Gripen E/F
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Huhta
- Aloitus PVM
Itse alan olla pessimisti, ja en halua pettyä. Tämä hallitus on niin kallellaan Gripeniin kuin vain voi olla, ja teollinen yhteistyö ja työpaikat ovat tärkeä erityisesti demareille, ja Saab on jatkuvasti investoinut Suomeen ja luvannut täyden kokoonpanon tänne. Antti Rinnekin on sanonut että ei anna sotilaille täyttä valtaa päättää, vaan jos joku toinen vaihtoehto on kustannustehokkaampi/ tarjoaa suomalaiselle teollisuudelle paremmat yhteistyöt, jne... niin ajaa PVn suosituksen ylitse. Täten itse uskon, että Gripen tullaan valitsemaan poliitikkojen toimesta.
konservatiivi
Kersantti
Haluaisi vielä nähdä että f16 tulisi mukasn kisaan, on parempi kuin gripen. Miksi gripen on mukana, mielistellääkseen ruotsin hallitusta vai?
HotShot
Luutnantti
Tässä tulee hyvin esiin että näillä asioilla on kaksi puolta. Growlerin sisällyttäminen Boeingin tarjoukseen on suorituskyvyn kannalta kova juttu ja teki siitä mielenkiintoisen mutta kääntöpuolella se taas nostaa ilmavoimien käyttö- ja erityisesti koulutuskustannuksia.
Sellainenkin asia tulee mieleen että missä näillä Growlereilla pystyy harjoittelemaan. Ei varmaan Suomesta löydy montaa paikkaa missä järjestelmät voi laittaa päälle. Ehkä jossain pohjanlahdella jos se ei isommin häiritse merenkulkua ja Ruotsalaisia.
apumekaanikko
Majuri
Vastaat tässä @magitsu n kommenttiin. Hänen kommenttinsa kertoo asiasta yli 50% - lopulle löytyy varmasti paikka Manner-Euroopan harvimpaan asutusta maasta; jollei muuten, niin Kepun luvalla.
Täällä on esiintynyt valitusta, että huipputekniikka aiheuttaa kustannuksia mm. ylläpidon ja koulutuksen muodossa. Hyvä! Juuri niihin meidän pitää voida panostaa, kun sotilaallisen suurvallan haiseva kainalo uhkaa lähestyä liikaa.
Jos Saabin tilanne HX:ssä alkaa näyttää epätoivoiselta, niin näkisittekö Bulgarian tapauksen toistuvan? Eli Saab pistää tarjoten meille 80 Gripeniä 64 hinnalla minimikatteella? Itse ajattelen, että viime kädessä saattavat tehdä näin. Ja vielä minimikatteella lisää Global Eyeta.
80 Gripenia vs 64 F-35:sta. Ei taida tuokaan määrä riittää ja vielä joutuisi perustelemaan vihervassareille konemäärän kasvun.
fulcrum
Greatest Leader
Tuskin, Bulgarian tarjoushan koski C/D:tä jotka ovat Ruotsille ylijäämää. Erityisalennukset koskisivat varmasti tutkakoneosiota, siinä ehkä yritettäisiin sitten kaikenlaista kustannusten minimoimiseksi (yhteishuolto/koulutus, vuokraaminen tjsp.).
Tuo tarjous koski uusia Gripen C/Dtä, ei mitään Ruotsin varastoista myytävää.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Ei kai. Juuri tilasivat 14 uutta C/D -mallia, että pysyy linja auki.
Gripen on niin siro kone, että normaalit ripustimet ja normaalit laukaisukiskot näyttävät siinä isoilta, varsinkin tuosta kuvakulmasta. Ripustimen täytyy olla kohtuu korkea, jotta kuorma häiritsee siiven ilmavirtaa mahdollisimman vähän.
Tuossa mainitussa kuvassa on ihan standardi laukaisukisko ilman sovittimia, se on 14"/30" nato-kiinnityksillä toimiva härveli. A/B-versioissa oli ruotsalaiset kiinnitykset (alunperin USN), jotka ovat aerodynaamisemmat ja ilman sivutukia, ja kuulemma lujemmat. Niitä käytetään edelleen C/D-malleissa, kun Ruotsin varastot ovat niitä täynnänsä, ja tarvittaessa käytetään nato-versioita. Nämä E-protot ovat tainneet lentää vain nato-ripustimien kanssa.
