|
Originally Posted by t43562
(Post 9070310)
Why would it have to be link16?
|
Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?
I have checked with multiple sources and can provide accurate and succinct answers to this question. 1 - Yes. 2 - No. 3 - It depends. 4 - It's classified. 5 - What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"? |
KenV, if I have understood the question correctly, then I can assure you that Link 16 can. Regardless of the number of sensors involved, as long as each contributing platform only produces one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset, the volume is the same. Good fusion ensures that, mostly.
Not needing to do secure voice on the net, not needing to put too much ac data (fuel states and such) and not needing to do enormous amounts of net management leaves a huge amount of space on even a single net, let alone stacked nets, should you need more space. Clearly there are other techniques and protocols that are not appropriate here. Yes, Link 16 can handle the volume, but it may not be the medium of choice in tomorrow's lo observe world. But it will continue to have its place. Oh, and the portal. And how did we get here from the WVR report? |
Originally Posted by LO
5 - What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"?
seriously, what's up with people and labels? As if Mig21bis, with L16 can't play in a '5th gen sandbox'? Must be a fan thing... |
As well as "here I am, kill me" This f-22 pilot said, link 16 is like a straw to what is 5th gen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0 |
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
(Post 9070432)
KenV, if I have understood the question correctly, then I can assure you that Link 16 can. Regardless of the number of sensors involved, as long as each contributing platform only produces one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset, the volume is the same. Good fusion ensures that, mostly.
But I agree that Link 16 will likely always have a place in the battle space. It is just too ubiquitous to abandon. |
Originally Posted by NITRO104
(Post 9070773)
+1,
seriously, what's up with people and labels? As if Mig21bis, with L16 can't play in a '5th gen sandbox'? Must be a fan thing... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0 |
Originally Posted by LowObservable
(Post 9070414)
Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?
What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0 He claims that if you don't understand 5th Gen "You are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose" |
|
I think my confusion here is the use of a moniker to mean all sorts of different things which aren't related of necessity. It makes discussion difficult because it seems to me that every debate leads eventually to "5 is a bigger number than 4".
Just for the sake of it I found this article about SAAB's Wiscom thing which is based on their datalink. I'm not saying anything about it being great or amazing - just posting it as evidence that ideas about fusing data and all that stuff are not as unique to stealthy planes as it might seem to an outsider like me. http://aviationweek.com/awin/saab-ta...er-development One part of the Wiscom concept is the idea of a “flexible antenna pool” in which all aircraft in a flight share sensor and target data automatically. Another is “silent swarm ingress” where a flight enters combat in a widely dispersed pattern, with primary sensors being infrared search and track (IRST), active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars operating in passive mode, and electronic surveillance measures (ESM). Under Wiscom, AESA transmissions are restricted and “random”—that is, the aircraft in a flight will transmit at different times, making it difficult to track them by emissions. Swedish engineers have noted that data-linked radars can share plots—not just tracks—and take simultaneous range-rate measurements, allowing two radars to determine a target's velocity almost instantly. Finally, Saab envisages the use of the high-energy MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile to engage from side and rear aspects where targets are less likely to detect the threat. |
Originally Posted by KenV
He claims that if you don't understand 5th Gen "You are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose"
Stealth proponents claim they can't be seen, but performance proponents claim they aren't even there, so go figure who's right. The thing is, without exchanging ideas this forum has no point, as CourtneyM noted and bidding on who's YouTube video is 'bestest' makes the entire forum concept, redundant. |
T4, you are in another realm with SAAB. Sweetman said they are 6th gen and lack of speed and agility is a feature.
Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters? New Gripen may be the next wave However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a Gen 6 tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature. Is Saab?s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters? | Defense content from Aviation Week |
Originally Posted by KenV
I guess that's my point. A "typical" (if there is such a thing) 5th Gen fight of 4 v 8 would seem to result in quite a bit more than "one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset." It would require sharing passive sensor data from all four friendly aircraft in real time to develop a precision 3D image of the battlespace.
|
Sharing passive data among multiple aircraft, to a level of accuracy that allows targeting and missile launch, has been done and is (AFAIK) operational.
And just to underscore the invalidity of 5GenTM marketing speak, it wasn't done first on a "4Gen" aircraft. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:20. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.