Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin
- Thread starter wimpymouse
- Start date
Strange stuff?'Sock puppets'? I'm not sure what thats supposed to be, but if it is something like 'Swedish nationals', then u might be on to something.
The reason I asked if you are using those aliases was that your 'style', opinions and copypasting is excactly like a user who has been posting at this forum, militaryphotos and serveral Norwegian and south-african forums. Strangely, that user always finds himself in heated discussions and leaves - before re-appearing with a new handle..
But, clearly you are not that guy - My bad!:
Still, if you don't find what I write correct, you should put some more energy in refuting it, using and 'showing off' your sources. I'm not saying that everything I cite is one hundred percent 'true', and if you find something wrong you just need to show me. But, please have sources that I can read on the net, preferably, not just 'opinions' written down.
It's kind of sad seeing how you try to 'tarnish my writing' by presuming that I use 'sock puppets' to get my views heard. It's cheap, and furthermore it speaks ill of what 'fraction' you might see yourself as belonging to. I don't think they will thank you.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The ref was there in order to spare me typing out the obvious. If you read my postings over the past 3 years or so, I agree with the ref down to a few quibbs...
Character assasination only works if what they publish is bollocks.
It ain't.
Tough luck for you.
Cheers
Last edited:
"The technology gap is also beginning to impose real constraints on the interoperability of US air forces with those of other nations. Understandably, the US seeks to exploit its technological advantage by producing equipment which will give its forces the greatest chance of success, at minimum risk to themselves. Such technological advances, such as secure communications and JTIDS/Link16 bring with them not only a hardware gap but, more significantly, a doctrinal and operating procedures gap.
Technology allows forces to fight smarter and, frankly, the US does not want less advanced allied nations degrading its technological advantage in combat. This is a significant difference between the issue of scale and the issue of technology; a difference in scale means we can only contribute to part of the campaign, a difference in technology might mean we are not even invited to the fight."
It seems like we have a discussion if we need Link16. The problem here being twofolded, as AndiPandi stated. One is the Crypto that USA want to hand out instead of everyone choosing each owns. I'm going to presume that they build on a Zimmerman equation with open and private keys. If it is so, then there is no need for the USA to withhold those keys other as a "Power play" forcing Saab and Sweden to adapt to a full commitment into Nato, to be able to use Link16 securedly. The funniest thing being that it's we who first had it (A functioning link system, that is And as AP wrote, there seem to be a discussion about putting one of our most advanced system (TARAS) in a 'mothproof bag' sort of.
----
And here comes another stupidity, describing how one will need a speccial loader for that crypto. Link16 is loaded through its MIDS terminals by a specially trained 'loader' usng a H-W-solution called "Crasy ten". We are testing it on ASC 890 and JAS as of now. But this type of crypto is no news and very simple to handle, it exist as an open source code standard (open source is the ultimate proof of there being no 'back doors' into a system) in your own PC. Take a look at PGP f ex.
So it seems like a form of blackmail to me, both on Sweden as a Nation, and on Saab, as long as they want to sell a 'finished' packet to a western nation. I have definite problems seeing any 'brotherly care' shown in this, as well as severe difficulties accepting that we should adapt to a, in my eyes, inferior system without having any secured communication, as long as we don't join Nato..
Sorry but no dice, if our politicians are such wimps, then we just need a fast regime change here. Dismantling a working system that's better than Link16 just because some people have problem defining whom they serve? Don't like that at all.
-----------
As for comparing LINK16 and our Swedish Datalink?
Nah.
According to what I've heard link16 will be largely worthless helping defending Sweden. Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster, as compared to Link16 (every twelfth second) This makes it possible for us to fly 'radar silent' and even shoot its missiles from it without any own radar. And the data-link is able to steer you in, in every detail (close control) through its data commands. Which means that Gripen will be very operational even with its radio totally jammed.
Technology allows forces to fight smarter and, frankly, the US does not want less advanced allied nations degrading its technological advantage in combat. This is a significant difference between the issue of scale and the issue of technology; a difference in scale means we can only contribute to part of the campaign, a difference in technology might mean we are not even invited to the fight."