Täällä Gripenin (ja Eurofghterin et al) käyttämiä brittiläisiä kiskoja, sekä ruotsikiinnityksillä että nato. Tuota protossa olevaa kapeaperäistä mallia ei ole kuvissa, mutta eiköhän se ole AML-014 ilman tutkasilppulaitteistoa. Eurofighterin ASRAAM-kiskot ovat samaa perhettä tutkasilppuineen, mutta kiinteästi pultattuja. https://www.cobham.com/mission-syst...se-systems/air-to-air-missile-rail-launchers/
Jenkkien (ja Ilmavoimien) käyttämät kiskot ovat saman kokoisia ja näköisiä härveleitä (plus Hornetissa tuo mainittu tuplasovitin) http://marvineng.com/product/lau-127/
Viimeksi muokattu:
Upea kone:
Toivottavasti Suomi ostaa Gripeneitä.
Toivottavasti Suomi ostaa Gripeneitä.
Juttua Gripukan maagisesta MFS-EW:sta.
More than Meets the Eye
MFS-EW system provides the invisible shield for Gripen E
By Richard Scott
The MFS-EW system will equip Saab’s new-generation Gripen E multirole fighter. SAAB
Now in advanced development for the air forces of Sweden and Brazil, Saab’s next-generation Gripen E single-seat multirole fighter (Brazil will also receive a twin-seat Gripen F variant) represents a substantial evolution of the earlier Gripen C/D series. As well as the new and more powerful F414G engine, improved range performance and the ability to carry larger payloads, the Gripen E also introduces a new active electronically scanned antenna (AESA) radar, an infrared search and track (IRST) system, upgraded connectivity, and an advanced tactical system incorporating a high degree of sensor fusion.
Another critical part of Gripen E’s genetic make-up is a new, fully integrated multifunction electronic warfare system, known as MFS-EW, which is being developed by Saab’s EW business unit in Järfälla. Designed to provide both self-protection and situational awareness in complex electromagnetic environments, MFS-EW represents a substantial development in its own right (Sweden’s investment in full scale engineering development being estimated at approximately $200 million). Accordingly, its design, engineering, integration, and test has required close working arrangements to be established between the MFS-EW team in Järfälla, Saab Aeronautics in Linköping and, as end customer, Sweden’s Defence Materiel Administration (FMV).
To realize the high-end performance demanded of MFS-EW, Saab has engineered an integrated EW system architecture based around a number of leading-edge technologies, notably ultra-wideband digital receivers, digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) devices, gallium nitride (GaN) solid-state active electronically scanned array (AESA) transmitters, interferometric direction finding and very high speed signal processing. These same technology "building blocks" are now being applied by the company to a broader airborne EW portfolio known as AREXIS.
GENESIS
As so often occurs, the spur for a brand new development came from a prior failure. In the case of MFS-EW, it was Norway’s decision in 2008 to select the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II as its next fighter in preference to Gripen. "They [Norway] selected another fighter to meet their needs," Kristoffer Broqvist, Project Manager Survivability and EW for Gripen E in the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), told the EW Europe conference in May. "We wanted to understand the reasons for their decision.
"While we disagreed, or didn’t understand, in many areas, it was clear to us that they weren’t happy with the EW solution offered with the Gripen as it looked in 2008," he continued. "We did our own thorough evaluation, and decided Norway was right – we didn’t like it either."
Saab had in fact flown an advanced two-seat Gripen demonstrator in 2008. This was a Gripen D rebuilt in order to demonstrate and de-risk new technologies, notably the F414 engine and ES-05 Raven AESA radar, to be embodied in a nascent Gripen NG variant being promoted to potential export customers.
However, Swedish requirements for a next-generation fighter EW suite were at that stage undefined. As a result, a series of operational analysis studies were set in motion across the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet), FMV and the Defence Research Agency (FOI) to map out EW capability requirements from 2025 out to around 2040. Additional studies were placed with industry.
