Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
It uses algorithms on the data collected first and then combines them, as stated in my FG link.

No, with IMA you can replace each component separately, hence modular, with federated you can't, hence more difficult to upgrade. Modular can apply to any build, it doesn't even have to include sensors or be about planes. Like I said, you don't have a f**king clue what you are talking about. You're literally _Anonymous_ II right now.

The article you posted you mean??? First it states what Typhoon can do, and then states the future, which might include a modular architecture.

Dude, the Typhoon's architecture is federated. Federated means no sensor fusion. Period.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Dude, the Typhoon's architecture is federated. Federated means no sensor fusion. Period.
Sensor fusion is about algorithms not architecture, otherwise the F-22 would have no sensor fusion either.

So basically what you're telling me is that if I have two separate Commodore VIC-20s in a modular architecture that can do more sensor fusion than five 32 or 64-bit PowerPCs operating in a federated architecture? You are the weakest link, goodbye.


Sensor fusion is the process of bringing together inputs from multiple sensors to form a single model or image of the environment around a platform. The resulting model is more accurate because it balances the strengths of the various sensors. Sensor fusion brings the data from a heterogeneous set of sensor modalities together and uses software algorithms to provide a more comprehensive, and therefore accurate, environmental model.


The sensor fusion process produces a unique track of a single target which may be reported by several sensors simultaneously, each one providing a subset of target attributes which are compiled to produce an as complete as possible view of the target," Friemer says. Algorithms weigh the reliability of each report before merging them to produce a fused target identity and priority.

Your whole argument is based on BS. The whole purpose of sensor fusion is to provide improved SA, you do not test sensor fusion directly in any aircraft evaluation, you test the SA. The Swiss didn't test for sensor fusion, LOL. :ROFLMAO: The French have you well brainwashed.

You can't have sensor fusion without a modular architecture.... and I guess you can't have traction control without quick-release wheels either. If you even searched 'federated' and 'sensor fusion' you would see you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Sensor fusion is about algorithms not architecture, otherwise the F-22 would have no sensor fusion either.

So basically what you're telling me is that if I have two separate Commodore VIC-20s in a modular architecture that can do more sensor fusion than five 32 or 64-bit PowerPCs operating in a federated architecture? You are the weakest link, goodbye.







Your whole argument is based on BS. The whole purpose of sensor fusion is to provide improved SA, you do not test sensor fusion directly in any aircraft evaluation, you test the SA. The Swiss didn't test for sensor fusion, LOL. :ROFLMAO: The French have you well brainwashed.

You can't have sensor fusion without a modular architecture.... and I guess you can't have traction control without quick-release wheels either. If you even searched 'federated' and 'sensor fusion' you would see you are wrong.

Sensor fusion requires raw data to be fed into one computer for multiple tracks from multiple sensors to be combined into 1. You can't do that with a federated system simply because the data that comes out of it is not raw data. This is nothing but common sense.

And underlying the modernization of the plane is a shift from the classic federated computer system in the aircraft to a more flexible sensor integration approach.

But technology has changed, computer processing speed has increased dramatically, and now we are looking at the computers in the aircraft less as blocks of capabilities, than as cluster of slots housing GigaHertz clock speed processors, which can add, enhanced capabilities and provide some key data fusing functionalities.
(Functionalities that do not yet exist on the Typhoon.)

And as we move forward, we will look at the slots in the computer systems as places where we can build in additional data links, or fuse data in conjunction with the pods and weapons on the aircraft as well.
(As we move forward implies it doesn't exist yet.)

The guy is literally saying we need IMA to integrate sensors. He doesn't talk about maintenance at all.

There's more:
The situational awareness delivered by the
fusion of Captor and other sensors in combination with the larger no escape zone of the Meteor should give Typhoon a significant combat advantage. (Meaning it's being implemented now.)

And finally...
Whilst it does not employ the sort of centralised sensor-fusion architecture found on the F-35, and to a lesser extent the F-22, the Eurofighter’s attack and identification system (AIS) presents a combined picture to the pilot via the multifunction information distribution system (MIDS). ( :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:)

AIS also integrates data from the Eurofighter’s own radar, PIRATE, DASS and navigational aids to present the pilot with the best possible situational awareness from an otherwise federated sensor architecture. However, this still requires a significant amount of data management on the part of the pilot and could be significantly streamlined.


