F-35s now have mission data files in "key regions" around the world:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-comba ... data-files

The Pentagon's F-35 is conducting attacks, surveillance operations and combat missions with an updated on-board “threat library” of Mission Data Files engineered to identify enemy threats in key regions around the globe.

“The AORs (Areas of Responsibility) for current operations where our forces are -- currently have adequate Mission Data Files,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 program, told a group of reporters.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 21:16
by falcon.16
citanon wrote:According to Fox, F-35s now have mission data files in "key regions" around the world:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-comba ... data-files

The Pentagon's F-35 is conducting attacks, surveillance operations and combat missions with an updated on-board “threat library” of Mission Data Files engineered to identify enemy threats in key regions around the globe.

“The AORs (Areas of Responsibility) for current operations where our forces are -- currently have adequate Mission Data Files,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 program, told a group of reporters.


Interesting.

A question, RWR is part of the suite AN/ASQ 242 or part of the barrracuda suite?

I think part from suite AN/ASQ 242....

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 21:38
by SpudmanWP
It's part of the ASQ-239 Barracuda system.

The AN/ASQ-239 system protects the F-35 with advanced technology for next generation missions to counter current and emerging threats. Equipped with offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, the suite provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/produc ... ure-system

The AN/ASQ-242 CNI is for communications.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... asheet.pdf

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 21:59
by spazsinbad
citanon wrote:According to Fox, F-35s now have mission data files in "key regions" around the world:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/f-35-comba ... data-files

The Pentagon's F-35 is conducting attacks, surveillance operations and combat missions with an updated on-board “threat library” of Mission Data Files engineered to identify enemy threats in key regions around the globe.

“The AORs (Areas of Responsibility) for current operations where our forces are -- currently have adequate Mission Data Files,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 program, told a group of reporters.

Reporter gets muddled here - does he not: "...The Air Force is already working on a 4th [software] drop to be ready by 2020 or 2021. Following this initial drop, the aircraft will incorporate new software drops in two year increments [no longer true] in order to stay ahead of the threat. The service is also working to massively quicken the pace of software upgrades [true] as a way to respond quickly to new threats...." OR has the new C2D2 method not been authorized yet?

SEE 'SWP' post: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=27390&p=402976&hilit=tons#p402976 F-35 upgrade plan awaiting approval...

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2018, 11:51
by falcon.16
SpudmanWP wrote:It's part of the ASQ-239 Barracuda system.

The AN/ASQ-239 system protects the F-35 with advanced technology for next generation missions to counter current and emerging threats. Equipped with offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, the suite provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/produc ... ure-system

The AN/ASQ-242 CNI is for communications.

https://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabil ... asheet.pdf


Thanks.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2018, 00:57
by spazsinbad
Adddddding to dat network SIMILARLY to the OzWEEGEE Jericho Plan (but dollars constrain USAF but they'll get there).
Tankers could be a critical part of the US Air Force’s future network
27 Oct 2018 Jeff Martin

"GRAPEVINE, Texas — The U.S. Air Force’s aerial refueling tanker fleet could expand its portfolio by serving as a node in the service’s larger network, according to Gen. Mike Holmes, the commander of Air Combat Command. “We’ve always understood the capability of that tanker to pass information back and forth, and we know that that works, and we know that node can be tankers spread out from the place we took off from and the place we are operating,” Holmes said in response to an audience question at the 2018 Airlift Tanker Association symposium outside Dallas, Texas. “So I think its fantastic, and I’m all for it.”...

...Under Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein, the service has been working to find a way to link aircraft and sensors on a network to enhance awareness in combat operations. Goldfein, who has flown on the Air Force’s next tanker, the long-delayed Boeing KC-46 Pegasus, said flying the aircraft was about more than controlling the stick.

…when it comes to the larger, Air Force-wide network, Holmes said the service has “done enough talking” about the future network architecture, adding: “It’s time to take a step and decide what that way forward will be and what that architecture will be.”

“When you look at our future ISR and command systems, Will Roper, our senior acquisition official, is going to take a new look at what we’re going to do to replace the capability that’s been done by JSTARS, and he’s going to start with an architect instead of a program office,” Holmes said. “The architect’s job is to design the network that we will operate under, and so we can make sure that the pieces work in that effort, and instead of doing what we’ve done in the past, which is design a bunch of pieces each with its own communications capability, and try to figure out how to put them together after its too late.”

However, he added a caveat: “Like all our great ideas, we have to find the money for it in a budget that doesn’t have enough to go around.”

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... e-network/

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 18:39
by blindpilot
While looking for a thread to post this, I almost started a new one, but this seems a decent place to add the thoughts.
- - -
I was reviewing the source writings for some posts here over the last few months, and something occurred to me especially in the details from VMFA 211's combat activities in Afghanistan.

More and more the ISR/SA abilities of the F-35 are being seen as game changing. From detailed accounts of the 211's combat mission.

"In the dynamic insurgent conflict in Afghanistan very small targets are difficult to locate, move quickly and disappear easily. The F-35’s enhanced sensors and ability to immediately share dynamic intelligence across a wide spectrum in all conditions must be key to maintaining situational awareness and providing accurate targeting."

In permissive environments, simply launching an F-35 and having it broadcast on Link-16 et al completely changes the battlefield in ways we've never seen before. As with other such paradigm shifts, these advantages can become addictive to the point of being crippled if you suddenly lose the capability.

I am beginning to equate this with the GPS revolution. Whether it's knowing where your tank is in the desert or precision weapons in weather, we have become dependent on GPS. Now we're having to consider how to fight in GPS denied situations. That's no small thing with our current tactics.

I propose the F-35 SA quarterbacking carries with it similar risks. The excitement of the "gee whiz!" capability will need to be tempered with near peer/denial combat where Link 16 might be restricted for EW/stealth reasons. Just as we are hardening the GPS systems/appoaches(INS et al) we will need to harden (distribute MADL nodes?) our new combat paradigm that has become "game changing."

This is one of those things where, before we get too excited, we need to reconize the new risks that didn't exist before the paradigm shift. F-35 is game changing, but we will need to well consider all aspects of the "changed" game.

MHO, FWIW,
BP

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 05:29
by wrightwing
blindpilot wrote:While looking for a thread to post this, I almost started a new one, but this seems a decent place to add the thoughts.
- - -
I was reviewing the source writings for some posts here over the last few months, and something occurred to me especially in the details from VFMA 211's combat activities in Afghanistan.

More and more the ISR/SA abilities of the F-35 are being seen as game changing. From detailed accounts of the 211's combat mission.

"In the dynamic insurgent conflict in Afghanistan very small targets are difficult to locate, move quickly and disappear easily. The F-35’s enhanced sensors and ability to immediately share dynamic intelligence across a wide spectrum in all conditions must be key to maintaining situational awareness and providing accurate targeting."

In permissive environments, simply launching an F-35 and having it broadcast on Link-16 et al completely changes the battlefield in ways we've never seen before. As with other such paradigm shifts, these advantages can become addictive to the point of being crippled if you suddenly lose the capability.

I am beginning to equate this with the GPS revolution. Whether it's knowing where your tank is in the desert or precision weapons in weather, we have become dependent on GPS. Now we're having to consider how to fight in GPS denied situations. That's no small thing with our current tactics.

I propose the F-35 SA quarterbacking carries with it similar risks. The excitement of the "gee whiz!" capability will need to be tempered with near peer/denial combat where Link 16 might be restricted for EW/stealth reasons. Just as we are hardening the GPS systems/appoaches(INS et al) we will need to harden (distribute MADL nodes?) our new combat paradigm that has become "game changing."

This is one of those things where, before we get too excited, we need to reconize the new risks that didn't exist before the paradigm shift. F-35 is game changing, but we will need to well consider all aspects of the "changed" game.

MHO, FWIW,
BP


We practice for GPS denied, EW, etc... environments.

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 01:40
by spazsinbad
This old but recent post about F-35 sensor fusion from a pilot perspective got lost in another thread so to speak so again...

'f4u7_corsair' post From/At: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=406567&hilit=fusion#p406567
The F-35 and Data Fusion: A Perspective from the International Fighter Conference 2018
26 Nov 2018 Robbin Laird

"...One of the presenters at the conference was an experienced F-16 pilot who had transitioned to the F-35 in 2010 and has spent several years as a USAF test pilot at Edwards Air Force base and more recently has joined Lockheed Martin in 2016 in a test pilot capacity at Edwards AFB. I had a chance to sit down and talk with Scott “Shark” McLaren about his experience with sensor fusion on the F-35 and his perception of the combat advantages which this provides the F-35 pilot.

The baseline point is that the designers of the F-35 cockpit based on their experiences with the F-16 and the F-22 worked to provide for a visual and work system that significantly reduced the pilot load. Then with the integrated sensor system built into the F-35 the role of data fusion is to provide situational awareness as a service to the pilot and the MADL linked combat force.

This is in contrast to a legacy fighter where the pilot is fusing the data up against a core task such as air superiority or ground attack. In contrast, the fusion system “engine” leaves the F-35 pilot with more flexibility to perform tasks as well as operate in the words of the USAF speaker in the first morning of the conference to provide for strategic inputs as well.... [Then follows a description of what an F-16 pilot must do which takes two years+ to master - best read at URL]

...“With the F-35, this is where the operational capability changes. “With the F-35 you have automation via fusion going on. “That process that is taking the F-16 pilot years to get good at, and almost all of a notional ten-minute engagement time to build a good picture, is being done automatically for the pilot in F-35 fusion.

“That picture is being built. In that same ten-minute scenario, it’s taking less than a minute for all of that information to be presented to him. “He knows the picture. “And that’s without any communication having to go across the formation.

“Your mental processing power which in the F-16 is focused on creating the operational mental picture or SA is now focused on combat tasks and missions. “Your training focus also changes. “Rather than focusing significant training time on how to shape your SA picture, you can now focus on tasks in the battlespace and distributed operations.

“The Commander and the F-35 force can focus on the effects they want to deliver in the battlespace, not just with themselves, but by empowering other combat assets as well by sharing the SA through targeting tasking. “We have the capacity to third party target and to distribute the effects desired in the battlespace. “That becomes our focus of training and of attention; not a primary focus on generating the SA for my organic asset to survive and to deliver a combat effect itself.

Using Shark’s 10 minute operating paradigm where the F-16 pilot is spending 8 minutes of that time period on SA and mission preparation, the F-35 pilot can spend 9 minutes of his time on mission preparation and distributed operations if so tasked. Shark concluded: “For the F-35 pilot, training will now need to include how you go out and influence the battle area the best for the commander?

“And that’s going translate up to what the commander needs to give in direction, but also back down to what the pilot needs to know. “And that training is part of a larger joint exercise, a larger concept of operations for the joint force which gets at the strategic impact of the F-35, which the USAF BG [Brigadier General?] discussed in the conference.”..."

Graphic: https://sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... .15-PM.png

Source: https://sldinfo.com/2018/11/the-f-35-an ... ence-2018/

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 02:39
by garrya
Had this been posted here
image_259642.png

Re: F 35 Sensor Fusion and networking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2019, 03:01
by spazsinbad
Mine Here is here - where is your HERE mein heir? My posted graphic goes with the article post. MINE HERR. A song rite?

Cabaret.Mein Heir https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JJKKvKNkqU