What became evident was that the changed strategic environment had raised the bar in terms of EW performance requirements. "The system on the Gripen C/D is very capable, but it was designed back in the late 1990s," said Petter Bedoire, Saab’s Chief Technology Officer. "Back then, there was a big focus on Swedish participation in international operations. So the key drivers were interoperability with NATO, and a high degree of self-protection. Also, the RF threat-set at that time was primarily legacy systems."
Outputs from the analyses performed by the Flygvapnet, FMV and FOI gave an insight into a very different, and much more demanding, future electromagnetic environment. For example, the threat set in the east was fast evolving in the shape of systems such as the S-400 Triumf air defense missile system (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler) and the Sukhoi Su-57 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter.
It became clear that a new fighter would require an advanced integrated EW suite that could handle increasingly complex signal environments, provide increased frequency coverage and waveform detection, much improved threat accuracy and geolocation, and generate advanced electronic attack (EA) responses. "What we recognized was that we were looking at a completely different operational scenario," said Bedoire. "We could see that our neighbor to the east was rebuilding. And, we could see a substantial increase in the [double-digit] RF threat."
In his address to EW Europe 2019, Broqvist used Defensive Counter Air as an exemplar for the capability demanded of the Gripen E EW suite. "We would initially seek to deny or degrade the situational awareness of the enemy by jamming surveillance radars," he said. "We would also seek to do the same to their target-acquisition radars.
"We would aim to destroy the distributed picture. That forces low-observable platforms to go active so we can find them. If the enemy manages to shoot, then we shall counter that too. And, we must do that against multiple simultaneous threats."
Broqvist continued: "We want to be able to coordinate jamming within a group [and] use cooperative EA techniques against the same threat radar. But we must do this while maintaining our own situational awareness and minimizing pilot workload."
PROPOSALS
Industry was asked to come up with proposals for a new EW suite. In the early stages, Saab’s EW business unit worked together with Italy’s Elettronica. "At that time, there was a Swedish/Italian research and development cooperation on AESA technology known as M-AESA [Multi-role Active Electronically Scanned Antenna]," explained Bedoire. "So, Elettronica was invited to participate in those MFS-EW pre-study activities."
Working in partnership, Saab and Elettronica came up with a proposal that sought to evolve from the two companies’ respective experience on Gripen C/D and Eurofighter. "We designed what we considered to be a very capable system based on existing technology," Bedoire explained. "For example, we took a modified AESA jammer antenna, adapted from the system previously developed by Elettronica for Typhoon, and beefed this up with DRFM technology from Gripen C/D."
However, these initial proposals were not well received by FMV or FOI. "We were quite taken aback," admitted Bedoire. "Our feeling had been that the technology in the existing Gripen EW system was pretty good, and that it offered the basis for evolution.
"But FMV and FOI wanted a more advanced and high-performance approach in terms of both technology and architecture. It meant moving away from a largely centralized system, and moving instead to a more distributed but still highly-integrated architecture."
This elevated level of ambition saw Saab’s take a more radical approach to what became MFS-EW. At the same time, it required Saab Aeronautics to give much greater consideration as to how the various EW subsystems would be engineered into the internal and external design of the next-generation Gripen airframe, and to the integration of the EW suite into the new mission system architecture.
"From a technology standpoint, we were looking at a range of new technologies that were now coming to maturity," Bedoire said. "So, that meant a wide-open, fully-digital receiver architecture, direct sampling of incoming signals, broadband antenna elements and high-precision parameter measurement. It also meant that Saab would part company with Elettronica, and that the active jamming component of the system would become Saab’s responsibility.
The move to a distributed architecture meant that much of the processing would occur as close to the antenna units as possible. "You still have an EW central unit [EWCU] in the main equipment bay," said Bedoire, "but that is purely for coordinating those functions that require inputs from all of the wingtip quadrant receive and transmit antennas.