I'll repeat it again, if it's federated it does not have multi-sensor data fusion. You need a "centralised sensor-fusion architecture".

In fact it's likely that the EFT still does not have a centralised sensor-fusion architecture, or IMA. All it does is declutter.

What a federated system does:
combat-systems-fusion-engine-for-the-f35-5-728.png


What IMA does:
combat-systems-fusion-engine-for-the-f35-6-728.png
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Sensor fusion requires raw data to be fed into one computer for multiple tracks from multiple sensors to be combined into 1. You can't do that with a federated system simply because the data that comes out of it is not raw data. This is nothing but common sense.

And underlying the modernization of the plane is a shift from the classic federated computer system in the aircraft to a more flexible sensor integration approach.

But technology has changed, computer processing speed has increased dramatically, and now we are looking at the computers in the aircraft less as blocks of capabilities, than as cluster of slots housing GigaHertz clock speed processors, which can add, enhanced capabilities and provide some key data fusing functionalities.
(Functionalities that do not yet exist on the Typhoon.)

And as we move forward, we will look at the slots in the computer systems as places where we can build in additional data links, or fuse data in conjunction with the pods and weapons on the aircraft as well. (As we move forward implies it doesn't exist yet.)

The guy is literally saying we need IMA to integrate sensors. He doesn't talk about maintenance at all.

There's more:
The situational awareness delivered by the
fusion of Captor and other sensors in combination with the larger no escape zone of the Meteor should give Typhoon a significant combat advantage. (Meaning it's being implemented now.)

And finally...
Whilst it does not employ the sort of centralised sensor-fusion architecture found on the F-35, and to a lesser extent the F-22, the Eurofighter’s attack and identification system (AIS) presents a combined picture to the pilot via the multifunction information distribution system (MIDS). ( :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:)

AIS also integrates data from the Eurofighter’s own radar, PIRATE, DASS and navigational aids to present the pilot with the best possible situational awareness from an otherwise federated sensor architecture. However, this still requires a significant amount of data management on the part of the pilot and could be significantly streamlined.


I'll repeat it again, if it's federated it does not have multi-sensor data fusion. You need a "centralised sensor-fusion architecture".

In fact it's likely that the EFT still does not have a centralised sensor-fusion architecture, or IMA. All it does is declutter.

What a federated system does:
View attachment 21329

What IMA does:
View attachment 21330
Of course you can send raw data with a federated system, who the hell has fed you this crap? Do yourself a favour and google sensor fusion with a federated architecture.




Sensor fusion – How does that work?

Each sensor type, or modality, has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Sensor fusion is the process of bringing together inputs from multiple sensors to
www.sensortips.com
www.sensortips.com

Sensor fusion is the process of bringing together inputs from multiple sensors to form a single model or image of the environment around a platform. The resulting model is more accurate because it balances the strengths of the various sensors. Sensor fusion brings the data from a heterogeneous set of sensor modalities together and uses software algorithms to provide a more comprehensive, and therefore accurate, environmental model.


Sensor fusion

Advanced man-machine interface techniques such as combined HMD and voice control promise to ease the pilot's workload Substantially more effort has been expended in the development of the Typhoon's "man-machine interface" than Eurofighter had originally estimated. But the result is a cockpit...
www.flightglobal.com
www.flightglobal.com

The sensor fusion process produces a unique track of a single target which may be reported by several sensors simultaneously, each one providing a subset of target attributes which are compiled to produce an as complete as possible view of the target," Friemer says. Algorithms weigh the reliability of each report before merging them to produce a fused target identity and priority.


Traditionally each sensor in an aircraft is treated as a discrete source of information; however this can result in conflicting data and limits the scope for the automation of systems, hence increasing pilot workload. To overcome this, the Typhoon employs sensor fusion techniques. In the Typhoon, fusion of all data sources is achieved through the Attack and Identification System, or AIS. This combines data from the major on-board sensors along with any information obtained from off-board platforms such as AWACS and MIDS. Additionally the AIS integrates all the other major offensive and defensive systems (e.g. DASS & communications). The AIS physically comprises two essentially separate units: the Attack Computer (AC) and the Navigation Computer (NC).[107]

Nobody is doubting that the F-35 system is better than the Typhoon's and there are different levels, the only dispute here is that the Rafale system is as good (or better) than the F-35's, which it clearly isn't given the narrow margin of SA between the Rafale and Typhoon in the Swiss Eval - 7.6 vs 7.4 - and the Typhoon had significantly better engagement scores.