It seems like we have a discussion if we need Link16. The problem here being twofolded, as AndiPandi stated. One is the Crypto that USA want to hand out instead of everyone choosing each owns. I'm going to presume that they build on a Zimmerman equation with open and private keys. If it is so, then there is no need for the USA to withhold those keys other as a "Power play" forcing Saab and Sweden to adapt to a full commitment into Nato, to be able to use Link16 securedly. The funniest thing being that it's we who first had it (A functioning link system, that is
And as AP wrote, there seem to be a discussion about putting one of our most advanced system (TARAS) in a 'mothproof bag' sort of.----
And here comes another stupidity, describing how one will need a speccial loader for that crypto. Link16 is loaded through its MIDS terminals by a specially trained 'loader' usng a H-W-solution called "Crasy ten". We are testing it on ASC 890 and JAS as of now. But this type of crypto is no news and very simple to handle, it exist as an open source code standard (open source is the ultimate proof of there being no 'back doors' into a system) in your own PC. Take a look at PGP f ex.
So it seems like a form of blackmail to me, both on Sweden as a Nation, and on Saab, as long as they want to sell a 'finished' packet to a western nation. I have definite problems seeing any 'brotherly care' shown in this, as well as severe difficulties accepting that we should adapt to a, in my eyes, inferior system without having any secured communication, as long as we don't join Nato..
Sorry but no dice, if our politicians are such wimps, then we just need a fast regime change here. Dismantling a working system that's better than Link16 just because some people have problem defining whom they serve? Don't like that at all.
-----------
As for comparing LINK16 and our Swedish Datalink?
Nah.
According to what I've heard link16 will be largely worthless helping defending Sweden. Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster
, as compared to Link16 (every twelfth second) This makes it possible for us to fly 'radar silent' and even shoot its missiles from it without any own radar. And the data-link is able to steer you in, in every detail (close control) through its data commands. Which means that Gripen will be very operational even with its radio totally jammed.
Last edited:
freethinker
New Member
He does raise an intresting question though. Who is YORON?
Your command of English is beyond that of the average swede, even in academic circles. Your knowledge of Gripen is excellent but so far you havent divulged anything that cant be found open source....
Your command of English is beyond that of the average swede, even in academic circles. Your knowledge of Gripen is excellent but so far you havent divulged anything that cant be found open source....
longbow
New Member
TIDLS "un-jammable"?According to what I've heard link16 will be largely worthless helping defending Sweden. Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster
The RNoAF staged an exercise with the SWAF, where a Nansen-class frigate simulated an oil-rigg. It was protected by a four-ship of F-16 and a DA-20(EW). The "red air" consisted of Gripens and F-16's. Forsvarsnet.no(Nor Def website) said that the DA-20 managed to jam the attackers radar and coms; The defenders were then able to take out the attackers. IMHO most radars are "jammable", if the proper force and technique is applied.
Terrible translation using google translate
"In from the south comes the opponent for a direct attack against the platform. We are facing right against his nose and shoots out powerful electronic signals that overpower the radio communications between the enemy planes, so they only hear the noise on the frequency they use.
DA-20 jammer also down the enemy's radar. This makes it so difficult for the enemy planes to see the Norwegian F-16-planes that go to attack with Amraam missiles and shoot down two of the attackers."
http://www.mil.no/ovelser/cr09/start/article.jhtml?articleID=175701
The TIDLS can fuse raw radar data and create a collective track using two or more radars in situations where a single Gripen fighter cant track a target on its own. If you want to do that you need realtime communication of radar data, not every 4th or 12th second...
Two or more Gripens can create a track together using the datalink and by doing so reducing the amount of radar signals emitted compared to what is needed if one radar has to track a target. Doing so will make it harder for the enemy to detect/locate the radars using passive sensors.
Silent AMRAAM shot from one Gripen that get the enemy aircraft position from another Gripen, can a fighter using Link 16 send the position of an enemy every second to its wingman?
Please let me know if Link 16 has any of these capabilities. I am not saying Link 16 cant do that, but I never read/heard anything about it.
Depends on what they used I would guess, As I don't know I can't tellTIDLS "un-jammable"?
The RNoAF staged an exercise with the SWAF, where a Nansen-class frigate simulated an oil-rigg. It was protected by a four-ship of F-16 and a DA-20(EW). The "red air" consisted of Gripens and F-16's. Forsvarsnet.no(Nor Def website) said that the DA-20 managed to jam the attackers radar and coms; The defenders were then able to take out the attackers. IMHO most radars are "jammable", if the proper force and technique is applied.
