Should Tranche 3 Typhoon be scrapped?

[Ryttare]

It would be interesting to more details on data transfer rates of LINK 16 and TIDLS. The TIDLS is often claimed to be superior, but I wonder why as no specific data/details are brought to back up that argument.

I've not heard of what the exact bandwidth of TIDLS is either. It might be classified, or simply difficult to say for sure. As a wireless connection, speed depends probably on the situation. And as data is transfered in bursts it probably also depends on how long bursts are seen as acceptable considering protection against jamming and tracking.

I don't really know the bandwidth of Link 16 either, not from the top of my head anyway. But it is generally considered that TIDLS has a significantly higher bandwidth Link 16. Now, to be fair, they are not really the same type of links, TIDLS is limited to 4 users transmitting simultaneusly and unlimited numbers of receivers. I think the number of transmitters on Link 16 is a bit higher.

But a sign of the bandwidth on TIDLS is the practical capabilities it has. According to http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf on page 7 it has the following abilities:

"In a Gripen formation each aircraft instantly knows what the others are seeing, what the others going to do next.Each aircraft has access to the radar and sensor data of the others, allowing a small number of aicraft to defend a wide area."

"Data can be exchanged with an AWACS aircraft, and by using an AWACS radar a much large air picture can be datalinked to a Gripen or a formation of Gripens, greatly increasing their combat reach. An airborne Gripen can datalink real-time combat information straight into the cockpit of another aircraft being re-armed and refuelled on the ground."

And "Even more elaborate tactics call for one Gripen to provide mid-course guidance for another aircraft’s missiles, using the datalink to set up the shot. This allows a ‘stealthy’ shooter to engage targets far beyond its own radar range, and keeps the defenders out of range of a return shot."

Someone else might have more precise info on the bandwidth of TIDLS, but I hope this gives an image of how capable it is.

 

[Ryttare]

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck...

No, at the moment no other fighter has exactly those features. But can anyone really say for sure that no other fighter will have similar abilities when F-35 gets operational?

But most of all, what does that really say about F-35 vs other fighters? F-22 doesn't have many of these goodies and will probably not get it for a long time. Does that mean F-35 is a better fighter than Raptor?

 

[Scorpion82]

Whilst I don't wish to particularly engage in the "debate" over the Typhoon v Lighting II debate (why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) I might add something here.

The critical design reviews are complete for the F-35.

The F-35 is the only aircraft that will have AESA, HMS, an integrated FLIR/EO system (EOTS), a 360 degree distributed aperture system, an integrated ECM/EWSP system, an LPI radar and modern processors running on modern "code".

Can anyone point to another aircraft that will benefit from such systems SIMULTANEOUSLY, as WELL as "full" stealth (for lack of a better term), a high performance airframe (despite what some open sourced "analysis" of the aircraft might say), internal weapons carriage, a a huge internal fuel capacity (for a tactical fighter) AND a software package that promises to integrate the various capabilities of the aircraft to a hiterto unmatched level?

Good luck...

Hmm honestly I don't like the Litening II designation that much. Sounds somehow stupid and was previously used for the F-22, before Raptor was officially assigned.

Don't get me wrong I have no doubt that the F-35 will be an advanced and capable aircraft. I suspect it will be the most advanced at the time it enters service, nonetheless the F-35 won't feature all the proposed features from the very beginning (as it is common practise with other aircraft as well). Many of the technologies are already available on other aircraft, though I agree not to the same degree as it might be the case for the F-35 (sometimes around 2016+). The main advantage of the F-35 in terms of sensors is its DAS which will be flexible and provide all round coverage. But in terms of ESM, ECM, AESA radar I see no decisive advantage and by the time the f-35 enters service other designs will be more mature and probably feature similar technologies in many ways. In terms of flight performance we'll have to wait. I expect the F-35 to provide similar performance to the F-16 with superior range and acceleration and probably better altitude performance.
BTW you mention ECM, are there any details known about ECM capabilities? Is the F-35 going to receive it at all or will it be more limited to EA with the AN/APG-81?

New computers and software are planned for the Eurofighter as well and I don't see a reason why other aircraft shouldn't follow.

 

[MarcH]

Well, from memory, Link 16 and TILDS are completely different approaches. Link 16 locks you into a network with all participants within the region, while TILDS links you only with 4 partners.
Therefore Link 16 doesn't have the volume as TILDS, but gives you acces to more sources.

Back to the original topic.
My preference would be
-AESA (but only if the new modules based on GaN or diamond are available)
-improved PIRATE
-improved DASS
-EJ 220/230 with ITP's TVC nozzle
(it is said, the ITP nozzle has about the same number of moving parts as an conventional one, but offers an increase of 5% thrust and a decrease in fuel consumption by 3%, together with the uprated engines it should give by far more economical cruising at higher speeds. Albeit the savings from reduces trim-drag should be marginal, compared to a conventional layout)
-weapons integration ³ and development of stealthy weapon pods (maybe combined weapon and fuel pods ?)

 

[Scorpion82]

I've not heard of what the exact bandwidth of TIDLS is either. It might be classified, or simply difficult to say for sure. As a wireless connection, speed depends probably on the situation. And as data is transfered in bursts it probably also depends on how long bursts are seen as acceptable considering protection against jamming and tracking.

I don't really know the bandwidth of Link 16 either, not from the top of my head anyway. But it is generally considered that TIDLS has a significantly higher bandwidth Link 16. Now, to be fair, they are not really the same type of links, TIDLS is limited to 4 users transmitting simultaneusly and unlimited numbers of receivers. I think the number of transmitters on Link 16 is a bit higher.

But a sign of the bandwidth on TIDLS is the practical capabilities it has. According to http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf on page 7 it has the following abilities:

"In a Gripen formation each aircraft instantly knows what the others are seeing, what the others going to do next.Each aircraft has access to the radar and sensor data of the others, allowing a small number of aicraft to defend a wide area."

"Data can be exchanged with an AWACS aircraft, and by using an AWACS radar a much large air picture can be datalinked to a Gripen or a formation of Gripens, greatly increasing their combat reach. An airborne Gripen can datalink real-time combat information straight into the cockpit of another aircraft being re-armed and refuelled on the ground."

And "Even more elaborate tactics call for one Gripen to provide mid-course guidance for another aircraft’s missiles, using the datalink to set up the shot. This allows a ‘stealthy’ shooter to engage targets far beyond its own radar range, and keeps the defenders out of range of a return shot."

Someone else might have more precise info on the bandwidth of TIDLS, but I hope this gives an image of how capable it is.

These TIDLS capabilities are known to me and that is also the point. MIDS/LINK 16 provides same capabilities along with a couple of other other capabilities for communication and navigation purposes. One shouldn't forget that TIDLS is now more than 10 years in service while MIDS is only available since a few years (2003/2004 or so). At the time the Gripen entered service its datalink capabilities were unique, but today they are nothing special anymore, though there are still plenty of aircraft out there without any datalink capabilities at all or inferior DL capabilities.

 

[swerve]

...(why don't people call the F-35 the Lightning II? Are they simply not used to it yet?) ...

Some people don't think the name fits it. It's more characters to type. Unless one calls it "Lightning IIA/B/C", which looks silly, it doesn't define the version, which is crucially important with the F-35. Nobody likes putting numbers after a name (who called the F-4 the Phantom II?), but one can't call it just the Lightning, because that name is still taken in most (at least British) minds.

Enough reasons?

 

[Super Nimrod]

And some people have started to call it 'Dave' :unknown

 

[Satorian]

Regarding the F-35's name, I would also propose to call it "The Whale".



Don't know why, but its reminds me of a whale.

 

[Ryttare]

These TIDLS capabilities are known to me and that is also the point. MIDS/LINK 16 provides same capabilities along with a couple of other other capabilities for communication and navigation purposes. One shouldn't forget that TIDLS is now more than 10 years in service while MIDS is only available since a few years (2003/2004 or so). At the time the Gripen entered service its datalink capabilities were unique, but today they are nothing special anymore, though there are still plenty of aircraft out there without any datalink capabilities at all or inferior DL capabilities.

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.

 

[rjmaz1]

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.

Location, altitude, speed and direction of a single object would not even require 1kbit of information. 115kbit is enough for hundreds of aircraft to be tracked in any battle space. More than enough i would think.

 

[Ryttare]

Location, altitude, speed and direction of a single object would not even require 1kbit of information. 115kbit is enough for hundreds of aircraft to be tracked in any battle space. More than enough i would think.

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

 

[kato]

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

As rjmaz1 says, I really, really doubt anyone would try transmitting raw radar image data over datalinks.

You don't need to directly access another aircraft's sensors in order to get the information from it.

If the aircraft with the radar preprocesses the image (including polygonization, clutter removal, stuff like that), and filters for the results, then transmits only that data (instead of raw radar data), it'll be a lot less.

Say a packet of 250-500 Byte or so for a single contact, including supposed aircraft identification, polygon shape data, IFF data, navigational/telemetry data (position, heading etc). That's pretty much all you need.

 

[Satorian]

I was more thinking of the ability to use other fighters sensors. Transferring the entire radar image in real time would require much more bandwidth.

But why would you want to transfer the whole radar image instead of the information contained within as derived by the sensing aircraft? Position, vector, identification, instruction and perhaps other miscellaneous bits are easily transmitted with a few bytes.

Gross estimate:

Position, millimeter accuracy, range > 1000 km => 40 bit per dimension => 5 Byte per dimension => 15 byte total.
Vector, accuracy of 1° and 1 kts => 10 bit each => 40 bit => 5 Byte total
ID from a 60000 unit database => 16 bit => 2 Byte
Instruction, about 250 samples => 8 bit => 1 Byte

Then perhaps another two Byte for other misc information, 5 Byte for a time stamp, between 1 and 6 BYte for a packet number, and you'd end up with

about 30 Byte per contact. Add some wrapper, handshake, protocol, sender, receiver and TTL data and you'd perhaps end up at no more than 50 byte per information packet. 400 bit per plane.

One aircraft could send information on 100 sensor contacts to 6 linked aircraft once a second, and that without any optimization or compression yet.

 

[kato]

This listing gives a good basic overview over various military transmission systems, including Link 16.

Additional information:
- Basic Link 16 uses 128 time slots per second of 7.8125ms length each.
- Basic Link 16 can broadcast between 3 and 12 data words (depending on packing structure) per time slot.
- Data word structure(s) can be found in above link.

For real-time application, i'd presume we'd have to fit our data within a single transmission time slot.
That would give us (maximum) one Initial Word (57 bit data), four Extension Words (68 bits data ea) and seven Continuation Words (63 bits data ea), as i understand it. That's at full Packed-4 packing transmission with 115.2 kbps.

Meaning our packet could contain at maximum 770 bits of data (96.25 byte), into which you have to stuff everything.

Edit: And i mean everything - the entire preprocessed sensor information on all contacts that you want to transmit in realtime.

 

[Scorpion82]

Do you have any more detailed information of the abilities you refer to. I looked it up, and the highest transfer rate of Link 16 seems to be 115 kbit/s and that seems a bit low to be as capable as TIDLS. But I might be wrong.

Bascially up to 128 participants can take part in the MIDS/LINK 16 net, each gets a time slot of 7.8125 ms to provide its own data. A host platform can collect all these data fuse them and eventually broadcast them so that all 128 participants and all other aircraft with a compatible datalink working in the right frequency can receive them. It is possible to combine a number of MIDS nets to increase the number of participants or if there are fewer you can increase the transfer rates for each member in the net.

MIDS acts as TACAN and enables relative navigation through transmitted reference points. It is possible to transfer new flight plans, airfield information or FAORs (Fighter Aera Of Responsibility). MIDS ensures a discret voice communication over two secured channels and it is possible to exchange text messages for information spreading or task distribution. MIDS equipped aircraft for example can receive almost complete sensor pictures from AWACS aircraft and other similar platforms or combined information from a number of other allied air, ground and sea assets.
It is additionally possible to link up to 8 aircraft with MIDS. These aircraft can exchange their sensor data (including thos required for passive targeting), position data, engagement status and other data such as fuel or weapon status. It is possible to assign targets for a wingman or to sea which aircraft targets what etc.

Just a short summary of the MIDS capabilities.

 

[Ryttare]

But why would you want to transfer the whole radar image instead of the information contained within as derived by the sensing aircraft? Position, vector, identification, instruction and perhaps other miscellaneous bits are easily transmitted with a few bytes.

There are certainly usefull to have the vectorised data that is available with Link16. But that isn't what can be called to use other fighters sensors. By being able to combine radar plots contacts can be aquired quicker. Also for ground attack a much more detailed image is very useful.

If Link16 would be so end of it all, with no need for higher bandwidth, why has then the F-22 it's own proprietary datalink?

But as I said before, Link16 and TIDLS are quite different creatures. Link16 are better for datalinking a large number of fighters and other assets. TIDLS has a better capability, but are limited to a smaller number of participants.
The best would of course be to have both, and as I said it seems as Gripen will have that next year.

 

[kato]

If Link16 would be so end of it all, with no need for higher bandwidth, why has then the F-22 it's own proprietary datalink?

Link 16 has often been critized for low bandwidth; there have been studies into raising the maximum bandwidth to 1 Mbps (which is apparently possible), and higher.

 

[Ryttare]

It is additionally possible to link up to 8 aircraft with MIDS. These aircraft can exchange their sensor data (including thos required for passive targeting), position data, engagement status and other data such as fuel or weapon status. It is possible to assign targets for a wingman or to sea which aircraft targets what etc.

Just a short summary of the MIDS capabilities.

I have to say that it sounds quite similar to TIDLS. Can all 8 transmit at the same time, and how many can receive?

Where did you find this information? I have to admit that I have not heard this before.

 

[Ryttare]

Link 16 has often been critized for low bandwidth; there have been studies into raising the maximum bandwidth to 1 Mbps (which is apparently possible), and higher.

But then why not do that instead of creating a new seperate system for the Raptor? Probably it was easier to do that than to improve the capabilities in such a big network as Link16.

 

[Scorpion82]

I have to say that it sounds quite similar to TIDLS. Can all 8 transmit at the same time, and how many can receive?

Where did you find this information? I have to admit that I have not heard this before.

Only the 8 aircraft can receive the data. Its a kind of small network for flights/packages. The data/information come from various sources, but I haven't the time to give them to you now and some things come from sources for which no links exist, because they aren't from the internet.