"Of course, integrating this new architecture into the Gripen airframe also became a priority for our colleagues in Saab Aero," he added. "The new elongated wingtips challenged the aerodynamicists, we needed sufficient isolation between the various antennas, and there was also the need to get cooling fluid and services to the wingtip antenna stations."
By 2011, according to FMV’s Broqvist, the way ahead was becoming clearer. "We worked with industry to study lots of different internal and external configurations [to understand] for example, the best siting for receivers and techniques generators. Each was evaluated on the basis of performance, feasibility, cost and risk," he said. "A configuration was recommended fairly close to what was finally embodied."
However, all the while that the nascent MFS-EW suite architecture was taking shape, Saab Aeronautics was pursuing a major opportunity for Gripen NG in Switzerland in competition with Dassault’s Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon. At the end of November 2011, the Swiss government selected Gripen NG to meet its requirement. (Contract terms were agreed by the Swedish and Swiss governments in August 2012, and in August 2013, the Swiss parliament gave its approval for the Gripen E deal. However, in May 2014, the 22 aircraft program was voted down in a national referendum.)
Saab’s success in Switzerland (although short-lived) was a huge spur to the Gripen program (subsequently re-cast as Gripen E/F), and prompted the Swedish government to advance its plans to procure Gripen E for the Swedish Air Force. Yet, it was also a fact that the full definition of the Gripen NG had at that stage not been completed.
"By the middle of 2012, we had a recommended configuration and a loose set of requirements, but no official assignment," Broqvist recalled. "And then, the decision came [from government] to take the program forward. We were asked to agree and sign a contract [with Saab] in just three months. Actually, it was more like two months because the government needed a month to take the program through its approval process."
He continued that, "It would be impossible to agree to a full and detailed requirements-based specification in that time. But, we knew from previous experience that simply defining a few high-level requirements was not going to be sufficient.
"So, we went for a middle way. We pinned down the detailed requirements only where it really mattered, and left open those aspects where the potential performance remained unknown during the negotiations, deciding that it would be possible to further detail and specify the requirement in a post-contract definition period."
"For that to work meant we had to have trust in our industry partner," said Broqvist.
Bedoire agreed. "We simply didn’t have time to agree to a detailed specification before committing to the contract. So, it was a question of signing up to some key contract elements, and accepting there was a lot of detailed deliverables still to be defined. It relied on the trust between FMV and Saab post-contract."
MFS-EW hardware for MS 21 has been qualified, and the system is now flying on Gripen E development aircraft 39-9. SAAB
PERFORMANCE DRIVERS
One of the big drivers for the MFSEW performance specification was the requirement to not only contribute to Gripen E’s situational awareness, but to also act as a target-acquisition sensor. "The Swedish Air Force wanted to use this platform in a silent or passive mode," said Broqvist. "One part of that was the decision to introduce an IRST, and there are also passive radar modes available. But, there was additionally an increased requirement on the EW suite for [measurement] accuracy and geolocation."
This drove a very advanced radar warning receiver (RWR)/electronic support measures (ESM) solution based on a wide-open, fully-digital receiver architecture offering a very high probability of intercept and direct sampling of incoming signals. "On Gripen C/D, the RWR system is based on amplitude monopulse direction finding techniques," said Bedoire. "But on Gripen E we have gone for an interferometric approach in order to achieve fully-spherical precision DF even when performing high-g maneuvers.
"The system functions as a warner to cue countermeasures and jammers, but it also incorporates full ESM functionality. So, with increased dwell time, it can perform precise targeting with much more detailed parameter measurement.
"Also, the system is constantly sampling the electromagnetic environment. This means a vast amount of data is recorded for post-mission analysis and emitter-database support."
The Gripen E requirement also specified the need for a missile approach warner (MAW). In this case, explained Bedoire, the demanding nature of the performance requirement resulted in the decision to procure a third-party solution. "We had actually performed some demonstrations of ultraviolet [MAW] in the Gripen NG demonstrator program, but it turned out that UV technology did not meet the requirements for post-burnout missile detection. As a result, the decision was made to go for an infrared [MAW] solution."
Following a comprehensive in-depth evaluation, testing in various scenarios, and a comparative live-fire test, the decision was made in favor of the PAWS-2 system from Elbit System in Israel. The embodiment into the Gripen E comprises six MAW sensor units, plus a central MAW processor.
In terms of self-protection, the single biggest innovation in MFS-EW is the adoption of GaN-based AESA transmitters for the jamming subsystem. Mid-band transmitters are located in the wing tip "quadrant" stations, while the low-band transmitters are positioned atop the fin to cover the fore and aft sectors.
"The wideband DRFMs for jamming are built on the same technology as the digital receiver," said Bedoire, adding: "Saab’s radar business in Gothenburg was already developing GaN AESA technology. What we had to do was take this narrow-band antenna technology and adapt it to the wideband [frequency coverage] required of the MFS-EW system.
"While it is outside the direct scope of MFS-EW, we also consider the nose aperture [the ES-05 Raven radar] to be a very good AESA for a jammer. The aircraft’s mission system architecture takes account of that."
The potential integration of a towed radar decoy was dropped early on, but new expendable countermeasures dispensers are being introduced. The Gripen E will feature four BOP-G pyrotechnic dispensers (three upward firing in the right wing root, one downward firing from the rear fuselage) plus four BOL-700 dispensers integrated into underwing pylons.
The latest iteration of the BOL line, the -700 series system has been designed to retain full commonality with existing RF and IR BOL payloads, but the package-dispensing equipment is internal so as to have no impact on the radar cross section (RCS) or aerodynamic performance of the host aircraft.
BOL dispensers use an electromechanical drive mechanism that feeds the RF and IR payload packs (adopting a 2 × 3 × 0.25-inch "flat-pack" form factor) towards the back of the dispenser where, one pack at a time, they are separated from the stack and released into the airstream. Chemring Countermeasures manufactures BOL Mk 2 Type 1 chaff packs, while US-based Chemring subsidiary Alloy Surfaces produces the MJU-52/B and L5A2 BOL-IR pyrophoric or "activated-metal" decoys.
BOL-700 adopts a revised ejector mechanism that dispenses countermeasures sideways (rather than aft) through the boundary layer and into the airstream.
According to Christer Zätterqvist, Saab’s Head of Product Management CMDS, the eject port is covered by a 3-inch hatch, which opens only when countermeasures are being dispensed. "The hatch is designed such that it will keep drag and RCS to a minimum without affecting the performance of the BOL countermeasures," he said. "The sideways dispense mechanism itself has been patented by Saab."
Saab began full scale engineering development of BOL-700 in early 2014 after selection for the Gripen E program. The BOL-739 variant – "39" as the identifier for the JAS-39 Gripen – will be fitted into pylon extensions (two under each wing).
"We began test flights of the -739 on a JAS 39D two-seat testbed in the third quarter of 2018," Zätterqvist said. "Both IR and chaff payloads have been deployed and dispensed.
"We are continuing flight testing in different flight regimes [such as speed and g-loads]. Because there are no air scoops [acting as vortex generators], dispensing sideways presents some different challenges in terms of airflow, but our plan is to qualify BOL-700 by the end of this year."
Bedoire added, "The BOP-G dispensers will dispense standard ‘218’ format expendables. As well as chaff and flares, expendable active decoys, such as ‘BriteCloud,’ could be included."
NEED SPECTRAL DOMINANCE?
ONE DEVICE, MANY MISSIONS
Complete spectral situational awareness for Electronic Warfare and Adaptive Communications
• Cognitive Radio
• Edge Analytics
• Wireless Ethernet Bridge with DSA
• Wideband Direction Finding
• RF Signal and Traffic Emulator
DEVELOPMENT PATH
A major challenge for the MFS-EW program has been to keep close watch on the changes in the threat, and advances in technology, which have occurred during the course of the fixed-price development program. "This is a long project," said Broqvist, "with approximately 10 years from contract to delivery on the front-line.
"The system was designed with hardware two generations in the future in mind. But, there was inevitably some ‘guesswork’ as to where the peer competition would be. So, we have been continuously assessing if the requirements are correct, given that we negotiated the contract some years ago.
"We have been continuously evaluating the design, for example, by testing noise jamming and false-target generation in the EMC chamber," he explained. "As a result, we have done two large ‘balancing-of-requirements’ events to reflect change. But, on a fixed budget, we had to take something out to put something in. And, of course, the ‘window’ to change is decreasing all the time as we approach the end of development."
Broqvist added, "You can’t put requirements for everything into such a complex system, and there is more to getting an operationally relevant system than just formal requirements. So, we are working very closely with industry to clarify the actual operational needs behind the [system] requirements."
For Saab, the rapid contracting process meant that there was no time to build technology demonstrators to de-risk key subsystem technologies. "We had done some internal work on direct sampling receivers, but the way this program came together in a hurry meant there was simply not time," said Bedoire. "It has added some cost to the program, but, at the same time, it has forced us to work at pace from day one."
ARS Products
Communications Band Receiver Range Extension Products
TEST AND TRIALS
- Adaptable Multi-Couplers
- Programmable Notch Filters
- Selectively attenuate interfering signals
- High power versions available
- Co-Located Cancellers
- Referenced & referenceless versions
- Attenuate co-located transmitters
- Non-Reflective Limiters
- These receiver protectors do not reradiate the limited signal
Initial deliveries of Gripen E to the Swedish Armed Forces are planned to take place in 2021. When the aircraft enters service, it will be with the mission system at MS21 standard. In this initial configuration, only the passive [RWR/ESM] functionality of MFS-EW is enabled; the full configuration, with AESA jamming functionality, will follow in MS22.
Pre-production systems are currently being tested in ground rigs in Järfälla and Linköping, and in flight test on two Gripen E development aircraft. "Hardware for MS21 has been qualified, and the system is now flying on 39-9 and 39-10," said Broqvist. Added Bedoire, "The performance of the system at this stage looks amazingly good – we have been very impressed by what we have measured. We are reading through lots of data to see if the installed performance matches the requirement. Right now, we are exceeding it."
As regards MS22, the AESA hardware central to the MFS-EW block upgrade is entering qualification. In-service Gripen E aircraft will be modified by means of an upgrade kit; later new-builds will come off the line with MS22 embodied.
Cooperative jamming – in which a group of aircraft employ coordinated techniques against a specific threat – is one important capability that will be realized in due course. "FOI has performed a lot of simulations and studies," Bedoire noted. "The ability for multiple Gripen E aircraft to employ coordinated electronic attack techniques will be extremely useful to counter the jamming resistance built into opposition threat radars. The [MFS-EW] system is fully prepared for this capability, which will be enabled through the aircraft tactical system and data links."
While early testing has demonstrated promise, it is recognized that integrating MFS-EW with the complete tactical system presents a more difficult task. "Perfecting that integration will be challenging," said Broqvist. "That work is still to be finalized."
MFS-EW has adopted an integrated system architecture based around a number of technology building blocks, notably ultra-wideband digital receivers, DFRMs, GaN solid-state AESA transmitters, interferometric direction finding, and very high speed signal processing. SAAB
According to Bedoire, integration efforts are already starting using a development environment integrated to Linköping. "This means that any flaws in the interface can be corrected overnight," he explained. "What is important to remember is that the Gripen E systems architecture partitions the tactical system from the flight control software. That’s a real game-changer because it means that new or updated functionality can be introduced without the need for expensive and time-consuming re-qualification of safety-critical flight avionics. So, we will continue to evolve the MFS-EW system after delivery of MS22."
Varaudu pettymään muutoinkin kuin nimimerkkisi mukaan.
Tämä on kyllä jännä palsta. Käytyjen keskustelujen mukaan on ilmeisesti suorastaan kiellettyä kannattaa mitään muuta kuin F-35:tä.
Hanski
Ylipäällikkö
Jos argumenttien taso on tällainen, saa varautua siihen, että kyyti voi olla kylmää...
Ai ei mitään?
Jo JAS 39 C/D menee 2460 km/h. F-35 menee alle 2000 km/h.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Hyvä artikkeli Gripenin elso-järjestelmistä. Vahva lukusuositus:
