crane
Ylipäällikkö
SS:ssää pitää lukea tietynlainen filtteri päällä. Osa jutuista on todella hyviä ja objektiivisia mut osa taas sit.....no näitä.
F-35 Lightning II
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Hejsan
- Aloitus PVM
"F-35:n arvioidaan olevan viimeinen miehitetty monitoimihävittäjä". Siis mitvit? Onhan noita kehittelyssä ainakin Ruotsissa ja Venäjällä sekä Kiinassa tälläkin hetkellä. Arvellaanko siis että Kiinan koneet tai PAK-FA tai JAS-39E eivät koskaan tulekaan käyttöön? Mitäs tuohon kirjoitukseen nyt kommentoisi...ihanan asenteellista
Ilmeisesti tarkoitti rynnäkköhävittäjää? Kun lukee koko tekstin. Mutta, ei kovin selkeätä.
BTW Olen myös lukenut tuon "sinisen kirjan", ja kieltämättä siinä maalattiin unenomainen kuva F-35:hankkeesta. Muuten hyvän kirjan köykäisin kohta. F-35 ei mm. ole ensimmäinen joint-hanke, vaikka tässä laajuudessa onkin merkittävä (STOVL-häive-yliäänikone).
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Eihän tuollaista tarvitse jatkaa pitkään. Riitää, että tarpeeksi suuri määrä kenttiä (ei tarvitse edes kaikkia) saadaan pois käytöstä ajalliseti jolloin ilmavoimilla on ns. Open sky tai ainakin vähemmän vihollista ilmassa. Koneista voidaan kipata sitten enemmän tavaraa niskaan. Ihan samaa taktiikkaahan länsi käyttää. Kyllästetään puolustus, estetään voimien käyttö ja tuhotaan edellytykset toimia jatkossa. Meillä on mielestäni aika vähän sijoitettu noiden kenttien suojaamiseen ilmauhalta ja tänäpäivänä erillaisilta heitteiltä. Hommaan kun lisätään se tosiasia, että tulevaisuudessa kone määrä todennäköisesti entisestään pienenee niin tuolloin niinden suojaamiseen ja toiminta edellytysten parantamiseen tulisi panostaa paljon enemmän. Ei se stealth ole autuaaksi tekevä asia jos kone istuu bunkkerissa kun ei tietä josta nousta tai tilannekuva on yhtä sekasotkua.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Juu, aina kun lukee kaupallista julkaisua niin sitä toivoisi hyvää toimittaja työskentelyä ja objektiivista lähestymistä. Toimittaja ei saa olla mitään mieltä vaan homman pitää perustua faktoihin. Tällaisella foorumilla homma on vähän eri ja juuri mielipiteet ovat se juttu. Silloin saadaan keskustelua aikaiseksi.
What is it Like to fly the Navy’s F-35C?
26 Aug 2016 U.S. Navy
"Lt. Nicholas “Fila” Rezendes is a U.S. Navy fighter pilot assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 located at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. On August 14, 2016, he participated in carrier qualifications for the F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73)....
...As much as I’ll always love the legacy F/A-18C, I have to admit that I would probably feel a bit disappointed if I went back to using the smaller, all-green displays in the Hornet.
Leading up to the carrier qualifications, I was particularly excited to see how this jet handled behind the aircraft carrier. It really exceeded my expectations. Having only previously conducted arrested landings in Hornets, the comparison between the two was night and day...."
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/08/26/what-is-it-like-to-fly-the-navys-f-35c/
^^^
"The current training program for F-35 transition pilots is 8 weeks long. The transition pilots are comprised of legacy aircraft experts such as experienced F-16 or F-22 pilots. These pilots will become F-35 instructors upon the completion of the program. Training begins with a week of military lectures, followed by 3 weeks of lectures and academic courses specific to the F-35. A pilot training aid (PTA) laptop simulator is flown by transition pilots during these early phases of the course. The last phase of the training program is a mixture of 8-10 F-35 Full Mission Simulator (FMS) sessions and 4-5 actual flights in the F-35. The PTA and the FMS are the two main simulators used in the transition curriculum."
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-39454-6 tai http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20448 (pdf, "Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology ")´
Eli jokin tuota vastaava tulee Hornetiin koulutetuille siirtymävaiheessa eteen jos F-35:ta ostamme.