And like I said, you don't test sensor fusion directly, you test SA in an eval. If the Rafale sensor fusion doesn't given significantly better SA, then it isn't significantly better and that's the bottom line. How terrible that an eval which the French deliberately leaked should come back to bit them in the a55 like this. If you say that the Typhoon doesn't have sensor fusion, then that just makes the Rafale's sensor fusion even sh1tter, since its SA is almost as bad as an aircraft with none.

As for conflating IMA with sensor fusion, that's garbage on physical level. The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what sensor fusion is and probably doesn't even know what IMA or federated really means either. I wouldn't even buy a kite from that person.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
....They're basically saying that not having modularly replaceable/upgradeable hardware items changes what data you can send and how you process it. Codswallop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Of course you can send raw data with a federated system, who the hell has fed you this crap? Do yourself a favour and google sensor fusion with a federated architecture.




Sensor fusion – How does that work?

Each sensor type, or modality, has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Sensor fusion is the process of bringing together inputs from multiple sensors to
www.sensortips.com
www.sensortips.com




Sensor fusion

Advanced man-machine interface techniques such as combined HMD and voice control promise to ease the pilot's workload Substantially more effort has been expended in the development of the Typhoon's "man-machine interface" than Eurofighter had originally estimated. But the result is a cockpit...
www.flightglobal.com
www.flightglobal.com




Go back to the infographic that says "What the other guys call sensor fusion"

It's not sensor fusion.

Nobody is doubting that the F-35 system is better than the Typhoon's and there are different levels, the only dispute here is that the Rafale system is as good (or better) than the F-35's, which it clearly isn't given the narrow margin of SA between the Rafale and Typhoon in the Swiss Eval - 7.6 vs 7.4 - and the Typhoon had significantly better engagement scores.

And like I said, you don't test sensor fusion directly, you test SA in an eval. If the Rafale sensor fusion doesn't given significantly better SA, then it isn't significantly better and that's the bottom line. How terrible that an eval which the French deliberately leaked should come back to bit them in the a55 like this. If you say that the Typhoon doesn't have sensor fusion, then that just makes the Rafale's sensor fusion even sh1tter, since its SA is almost as bad as an aircraft with none.

As for conflating IMA with sensor fusion, that's garbage on physical level. The person who told you that doesn't have a clue what sensor fusion is and probably doesn't even know what IMA or federated really means either. I wouldn't even buy a kite from that person.

The points table published by the Swiss is for the NWA2, meaning the paper capabilities expected to be operational in 2015. So the points table likely considers Typhoon has full data fusion, similar in capability to the Rafale, since even I've assumed Tranche 3 and beyond have IMA. But such a Typhoon did not exist when the evals happened. For NWA1, the Swiss claim the Typhoon is deficient, although they don't reveal the true deficiencies. Regardless it's understood NWA2 is not reflective of Typhoon's actual capabilities, which are yet to be met even today.

Both F-35 and Rafale have a centralised architecture. Both function different from the Typhoon. Both have actual data fusion. There's nothing more to it.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Go back to the infographic that says "What the other guys call sensor fusion"

It's not sensor fusion.



The points table published by the Swiss is for the NWA2, meaning the paper capabilities expected to be operational in 2015. So the points table likely considers Typhoon has full data fusion, similar in capability to the Rafale, since even I've assumed Tranche 3 and beyond have IMA. But such a Typhoon did not exist when the evals happened. For NWA1, the Swiss claim the Typhoon is deficient, although they don't reveal the true deficiencies. Regardless it's understood NWA2 is not reflective of Typhoon's actual capabilities, which are yet to be met even today.

Both F-35 and Rafale have a centralised architecture. Both function different from the Typhoon. Both have actual data fusion. There's nothing more to it.
That's advertising and frankly, whilst the F-35 is a better plane, it's not really up to Lockheed to define what is or isn't sensor fusion or supercruise for that matter. And when they say 'the other guys' that means Rafale too you plonker.

No, that table was for current capabilities at the time. How the f*ck could you assume that both aircraft would have whatever and then appoint them a score that puts one ahead of the other? You need to take the little French cock out of your ear and learn to think by yourself.