Terrible translation using google translate
"In from the south comes the opponent for a direct attack against the platform. We are facing right against his nose and shoots out powerful electronic signals that overpower the radio communications between the enemy planes, so they only hear the noise on the frequency they use.
DA-20 jammer also down the enemy's radar. This makes it so difficult for the enemy planes to see the Norwegian F-16-planes that go to attack with Amraam missiles and shoot down two of the attackers."
http://www.mil.no/ovelser/cr09/start/article.jhtml?articleID=175701
And yeah, it's all 'open' information. That's okey with me
I can tell you this though, just as a friendly guess, if you think of those long Gripen antennas and we think really clever software extrapolating and good linking capabilities (updating) then the sky only seems the limit for what you might be able to do
http://www.physorg.com/news151078629.html
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Neither have I. The Automatic Target Hand-off System (ATHS) used with Link 16 doesn't allow for a completely cold-nosed hand-off AFAIK.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I would like to know how the Gripen's TIDLS manages the bandwidth issue of providing the so-called real time track data, constantly.
Also, I don't see much discussion on the frequency TIDLS uses, UHF, VHF, HF and the difficulties inherent within each...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Here's another link for you.According to what I've heard link16 will be largely worthless helping defending Sweden. Our Swedish Data-link updates every second (or faster
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...ghter-fires-amraam-in-passive-radar-mode.html
However did a a fighter with such a poor performing Link 16 system, according to you, manage to achieve this?
That's cool stuff AD., I've never said that Datalink16 isn't 'advanced' in its kind. Just that what we have is what I call 'peer2peer', more flexible and with a overall better performance, as far as I understand. Link16 can, if I'm correct, open up to four(?) 'timeslots/channels' and if you place them correctly in time, you will have a update every third second. Going against a landbased target I would presume this to be quite enough.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Funny, I was under the impression that Link 16 was amongst the most flexible of the various datalink systems, allowing data to be shared and exchanged amongst air, land and sea-based participants.
As for the Swedish TIDLS datalink system, my understanding was that the system allowed for up to 4 participating sensing Gripen platforms, which could in turn share sensor data with a larger number of receiving platforms. This might work for Sweden and other smaller powers but it would not work/be appropriate for the US and/or air forces that operate under a doctrine similar to that of the US/NATO.
In effect then, comparisons of the Swedish datalink to Link 16 start approaching the question of which is better to eat, an apple or an orange...
As GF and others have so often mentioned, when comparing responsings, it needs to be done from a system, as opposed to a platform level. With that in mind, I am of the opinion that Gripen aircraft using TIDLS will not be able to achieve the same level of performance as could be achieved by Link 16 equipped Gripens suitably supported with E-2 or E-3 or similar AEW systems, and/or ground or sea-based sensing platforms...
One must remember that the Gripen was first and foremost designed to meet Swedish defensive requirements as they appeared to be in the early to mid-1980's when the project commenced. Now, over two decades later, not only has the defensive situation changed for Sweden and a number of other countries, but the operational doctrine has undergone a significant sea (or is that air?) change following the operational experiences the US and allies gained from operations in the first Gulf War, over the Balklans in 1999 as well as over Afghanistan and Iraq in the last few years.
Those countries which now find themselves in situations where having an aircraft with capabilities that the Gripen has now and will likely have in the future, the Gripen is a good choice. However, the Gripen is not the only choice, and depending on what capabilities are most important, than it is quite possible that other choices are better depending on the prospective countries' needs.
-Cheers
Absolutely Mr T
Our Datalink is built fpr us, by us. And that's why it is 'special'. Our system have the possibility to use AWACS and satellites and 'peer2peer'. It seems to me that Link16 first handedly is a 'centralized' system, now also trying to in cooperate some of the Swedish 'ideas'. As for what is best in a battle situation? I prefer the one with the most options myself, and that's not Link16. And it's not only Gripen using our system, it's used in all types of military vehicles, that's why it is so redundant. And that's why we still will have a 3-D sphere of information, even when all AWACS is down. But if you have good info on capabilities that might change my statements, I'm all ears
I'd point out that Link16 is not just about air-sharing, its a battlefield system where we have Link16 in the air (Fixed wing combat, in the Orions and AWACs), it's on naval vessels, and it was purposely intended to be fitted as a comms suite for platforms like the Abrams.
ADF/RAN/Army/RAAF are already in the replacement program for Link16 along with 7 other "'friendlies". Sweden has indicated a desire to participate and has been supported in their bid by quite a few existing "program development" members.
Exactly! The TIDLS is not an alternative to Link-16 (and the other way around). Thats why sweden started the development of TARAS (and there were other C2 systems before that.) Now TARAS is aborted and Link16 will be used instead, together with TIDLS.
But I dont think a system like TIDLS is useless for bigger airforces. A fourship of fighter planes of the USAF could also benefit from the sensor fusing TIDLS and operate Link16 at the same time.
Of course it would be better if one single datalink system could have all those capabilities, maybe that is what we will see in the future?
AP There are some difficulties for us using Link16 as I understands it. The solution we use now is one where all information need to be formated into a Link16 understandable format through our former combat control centers etc? Doesn't sound too good to me, And are we really going to use a foreign Country's crypto for secure Communication, for our own independent Airforce? And another thing, do you know exactly when TARAS was 'aborted'. I've tried to find information on that but so far haven't succeeded.
Btw: I have a example on what it might cost, using others 'benevolence' for your Nations Defence.
"The author was involved in the import of many software based
weapon systems while in Armscor in his youth. In each case
South African software engineers controlled the software and
made sure of the algorithm integrity. In each and every case
the imported software was found to be ”incompetent”, but
because of DoD policy in those days, the problem and above
equation was recognised and South Africa kept control of the
system software.
In the middle 90’s the author’s company sold a radar warning
simulator to a European NATO member for their F16s.
During the tests it was conclusively established that the F16
electronic warfare system was blind over half its intended
frequency spectrum. It was operationally useless. When
these aircraft were required for use in Bosnia, a US approved
operation, the USAF issued “combat software” with the “latest
upgrades”. After the deployment, the upgraded software was
erased. This NATO country could then only use its aircraft in
US approved operations and had in fact, no sovereignty."
From South African Army Journal 2008 issue 2.
Btw: I have a example on what it might cost, using others 'benevolence' for your Nations Defence.
"The author was involved in the import of many software based
weapon systems while in Armscor in his youth. In each case
South African software engineers controlled the software and
made sure of the algorithm integrity. In each and every case
the imported software was found to be ”incompetent”, but
because of DoD policy in those days, the problem and above
equation was recognised and South Africa kept control of the
system software.
In the middle 90’s the author’s company sold a radar warning
simulator to a European NATO member for their F16s.
During the tests it was conclusively established that the F16
electronic warfare system was blind over half its intended
frequency spectrum. It was operationally useless. When
these aircraft were required for use in Bosnia, a US approved
operation, the USAF issued “combat software” with the “latest
upgrades”. After the deployment, the upgraded software was
erased. This NATO country could then only use its aircraft in
US approved operations and had in fact, no sovereignty."
From South African Army Journal 2008 issue 2.
TARAS was cancelled in 2004 if I am correctly informed. There has probably been Gripens flying with TARAS, but that doesnt mean that it was operational.
There has been a lot of debate in swedish newspapers and also a couple of anonymous bloggers who are working in the armed forces that revealed the fact that the SWAF was risking to be without an independent C2 system when the Gripen A/B will be retired. One of the blogs has recently closed and all entries are gone.
I read about some meeting today where the air force was gonna meet press and politicians, guess more info will come this week. The last thing I read was that the air force was OK with not having a crypto of their own (Link 16 with some restrictions) but the question is if the politicians are OK with this.
Probably international cooperation will be more important than the actual capabilities so I guess its gonna be Link 16...
There has been a lot of debate in swedish newspapers and also a couple of anonymous bloggers who are working in the armed forces that revealed the fact that the SWAF was risking to be without an independent C2 system when the Gripen A/B will be retired. One of the blogs has recently closed and all entries are gone.
I read about some meeting today where the air force was gonna meet press and politicians, guess more info will come this week. The last thing I read was that the air force was OK with not having a crypto of their own (Link 16 with some restrictions) but the question is if the politicians are OK with this.
Probably international cooperation will be more important than the actual capabilities so I guess its gonna be Link 16...
localhost127
Member
are you going to continue refusing to acknowledge gf0012-aust's comments on what is currently happening with regards to this very topic?
Whats your problem?