Uusien lentäjien koulutuksesta esimerkki Luke AFB:n ohjelmasta:
"This year, Luke has a goal to train 45 F-35 pilots, all of whom are experienced fighter pilots and will transition to the F-35 after a rigorous training program that lasts about 90 days. Training for new fighter pilots (those who are trained pilots, but new to fighter jets) is scheduled to begin next year and will be closer to nine months in duration.
The training for experienced fighter pilots starts with academic instruction before digital training using a pilot training aid, which is similar to a desktop simulator with a joystick and a throttle. After a few weeks of digital training, pilots proceed to the all-encompassing 360-degree full mission simulator. Finally, pilots take to the jet and complete various training exercises."
https://web.archive.org/web/2015091...ining-the-worlds-greatest-f-35-fighter-pilots
26 Aug 2016 U.S. Navy
"Lt. Nicholas “Fila” Rezendes is a U.S. Navy fighter pilot assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101 located at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. On August 14, 2016, he participated in carrier qualifications for the F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73)....
...As much as I’ll always love the legacy F/A-18C, I have to admit that I would probably feel a bit disappointed if I went back to using the smaller, all-green displays in the Hornet.
Leading up to the carrier qualifications, I was particularly excited to see how this jet handled behind the aircraft carrier. It really exceeded my expectations. Having only previously conducted arrested landings in Hornets, the comparison between the two was night and day...."
http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/08/26/what-is-it-like-to-fly-the-navys-f-35c/
^^^
"The current training program for F-35 transition pilots is 8 weeks long. The transition pilots are comprised of legacy aircraft experts such as experienced F-16 or F-22 pilots. These pilots will become F-35 instructors upon the completion of the program. Training begins with a week of military lectures, followed by 3 weeks of lectures and academic courses specific to the F-35. A pilot training aid (PTA) laptop simulator is flown by transition pilots during these early phases of the course. The last phase of the training program is a mixture of 8-10 F-35 Full Mission Simulator (FMS) sessions and 4-5 actual flights in the F-35. The PTA and the FMS are the two main simulators used in the transition curriculum."
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-39454-6 tai http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20448 (pdf, "Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology ")´
Eli jokin tuota vastaava tulee Hornetiin koulutetuille siirtymävaiheessa eteen jos F-35:ta ostamme.
Uusien lentäjien koulutuksesta esimerkki Luke AFB:n ohjelmasta:
"This year, Luke has a goal to train 45 F-35 pilots, all of whom are experienced fighter pilots and will transition to the F-35 after a rigorous training program that lasts about 90 days. Training for new fighter pilots (those who are trained pilots, but new to fighter jets) is scheduled to begin next year and will be closer to nine months in duration.
The training for experienced fighter pilots starts with academic instruction before digital training using a pilot training aid, which is similar to a desktop simulator with a joystick and a throttle. After a few weeks of digital training, pilots proceed to the all-encompassing 360-degree full mission simulator. Finally, pilots take to the jet and complete various training exercises."
https://web.archive.org/web/2015091...ining-the-worlds-greatest-f-35-fighter-pilots
Viimeksi muokattu:
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Siihen nähden miten muutkin faktat olivat hakusessa, luulen että tarkoitti ihan sitä mitä sanoi. Esan kannattaa pysytellä akkukäyttöisissä työkaluissa, tuntuvat olevan paremmin halussa.
Liikehtimiskyky josta Esa tuntui olevan eniten huolissaan on nyt jauhettu jo täälläkin läpi moneen kertaan, joten ei siitä enempää.
Nopealla läpivilaisulla erikoinen oli myös väite F-22:n häiveen "paremmuudesta", USAFin air combat commandin isotappi Hostagen suora sitaatti: The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth."
Bogdan on kommentoinut väitettä kertomalla sen olevan totta.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Tuosta on kyllä näkynyt erilaisiakin arvioita F-22:n eduksi. Varsinkin kun puhutaan muista kuin etu sektorista.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Jep juurikin näin, kaikenlaiset Esat arvioivat netissä mitä sattuu mutta nämä kaksi jamppaa TIETÄVÄT.