Centralised architecture is not exclusive to IMA either. Hardware architecture has nothing to do with data flow or processing, it's about upgradeability. And on the LM graphic both illustrations show a centralised architecture anyway. In the first graphic it could just as easily be data and tracks being sent, there's nothing special about the databus inbetween, it's just a databus, it doesn't have a clue what it's sending, nor does it need too.

The difference of IMA vs federated is simply that if I want to upgrade component A on its own, I can with IMA, with federated architecture I need to upgrade the whole thing, or at least several components, so it can't be done piece-meal. Jeez, get a clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
No, that table was for current capabilities at the time. How the f*ck could you assume that both aircraft would have whatever and then appoint them a score that puts one ahead of the other? You need to take the little French cock out of your ear and learn to think by yourself.

Nope. NWA1 is for current capabilities, as of 2008. NWA2 is for capabilties in 2015 that the Swiss would induct.

None of it has anything to do with the French.

Centralised architecture is not exclusive to IMA either. Hardware architecture has nothing to do with data flow or processing, it's about upgradeability.

IMA and centralised architecture are the same.

And on the LM graphic both illustrations show a centralised architecture anyway.

:ROFLMAO: So a single computer created multiple tracks? You are tripping on yourself as usual.

The difference of IMA vs federated is simply that if I want to upgrade component A on its own, I can with IMA, with federated architecture I need to upgrade the whole thing, or at least several components, so it can't be done piece-meal. Jeez, get a clue.

Nope. You are confusing the two things. When it comes to sensor fusion, you can't do with a federated system what you can with a centralised system. The fact that IMA is easy to maintain and upgrade is a whole different thing. It's like claiming the difference between MS and AESA is the ease of maintenance, while ignoring all the other advantages of the AESA. IMA is the same thing, it gives you options that the other does not, and the benefit to sensor fusion is on the top of the list.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Nope. NWA1 is for current capabilities, as of 2008. NWA2 is for capabilties in 2015 that the Swiss would induct.

None of it has anything to do with the French.



IMA and centralised architecture are the same.



:ROFLMAO: So a single computer created multiple tracks? You are tripping on yourself as usual.



Nope. You are confusing the two things. When it comes to sensor fusion, you can't do with a federated system what you can with a centralised system. The fact that IMA is easy to maintain and upgrade is a whole different thing. It's like claiming the difference between MS and AESA is the ease of maintenance, while ignoring all the other advantages of the AESA. IMA is the same thing, it gives you options that the other does not, and the benefit to sensor fusion is on the top of the list.
Nope, the chart was for current capabilities, otherwise I'm sure the French would have leaked the NWA1 evaluation since it would show them more favourably. If it was for soon to be capabilities, then how the hell would RBE2-AA be rated higher than Captor-E for detection? All garbage, all from France, all from the dick in your ear.

Hang your head in shame. They have nothing to do with each other. Centralised simply means based around a central processor, IMA means individual components can be replaced separately.

You should tell the FBI to rename themselves the Integrated Modular Bureau of Investigations.

Both graphics show multiple tracks going to a central processor, but one shows tracking raw data being sent too. Whether you get multiple tracks out depends whether you're tracking one object or not. You don't want multiple tracks if there's only one object to track.

It's nothing of the sort, MS and AESA use completely different hardware technology. IMA and federated use the same hardware technology in a different architecture. Sensor fusion is software not hardware. Hardware does not think, it just does.... a bit like someone else I know.

The F-35 is more advanced than the Rafale because it uses more advanced software, which is why that part is closely guarded. You can't simply say that the Rafale is equivalent because it uses the same hardware architecture. You were sold a dud with a bunch of lies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Nope, the chart was for current capabilities, otherwise I'm sure the French would have leaked the NWA1 evaluation since it would show them more favourably. If it was for soon to be capabilities, then how the hell would RBE2-AA be rated higher than Captor-E for detection? All garbage, all from France, all from the dick in your ear.

Hang your head in shame. They have nothing to do with each other. Centralised simply means based around a central processor, IMA means individual components can be replaced separately.

You should tell the FBI to rename themselves the Integrated Modular Bureau of Investigations.

Both graphics show multiple tracks going to a central processor, but one shows tracking raw data being sent too. Whether you get multiple tracks out depends whether you're tracking one object or not. You don't want multiple tracks if there's only one object to track.

It's nothing of the sort, MS and AESA use completely different hardware technology. IMA and federated use the same hardware technology in a different architecture. Sensor fusion is software not hardware. Hardware does not think, it just does.... a bit like someone else I know.

The F-35 is more advanced than the Rafale because it uses more advanced software, which is why that part is closely guarded. You can't simply say that the Rafale is equivalent because it uses the same hardware architecture. You were sold a dud with a bunch of lies.

Clearly says NWA Phase II.
CTo3lXMWEAEQl3n.jpg



Ie, a fictional Typhoon configuration against a real Rafale configuration, since the Rafale's upgrades for the Swiss were already contracted by then.

CTo3lNtWoAEtGnp.jpg


PS: "Federal" and "federated" are not the same, in fact the opposite. Federal is simply the American equivalent of "central", so it in fact already supports my argument. In India, our FBI equivalent is the CBI, or Central Bureau of Investigation, 'cause we use British English. So now you'rebeing schooled on grammar and vocabulary as well. Tsk, how the mighty have fallen.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Clearly says NWA Phase II.
View attachment 21397


Ie, a fictional Typhoon configuration against a real Rafale configuration, since the Rafale's upgrades for the Swiss were already contracted by then.

View attachment 21399

PS: "Federal" and "federated" are not the same, in fact the opposite. Federal is simply the American equivalent of "central", so it in fact already supports my argument. In India, our FBI equivalent is the CBI, or Central Bureau of Investigation, 'cause we use British English. So now you'rebeing schooled on grammar and vocabulary as well. Tsk, how the mighty have fallen.
Right so basically it didn't include Captor-E, because that couldn't be demonstrated in 2008, so you're saying that Captor-M still beat RBE2-AA on engagement? Always said RBE2-AA was a poorly and hastily developed AESA for marketing. It was still testing what could be demonstrated at the time so T3 P1E version, as demonstrated, was only just behind the F3+ on SA. Same argument applies really, the Rafale is nowhere near F-35 level.

So how come CIA isn't FIA then? You're not a chess-player are you young padawan?

Facts are facts, an FA or IMA can still have centralised processing and can still do the same sensor fusion, but the latter is more easily upgraded. The strength of the sensor fusion is down to the R&D efforts put into the software together with the quality of the sensors themselves and obviously more powerful hardware allows more sophisticated software to be ran faster.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Right so basically it didn't include Captor-E, because that couldn't be demonstrated in 2008, so you're saying that Captor-M still beat RBE2-AA on engagement? It was still testing what could be demonstrated at the time so T3 P1E version, as demonstrated, was only just behind the F3+ on SA. Same argument applies really.

What makes you say that? I'm more inclined to believe the engagement category has a lot to do with the BVR missile, where the AIM-120 outperforms the MICA in a straight-up fight. There are other categories which involve the radar, like detection, acquition and identification, where the AESA gives it a significant lead even in Air Policing. So engagement obviously involves the literal concept of engaging the target with a weapon, since that's what comes after acquisition of a target.

So how come CIA isn't FIA then? You're not a chess-player are you young padawan?

The "Central" in CIA doesn't refer to the govt, that's why, it is named after the literal meaning of central. Just like "centralised architecture" or the centre of a circle. You don't know English, do you, little youngling?
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
What makes you say that? I'm more inclined to believe the engagement category has a lot to do with the BVR missile, where the AIM-120 outperforms the MICA in a straight-up fight. There are other categories which involve the radar, like detection, acquition and identification, where the AESA gives it a significant lead even in Air Policing. So engagement obviously involves the literal concept of engaging the target with a weapon, since that's what comes after acquisition of a target.



The "Central" in CIA doesn't refer to the govt, that's why, it is named after the literal meaning of central. Just like "centralised architecture" or the centre of a circle. You don't know English, do you, little youngling?
Engagement is the ability to get a lock on a target. It would be stupid to base the rating on a weapon, which could be integrated on to any fighter. If I'm not mistaken (which I'm not) the Gripen C used AIM-120C too and was way down, so your theory is wrong. AESA can beat M-Scan on detecting lots of targets, faster scanning but where raw power is required, Captor-M won. But the fact is Rafale AESA wasn't much better than Captor-M, Captor-E will melt it.

Now you're just blabbering without meaning. The CIA is very much a government entity and both the CIA and FBI use field offices. The fact is the two words are used interchangeably and have nothing to do sensor fusion, which is dataflow and software, not hardware architecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Engagement is the ability to get a lock on a target.

Acquisition is tracking and locking on. I'm pretty sure it wil involves the number of targets tracked and engaged and all the assorted functions associated with it.

It would be stupid to base the rating on a weapon, which could be integrated on to any fighter. If I'm not mistaken (which I'm not) the Gripen C used AIM-120C too and was way down, so your theory is wrong.

As a single engine light fighter, it's not going to have the same altitude and speed as the Typhoon during engagement. See, engagement doesn't just relate to the type of weapon but also the conditions it can be used in. The Typhoon should provide more speed, G and altitude options that increase the capability of the missile. Plus there's also the WVR weapon, where the ASRAAM/IRS-T comfortably beat the AIM-9X in pretty much any situation. Even the quality of the datalink will matter. The higher FoV will also give it multiple new tactical options over a fixed radar like the one on the Rafale. You are not considering all the aspects of "engagement".

AESA can beat M-Scan on detecting lots of targets, faster scanning but where raw power is required, Captor-M won. But the fact is Rafale AESA wasn't much better than Captor-M, Captor-E will melt it.

Sure. The expected 50% performance increase goal over the PESA put it in the same category as the Captor-M. It's the actual 100% increase that pushes it into its own league, but they realised that after testing the radar, long after the Swiss evals. And considering the opponent is the ol' Hornet, there should be no problems for either radar to detect, identify and acquire the target. And even with a 50% increase, we can see that the detection, identification and acquistion of the AESA are superior even with only a 50% increase. I'm sure the Captor-E Radar 0/1 will beat the RBE-2AA quite comfortably. But that's not what the Swiss tested. And it's not relevant to the Rafale if the Captor-E does better anyway.

Now you're just blabbering without meaning. The CIA is very much a government entity and both the CIA and FBI use field offices. The fact is the two words are used interchangeably and have nothing to do sensor fusion, which is dataflow and software, not hardware architecture.

Lol. Will school you in English then.

UK/India, Central = related to national govt.
US, Federal = related to national govt.
US, Central = related to the meaning "main or most important".

So Federal Bureau of Investigation = The "US Govt's" Bureau of Investigation, which separates itself from SBI or state bureau of investigation.

Central Intelligence Agency = Most Important/Headquarters/Hub Intelligence Agency.
There's no "state intelligence agency" or "federated intelligence agency".

Congrats, now you know a little more English, my dear youngling.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
Acquisition is tracking and locking on. I'm pretty sure it wil involves the number of targets tracked and engaged and all the assorted functions associated with it.



As a single engine light fighter, it's not going to have the same altitude and speed as the Typhoon during engagement. See, engagement doesn't just relate to the type of weapon but also the conditions it can be used in. The Typhoon should provide more speed, G and altitude options that increase the capability of the missile. Plus there's also the WVR weapon, where the ASRAAM/IRS-T comfortably beat the AIM-9X in pretty much any situation. Even the quality of the datalink will matter. The higher FoV will also give it multiple new tactical options over a fixed radar like the one on the Rafale. You are not considering all the aspects of "engagement".



Sure. The expected 50% performance increase goal over the PESA put it in the same category as the Captor-M. It's the actual 100% increase that pushes it into its own league, but they realised that after testing the radar, long after the Swiss evals. And considering the opponent is the ol' Hornet, there should be no problems for either radar to detect, identify and acquire the target. And even with a 50% increase, we can see that the detection, identification and acquistion of the AESA are superior even with only a 50% increase. I'm sure the Captor-E Radar 0/1 will beat the RBE-2AA quite comfortably. But that's not what the Swiss tested. And it's not relevant to the Rafale if the Captor-E does better anyway.



Lol. Will school you in English then.

UK/India, Central = related to national govt.
US, Federal = related to national govt.
US, Central = related to the meaning "main or most important".

So Federal Bureau of Investigation = The "US Govt's" Bureau of Investigation, which separates itself from SBI or state bureau of investigation.

Central Intelligence Agency = Most Important/Headquarters/Hub Intelligence Agency.
There's no "state intelligence agency" or "federated intelligence agency".