Ei tuossa Hostagen kommentissa kauheasti ole tulkinnanvaraa.
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Siinä on ihan mielenkiintoinen juttu.. http://aviationweek.com/blog/f-35-stealthier-f-22 Kannattaa lukea ajatuksella kun on samaisen ilmamarsalkan mietteitä.
F-35 Stealthier Than F-22?
Jun 9, 2014by Bill Sweetman in Ares
RSS
I figured that there would be some kind of PR offensive out of the Joint Strike Fighter program in preparation for the floating of the UK carrier and the international debut of the F-35, and here it is, in the form of a two-part piece in Breaking Defense, here and here.
The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course.
Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage, according to reporter Colin Clark, "labels as 'old think' those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare."
“Oldthink”, of course, is a word straight out of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel FifthGenerationTM, indeed.
That aside, we should remember that Hostage ruffled a few feathers with a quote earlier this year:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
That was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the F-35, particularly for customers who had been assured that F-35 was, no kidding, a dominant air-superiority platform (as the Australians were, in sworn testimony to Parliament). So, particularly with Canada's government ready to announce another sole-source decision to buy JSF without a competition that would provide a full view of alternative fighters, it is good news for the program if Hostage talks over his previous statement.
In the new interview, Hostage talks up the F-35’s stealth and expressly takes issue with the Boeing/Navy picture of the F-35 requiring first-day support from the EA-18G Growler or other electronic warfare assets.
“In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door.”
However, note that Hostage is not saying that F-35s will go in unsupported: they will use numbers for mutual support:
“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.
Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.
The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.
The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.
Hostage is effusive about the value of the F-35’s sensor fusion and datalinks, too:
“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it.”
With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago.
Finally, the second half of the Breaking Defense story talks a lot about cyber (very little of it from Hostage or any named source) and says that export buyers “went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.”
Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear? What guarantees have been provided that F-35 cyber weapons developed by the U.S. will be shared with non-U.S. operators? And, failing that, will international partners be enabled to program their own cyber-operations tools into the F-35?
F-35 Stealthier Than F-22?
Jun 9, 2014by Bill Sweetman in Ares
RSS
I figured that there would be some kind of PR offensive out of the Joint Strike Fighter program in preparation for the floating of the UK carrier and the international debut of the F-35, and here it is, in the form of a two-part piece in Breaking Defense, here and here.
The first observation to be made is that the Air Force might be able to use an Eng Lit 101 course.
Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage, according to reporter Colin Clark, "labels as 'old think' those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare."
“Oldthink”, of course, is a word straight out of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Oldthinkers unbellyfeel FifthGenerationTM, indeed.
That aside, we should remember that Hostage ruffled a few feathers with a quote earlier this year:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
That was not exactly a ringing endorsement of the F-35, particularly for customers who had been assured that F-35 was, no kidding, a dominant air-superiority platform (as the Australians were, in sworn testimony to Parliament). So, particularly with Canada's government ready to announce another sole-source decision to buy JSF without a competition that would provide a full view of alternative fighters, it is good news for the program if Hostage talks over his previous statement.
In the new interview, Hostage talks up the F-35’s stealth and expressly takes issue with the Boeing/Navy picture of the F-35 requiring first-day support from the EA-18G Growler or other electronic warfare assets.
“In the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door.”
However, note that Hostage is not saying that F-35s will go in unsupported: they will use numbers for mutual support:
“I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two (F-22) Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
The words “that site” imply that Hostage is talking about destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) rather than air superiority alone – where the F-22’s speed and larger missile load could be expected to yield an advantage over the F-35. But a four-to-one advantage for the F-22 in DEAD, which is one of the JSF’s prime design missions, is unfavourable in terms of cost-effectiveness: according to a 2008 RAND study of continuing production of the F-22 (at 30 or fewer per year) and the most optimistic F-35 numbers from Lockheed Martin (at 150-plus per year), the F-22 at worst costs twice as much as the F-35.
Hostage makes another, very interesting comparison between the F-22 and the F-35.
The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
Now, we all know that a lot of things can go happen between the interviewee’s brain and the interviewer’s keyboard, but the idea that the F-35 is stealthier than the F-22 contradicts pretty much everything that has been said about the program for the past 20 years, including the reporting of my former colleague, the usually well-informed Dave Fulghum.
The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.
The geometrical basics of stealth -- sweep and cant angles, minimized small-radius curves and nozzle design -- favor the F-22, and everything anyone has said about radar absorbent materials for years has been about life-cycle cost rather than performance.
Hostage is effusive about the value of the F-35’s sensor fusion and datalinks, too:
“Fusion says here’s what’s out there. You told me, this one right here’s a threat. Here’s what it’s doing right now. Here’s what your wingman (knows): he sees he’s got a missile on the right, so I’m not going to waste a missile because I already see that my wingman’s taking care of it.”
With all due respect, what is Swedish for “Hold the front page”? The datalink and tactical display system on the JAS 39A Gripen did exactly that, 15 years ago.
Finally, the second half of the Breaking Defense story talks a lot about cyber (very little of it from Hostage or any named source) and says that export buyers “went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.”
Three questions that all those export customers should answer to their voters: In what Block will those magic cyber capabilities appear? What guarantees have been provided that F-35 cyber weapons developed by the U.S. will be shared with non-U.S. operators? And, failing that, will international partners be enabled to program their own cyber-operations tools into the F-35?
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Hohhoijaa
Yhdysvaltojen ilmavoimien air combat commandin komentaja vs Bill Sweetman..
Sweetmanin kanta JSF:stä on tiedossa, koko "artikkeli" on malliesimerkki siitä, mikä on reaktio kun kerrotut faktat eivät tuekaan sitä omaa mielipidettä.
The statement is curious for other reasons. Nobody ever suggested in the program’s formative years that the goal was to beat the F-22's stealth - and indeed that would be extremely unlikely since the JSF was designed for export. Stealth, along with other requirements, was also subject to trades in the development of the final JSF requirement, and less important than life-cycle cost.
Aika vakuuttavaa argumentointia, varsinkin kun on tiedossa että F-22:n viimeisissä tuotantoversiossa käytettiin F-35:n pinnoitteita niiden paremmuuden takia ja F-35:n rakenteisiin ram on "leivottu" sisään, valmistustekniikka jota ei osattu hyödyntää F-22:n tuotannossa. Nämä ovat ihan julkisista lähteistä peräisin olevia faktoja jotka olivat Bilillekkin saatavilla.
Mitä tulee Gripen kommentteihin, svedujen parvilinkki tuskin pystyi koneiden väliseen sensorifuusioon 15 vuotta sitten. Mutta ei anneta faktojen häiritä...
Viimeksi muokattu:
Raveni
Greatest Leader
Siinä on suoria lainauksia F-35 fanipoikien jumalalta Hostagelta. Ihan hyvin tuo oli kirjoitettu eikä siinä F-35:sta haukuttu. Kerrottiin vain missä se on hyvä ja missä ei. Se ei ole ilmanherruus hävittäjä eikä jenkit ole missään vaiheessa niin väittäneet. Pommitus tehtäviin se on luotu. Jenkeillä F-22 hoitaa ilmatilan putsaamisen.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Faktat hukassa kuten muillakin Gripen-faneilla tuntuu olevan. Sweetmanhan on kruunaamaton kunkku.
Puhuttiin koneiden tutkapoikkipinta-aloista, ei rooleista.
Rooleista puheenollen, helposti ymmärrettävä analogia voisi olla F-35A = F-16C ja F-22 = F-15C.
Se että amerikkalaisista koneista F-35 on toiseksi kyvykkäin ilmasta ilmaan -kone, ei tarkoita sitä etteikö se pyyhi pöytää KAIKILLA 4:n generaation koneilla.
Viimeksi muokattu:
Huhta
Greatest Leader
Minusta nuo koulutukset tuntuvat lyhyiltä. Konversiokoulutuksen lyhyyden ymmärrän jollakin tasolla, ja on toki ihan positiivista, jos lentäjien konvertointi ei vaadi paljoa. Käsittääkseni Hornetiin siirryttäessä aika moni MiG-/Draken-ohjaaja sai kenkää ennenaikaisesti, vain pienehkö osa olemassa olleista lentäjistä tyyppikoulutettiin uudelle konetyypille. Tällä kertaa saattaa olla toisin.
Sen sijaan jos edeltävää hävittäjäkokemusta omaamaton aiotaan saada lentämään yhdeksässä kuukaudessa suihkuhävittäjää, niin se tuntuu jo erittäin kunnianhimoiselta tavoitteelta. Väkisin tulee mieleen, että koneita tullaan menettämään onnettomuuksissa. Tuo tekstin "those who are trained pilots, but new to fighter jets" jättää kylläkin tulkinnanvaraa. Tarkoitetaanko sillä lentäjiä, jotka ovat lentäneet vasta Texanilla eivätkä ole koskaan lentäneet edes harjoitushävittäjällä (Talonilla)? Vai tarkoitetaanko sillä nyt kuitenkin lentäjiä, jotka ovat jo lentäneet hävittäjäkoulutusputkessansa Talonilla ja hakevat nyt F-35:n tyyppejä?
Kuulostaa todella hurjalta, jos Suomessakin uudet pilotit käyvät tulevaisuudessa Vinkalla lennettyään nopeasti kääntymässä Hawkeissa ja sitten hyppäävät F-35:n puikkoihin! Alati teknistyvä ja osaamista vaativa sotilaskalusto... my ass.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Itse ymmärrän tuolla tarkoitettavan esim A-10 kuskeja, heitähän on myös hyppäämässä F-35:n puikkoihin.
crane
Ylipäällikkö
Ei takuulla saanu kenkää talosta ulos, vaan joutuivat varmaankin "lentämään" kirjoituspöytää.
MADL ei kykene kuin neljään yhteyteen kerralla, niin voi hieman epäillä mitä Link-16 tai ruotsalaisten TARAS/TILDS throughputilla saa ajoiksi tilannekuvan osalta.
Täällä enemmän: http://maanpuolustus.net/threads/hävittäjien-datalinkit-link-16-taras-tidls-stril-viiri-madl-ifdl.5040/
Viimeksi muokattu:
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Tämä (datalinkit ja niiden toiminta, sensorifuusio) on ainakin itselleni yksi vaikeimmin hahmotettavista jutuista.
MADL ainakin mainospuheiden mukaan mahdollistaa ihan oikean koneiden välisen sensorifuusion (esim koneen 1 EOTSilta tulevan epävarman havainnon ansiosta koneen 2 tutka osaa automaattisesti katsoa havainnon suuntaan) ei ainoastaan yhteisen tilannekuvan.
TIDLSistä en tiedä juuri mitään, mutta varma olen siitä että sen edeltäjä ei edellä kuvailemani kaltaista sensorifuusiota mahdollistanut toisin kuin BS antoi ymmärtää.
Muoksina vielä, noi edellisenkaltaiset jutut on niitä joihin ne järkyttävät dollarikuormat on mennyt ja jotka antavat myös ne pilottien kertomat isot etulyöntiasemat. Tahtovat kuitenkin jäädä meidän harrastelijoiden keskuudessa vähälle huomiolle ehkä juuri noiden hahmotusvaikeuksien takia.
Viimeksi muokattu:
Vanhassa Gripenissä ei ole EOTSia, mutta tutkat eri koneiden välillä ilmeisesti pystyivät yhteistyöhön.
Btw. Tuo edellä kuvattu skenaario ei vaadi datalinkiltä juuri yhtään mitään.
Esim. link-16 lähettää maalitietoja, jotka integroituvat koneen järjestelmiin. Ihan yhtä hyvin se voisi lähettää "epävarmoja maalitietoja".
Esim. Superhornet / Growler pystyvät ainakin kohteiden triangulaatioon useamman koneen kesken. Olettaisin että hyödyntävät datalinkkinä Link-16
Tuossa lyhyt linkinpätkä
https://theaviationist.com/tag/boeing-fa-18ef-super-hornet/page/2/
The Growler, operating in a networked environment along with other two aircraft of the same type (needed for triangulation), can use its EW pods to geo-locate a signal source and target it from stand-off distance with air-to-surface missiles.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Ei ole uudessakaan Gripenissä EOTSia, joku IRSTiä leikkivä pallukka siinä keulalla näytti olevan lanseerauksessa.
Jonkin verran lähetyskapasiteettia se kai datalinkiltä vaatii