Congrats, now you know a little more English, my dear youngling.
Acquisition is tracking but not locking, different radar mode.

Now you're really struggling for excuses, the difference of single-engined vs dual engine gives a kinematic range sufficient to explain 5.4 vs 7.7? :ROFLMAO: It's radar power and nothing more.

Ah, so the French realised this and told you did they?:ROFLMAO: I think you'll find they demonstrated the actual radar during the trials. If it wasn't demonstrated it wouldn't have been included, just like Captor-E couldn't be. ESA will always have better detection and tracking, no dispute there, but power and gain are physical attributes mostly relating to size.

Both are still centralised government entities either way. And both LM diagrams show a centralised processing architecture, just with different data flows.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
Acquisition is tracking but not locking, different radar mode.

I didn't know the Swiss had created an entire category for just locking on then. :ROFLMAO:

Now you're really struggling for excuses, the difference of single-engined vs dual engine gives a kinematic range sufficient to explain 5.4 vs 7.7? :ROFLMAO: It's radar power and nothing more.

Nope. That's the advantage a dedicated air superiority aircraft has over a single engine multirole jet using an inferior engine and limited fuel.

Ah, so the French realised this and told you did they?:ROFLMAO: I think you'll find they demonstrated the actual radar during the trials. If it wasn't demonstrated it wouldn't have been included, just like Captor-E couldn't be. ESA will always have better detection and tracking, no dispute there, but power and gain are physical attributes mostly relating to size.

The French radar at the time was with American T/R modules, not with the French ones.

Both are still centralised government entities either way. And both LM diagrams show a centralised processing architecture, just with different data flows.

Lol. So I suppose Grand Central Station is run by the President then. And I'm sure Central Park has everything to do with DC and nothing to do with the fact that it's in the centre of Manhattan.

Doesn't matter what you think about the LM diagram, the people at EFT believe what the Typhoon has is not sufficient enough and requires modernisation years after the Swiss evaluations.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
7,149
1,798
I didn't know the Swiss had created an entire category for just locking on then. :ROFLMAO:



Nope. That's the advantage a dedicated air superiority aircraft has over a single engine multirole jet using an inferior engine and limited fuel.



The French radar at the time was with American T/R modules, not with the French ones.



Lol. So I suppose Grand Central Station is run by the President then. And I'm sure Central Park has everything to do with DC and nothing to do with the fact that it's in the centre of Manhattan.

Doesn't matter what you think about the LM diagram, the people at EFT believe what the Typhoon has is not sufficient enough and requires modernisation years after the Swiss evaluations.
There's detection, tracking and targeting.

Yeah sure it is. It's radar, nothing to do with missiles, since any of the three aircraft could be equipped with any AAM (AMRAAM, Meteor, MICA, IRIS-T, AMRAAM etc.). It's an aircraft eval, not an AAM eval.

Bull. Always an excuse. Can you imagine if a French person was a champion tennis player, race driver or boxer, the excuses would never end.

:ROFLMAO: WTF! My whole point is that words mean very little. They're probably central to something. Langley isn't exactly central to the US now is it?

They're right, at least they admit it, rather than claiming that it's equivalent to the F-35 like some nob polishers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHOHE

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
12,070
9,209
India
There's detection, tracking and targeting.

Yeah sure it is. It's radar, nothing to do with missiles, since any of the three aircraft could be equipped with any AAM (AMRAAM, Meteor, MICA, IRIS-T, AMRAAM etc.). It's an aircraft eval, not an AAM eval.

Bull. Always an excuse. Can you imagine if a French person was a champion tennis player, race driver or boxer, the excuses would never end.

:ROFLMAO: WTF! My whole point is that words mean very little. They're probably central to something. Langley isn't exactly central to the US now is it?

They're right, at least they admit it, rather than claiming that it's equivalent to the F-35 like some nob polishers.

Yeesh, it's like talking to a child.

Typhoon did not have sensor fusion at the time of the Swiss evals. The end.
 

WHOHE

Banned
Jun 23, 2021
432
228
California
Who was the imbecile that said...

"F-35's primary means of communication, the MADL datalink, only allows it to communicate with itself"

I forget the name but he's always wrong and gets destroyed by stark_contras at airdefense. :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD