Gripen NG supercruzin for a bruzin

yoron

New Member
Now I'm confused AP, I've seen a German page describing both, in the same plane model, which seems rather strange if it never even came into use? Not being able to use any crypto keys, what if in war situation then. That's not acceptable. Crazy stuff, who can decide what we do, or don't, on our own sovereign land? Get that 'thing 'out of the plane ::))
 

barra

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.




So its real sad that the Norwegians found JSF the 'better' choice for them. As every incoming unit strengthen it more than just by a factor one.
Reading your post the main difference between the Swedish link and MIDS seems to be that the Gripen can produce surveillance tracks giving it a mini C2 capability. Is this right??? The other capabilities you mention sounds very similar to MIDS fighter to fighter nets. Nothing new here.

Norway obviously values interoperability with the rest of the world rather than just Sweden. That is why Norway chose JSF over Gripen. That is the major flaw in your system, it cannot operate in a Link16 network. In this day and age "Interoperability" is the key buzzword. Sounds like Sweden is coming to understand this.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Let us take it in small doses :)

First, I don't think Gripen will be able to supercruise in all its congigurations (payloads) But as it could do a A2A in Grioen's first generations I fully expect it to be able to repeat that feat. And MACH 1.2 seems reasonable to me, It should also be a balance between speed and what fuel consumption it craves. And Im not sure if SAAB is planning on redesigning, or already have redesigned the F414, They did it with the RM12.

As for the weight you are correct. Ca 200kg more 'empty weight', the rest will be fuel as they state it to load up 140 % of the Gripen C/D. Also it will load 2000 KG more than the C/D. So depending on what mission it will be supposed to do it will be heavier. Weighting against that is the new engine that will be over 22000 Lbs as compared to Gripens former RM12 at 18000 Lbs.

You are correct in that it is going to be fully tested. Gripen has among the least crashes in the world as I understands it, they wont let that slip through their fingers, As for drag we can only guess, my guess though is that it's negligible as they have had a long time to prepare for the rebuild..

For the rest we do have two interpretations AD, I understand it one way you another, here is the full qoute from http://www.gripen.com/NR/rdonlyres/FE463B06-8C9B-4A49-A382-999C6AF1E53B/0/gripen_news_2001_01.pdf page two. From the first generation Gripen again. To me this is pretty clear reading, but not to you. So be it.

"
There was one interesting problem,” Colonel Eldh concludes with a smile. “Gripen is supersonic at all altitudes and can cruise supersonically with an external load including fuel tank, four AMRAAM and two sidewinder missiles without the need to engage the afterburner..

In the early days of operations, we found some pilots inadvertently flying supersonic over populated areas. The problem was one of habit, as these pilots had their throttle settings as high as on the older-generation fighters that Gripen replaced.

It is fair to say there were a few startled people on the ground, as their day-to-day work, or perhaps sleep, was disturbed by unexpected sonic booms! It was, of course, a simple task to solve the problem – the throttles were re-set and everyone was happy. ”

I suggest we let the discussion rest a while to see what more tests will be done on the Gripen Demo.
Sorry to but in on this conversation guys but it seems to me the critical point that is being overlooked here is one that AD made earlier. IF Gripen can sit at M1.1 or M1.2 without a burner, how does this translate to a capability advantage over its peers, and how can that capability advantage be used to offset Gripens capability disadvantages? How can a couple of hundred knots cruise speed significantly influence the battle, especially considering the time it can remain at this speed is unknown? Seems like we're all arguing over a non starter here anyway, because that sort of supercruise isn't exactly game changing or unique.
 

freethinker

New Member
Norway obviously values interoperability with the rest of the world rather than just Sweden. That is why Norway chose JSF over Gripen. That is the major flaw in your system, it cannot operate in a Link16 network. In this day and age "Interoperability" is the key buzzword. Sounds like Sweden is coming to understand this.
Ofc is can. We have delivered several nato compliant Gripen wih link 16 to other countries. Its not like our systems are written in some arcane language that is hardcoded in to the hardware.

Gripen NG that we offered to Norway certainely would have been compliant and had whatever extras Norway would have wanted.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Ofc is can. We have delivered several nato compliant Gripen wih link 16 to other countries. Its not like our systems are written in some arcane language that is hardcoded in to the hardware.

Gripen NG that we offered to Norway certainely would have been compliant and had whatever extras Norway would have wanted.
I think capability and value for money was the kicker for Norway. Who wouldnt want LO if you can afford it?
 

yoron

New Member
Reading your post the main difference between the Swedish link and MIDS seems to be that the Gripen can produce surveillance tracks giving it a mini C2 capability. Is this right??? The other capabilities you mention sounds very similar to MIDS fighter to fighter nets. Nothing new here.

Norway obviously values interoperability with the rest of the world rather than just Sweden. That is why Norway chose JSF over Gripen. That is the major flaw in your system, it cannot operate in a Link16 network. In this day and age "Interoperability" is the key buzzword. Sounds like Sweden is coming to understand this.
"The other capabilities you mention sounds very similar to MIDS fighter to fighter nets. Nothing new here."
???

Show me then Barra, I'm interested in what will be the same and what differs them, i get the impression that Link16 is a 'centralized' communication link without what we have in form of true 'peer to peer'. Maybe I'm wrong, as you imply above. But it would be nice to see some 'links' instead of just opinions. That's definitely missing here.

-------

I've thought the same Ozzy, 'supercruising' will matter in long missions where you're up there 'waiting' and then needs to move in fast. But the type of battle Gripen is built for doesn't consists of this. As far as I see it we place them out where from they will attack. They may use their 'supercruising' at times but they will primarily wait for confirmation of targets and that they are coming in the right direction relative them before they go up. So they can 'spend fuel' if they need.

As for Norway getting what's best for them?
Their choice, as long as they stop BS Gripen.
 
Last edited:

barra

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
"The other capabilities you mention sounds very similar to MIDS fighter to fighter nets. Nothing new here."
???

Show me then Barra, I'm interested in what will be the same and what differs them, i get the impression that Link16 is a 'centralized' communication link without what we have in form of true 'peer to peer'. Maybe I'm wrong, as you imply above. But it would be nice to see some 'links' instead of just opinions. That's definitely missing here.
Sorry mate, I have not got time to spoon feed you. Try and get yourself a copy of "Understanding Link 16 - USN and USMC Guidebook" all the answers are in there and it is written in an easy to understand style(which is unusual for a technical document). If you can't then you will just have to take my word for it. ;)
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Sorry mate, I have not got time to spoon feed you. Try and get yourself a copy of "Understanding Link 16 - USN and USMC Guidebook" all the answers are in there and it is written in an easy to understand style(which is unusual for a technical document). If you can't then you will just have to take my word for it. ;)
I think what you are referring to can be found here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-24-8/tadilj.pdf


And plenty of FAQ's can be found here:

http://www.viasat.com/support/data-links/faq#A1

From a read through, I fail to see what the hype about the Gripen data-link's vaunted capability is really generated by...

No doubt the Gripen fanboys will be shocked and accuse me of heresy...
 

yoron

New Member
Thanks AD. If someone wants a reference (or as we behave on the Internet, a link) then that is a normal behaviour to me, without such it can be no more than opinions that is presented, Check any reputable link presenting 'facts' and you will find a source reference somewhere Barra. So either you know, or you don't mate.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks AD. If someone wants a reference (or as we behave on the Internet, a link) then that is a normal behaviour to me, without such it can be no more than opinions that is presented, Check any reputable link presenting 'facts' and you will find a source reference somewhere Barra. So either you know, or you don't mate.
actually Barra is more than in a position to know.

IMO, an apology is in order. you should have worked out by now that there are some in here who's background does mean that they are able to speak without internet bravado.

when you go to that manual I suggest that you apologise very very quickly as his response is more than acceptable.

you can hardly expect others to give a total education via the internet when their citation is more than adequate.

then again, if people think that sound bite responses are sufficient to qualify knowledge rather than wasting $4m to teach pilots is one way that we'll save stacks of money. :D

we'll save a stack of money teaching navy geeks as well, as Link 16 is part of their "curve" as well.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think providing a cite to a print source is more then acceptable as evidence. Provided we're not talking about obscure or restricted texts, it's up to you to take the time to confirm what he's saying by getting ahold of the necessary literature. Not everything exists in an online format.
 

yoron

New Member
Apologize for asking for a reference?
Not enjoying the answer deeming to do so as being 'spoon feeding'?
Are you serious here GF.
May be that Barra has a whole encyclopedia inside his head, still don't have anything with giving a link if asked. I think information is a two way street?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Apologize for asking for a reference?
Not enjoying the answer deeming to do so as being 'spoon feeding'?
Are you serious here GF.
May be that Barra has a whole encyclopedia inside his head, still don't have anything with giving a link if asked. I think information is a two way street?
You were given a reference and couldn't be bothered looking it up yourself. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find the publication he referred to.

Spoon fed, you were...
 

yoron

New Member
You were given a reference and couldn't be bothered looking it up yourself. It took me a whole 2 minutes to find the publication he referred to.

Spoon fed, you were...
With what AD? Your links are not to that publication.
'"Understanding Link 16 - USN and USMC Guidebook"
Your link is from rdl.train.army.mil - TADIL J -
"INTRODUCTION TO TACTICAL DIGITAL INFORMATION LINK J AND QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE"
(which, btw, uses an invalid security certificate. when I log in to it.)
And a 'faq' of how to handle and set it up :)

Not answering my question of comparison between Link16 and TIDLS (Tactical Information Data Link System) at all. And when I look at Rabbas it seems as if this might be some sort of 'paperback'.
Not easily found on the Internet, at least not by me.

---
And no, I use my own name, you have a lot of 'sock puppets' here?

So if I don't accept 'opinions as facts', I'm asking to be 'spoon feed' ? Is that it. Look guys, I have in fact tried to have a discussion, and have been using Internet to support my propositions. You seem to have a very high opinion of your own ideas here, and a rather low one, of anyone thinking otherwise. So be it. I'm satisfied with what I've put up here anyway. And as you say, I can find out what link16 is on my own :)

Thanks.

---------
Here it is again..

TIDLS (datalink)

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.



TIDLS can connect up to four aircraft in a full-time two-way link. It has a range of 500 km and is highly resistant to jamming; almost the only way to jam the system is to position a jammer aircraft directly between the two communicating Gripens. Its basic modes include the ability to display the position, bearing, and speed of all four aircraft in a formation, including basic status information such as fuel and weapons state. The TIDLS is fundamentally different from broadcast-style links like Link 16. It serves fewer users but links them more closely together, exchanging much more data, and operating much closer to real time.

TIDLS information, along with radar, EW, and mapping data, appears on the central MFD. The display reflects complete sensor fusion: a target that is being tracked by multiple sources is one target on the screen. Detailed symbols distinguish between friendlies, hostiles, and unidentified targets and show who has targeted whom.

Today, Sweden is the only country that is flying with a link of this kind.
The Flygvapnet has already proven some of the tactical advantages of the link, including the ability to spread the formation over a much wider area. Visual contact between the fighters is no longer necessary, because the datalink shows the position of each aircraft. Leader and wingman roles are different: the pilot in the best position makes the attack, and the fact that he has targeted the enemy is immediately communicated to the three other aircraft.

A basic use of the datalink is "silent attack." An adversary may be aware that he is being tracked by a fighter radar that is outside missile range. He may not be aware that another, closer fighter is receiving that tracking data and is preparing for a missile launch without using its own radar. After launch, the shooter can break and escape, while the other fighter continues to pass tracking data to the missile. In tests, Gripen pilots have learned that this makes it possible to delay using the AMRAAM's active seeker until it is too late for the target to respond.

But the use of the link goes beyond this, towards what the Swedish Air Force calls "samverkan," or close-cooperation. One example is the use of the Ericsson PS-05/A radar with TIDLS. An Ericsson paper compares its application, with identical sensors and precise knowledge of the location of both platforms, to human twins: "Communication is possible without explaining everything."

"Radar-samverkan," the Ericsson paper suggests, equips the formation with a super-radar of extraordinary capabilities. The PS-05/A can operate in passive mode, as a sensitive receiver with high directional accuracy (due to its large antenna). Two PS-05/As can exchange information by datalink and locate the target by triangulation. The target's signals will often identify it as well.

The datalink results in better tracking. Usually, three plots (echoes) are needed to track a target in track-while-scan mode. The datalink allows the radars to share plots, not just tracks, so even if none of the aircraft in a formation gets enough plots on its own to track the target, they may do so collectively.

Each radar plot includes Doppler velocity, which provides the individual aircraft with range-rate data. However, this data on its own does not yield the velocity of the target. Using the TIDLS, two fighters can take simultaneous range-rate readings and thereby determine the target's track instantly, reducing the need for radar transmission.

In ECM applications, one fighter can search, while the wingman imultaneously focuses jamming on the same target, using the radar. This makes it very difficult for the target to intercept or jam the radar that is tracking him. Another anti-jamming technique is for all four radars to illuminate the same target simultaneously at different frequencies.

--------
There seems to be a lot of different 'Data links' in NATO, all of them sharing a, if I understand it right, 'smallest common nominator' in Link16. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:

IPA35

New Member
And can someone explain to me why the F-35A was better again?

AFAIK the Gripen has more different weapons, is more agile and is beter in AA combat.
 

yoron

New Member
Some Quotes..

---------------
Link 16 (also known as TADIL J in the US) has been designed to optimize the use of the MIDS/JTIDS architecture. MIDS is a major U.S.-led international programme in which Link 16 compatible data communications terminals are being developed. Link 16 is defined as the designation for Joint Tactical Information Data System (JTIDS) waveform and protocol compatible radios that transmit and receive data messages in the TADIL-J message catalog.
Gripen and Saab 340 with Erieye

Link 16 has been developed to meet the information exchange requirements of all tactical units, supporting the exchange of surveillance data, EW data, mission tasking, weapons assignments and control data. Link 16 is the NATO-standard tactical datalink that is being adopted by more and more users, on more and more platforms, to support coalition operations.

In addition to the Swedish data link, Link 16 is now an option in Gripens onboard datalink capabilities. This further enhances Gripen’s interoperability and gives users an even wider choice of networked systems to meet their national and international needs.

Gripen has always been a networked aircraft. Long before today’s concepts of netcentricity entered the military vocabulary, the Gripen was designed to be a datalinked, networked fighting system. This is not some lucky coincidence. By the late 1950s Sweden’s military thinkers and aircraft builders had recognized the game-changing effect that a linked flow of secure electronic combat data could have on tactics and operations.

It is well known now – but was once a highly-classified national secret – that Saab’s J 35 Draken was fielded with one of the world’s first operational datalink systems. Central to the Gripens warfighting capabilities is its unique Communication and Datalink 39 (CDL39), which is the best in the world.

In BVR combat, where information and situational awareness are key to success, a datalink system gives the user unrivaled battlespace awareness. The advantages of datalink systems are well recognized elsewhere and include the JTIDS used by US armed forces and Britain's RAF, and NATO's Link 16.

However, these other systems are fitted only to a few aircraft and are generally command-driven systems used to guide other aircraft. They do not allow a free flow of information between platforms and are limited in the type of data they can handle. Furthermore, compared to the CDL39 their basic data exchange rates are painfully slow. Types like the Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon will be the first operational aircraft outside Sweden to have datalink capability that comes anywhere matching that of the Gripen.

The CDL39 is fully integrated with Sweden's new tactical Radio System(TARAS) - a secure radio network for JAS39 Gripen and JA37D Viggen fighters, S100B Argus AEW&C platforms, S102B Korpen SIGINT aircraft and ground-based Stridslednings Central, Command and Control Center (StriC) units.

The FMV is currently working to make CDL39 capable of communicating with JTIDS for international Gripen operations. Up to four aircraft can be actively transmitting on the datalink at any one time and an infinite number can be receiving(passive).As its most basic function the CDL39 can transmitt radar/sensor pictures and aircraft/weaponry status data anywhere on the TARAS network. To send data on the link all the pilot has to do is select the appropriate radio channel/which will be preset by the mission planning system) and transmit. extensive testing has shown the system to be unjammable.

The Gripen's datalink offers enormous flexibility. For example, in the air to surface role one aircraft "package" can attack a target, obtain a radar picture of the the target area and realy it to the cockpits of the next wave of attackers. Those aircraft would receive an accurate image of the target area, allowing them to know which targets have already been attacked. Furthermore this information can be relayed back to the StriC for decisions based on the actual situation.

In the air to air role it is possible for one Gripen to transmit its radar picture of an airborn target to the radar screen of another aircraft. The second aircraft can the leave its radar switched off, approach the target and engage it without ever betraying its precense. Weapons launch even can be guided from the first aircrafts radar. Using AEW&C radar, a much larger airpicture can be datalinked to a formation of Gripens, to increase their combat reach.

The Gripen/datalink combination offers formidable capabilities. The airforce has run air defence exercises deplying just six Gripens to defend half the country. Using the CDL39, three pairs of aircraft flying CAP are able to monitor Sweden's entire east coast, from the northern edge of the island of Gotland in the Baltic to Ronneby Air Base and beyond, to the souther tip of the country.

Each Gripen pilot can be confident that everybody knows where everyone else is at all times, what they are seeing and what they are doing.
--------

There is a difference between Awac and what we have.
We have a true 'peer2peer', resilient and redundant
 

yoron

New Member
Read and you'll understand the error of your ways. :D

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/research/download/air-combat-capability.pdf

EDIT: OK it's a Gripen thread, I'll leave it here.
And when I get linked up?

"Trawling the Web over the weekend, I found a new pro-Joint Strike Fighter white paper from an Australian organization - the Williams Foundation - that I'd never heard of. I'm not going to get into the content of the paper right away, except to say that if you've been following the debate on Ares over the last couple of years, it won't open your eyes all that much.

But, I wondered, who is the Williams Foundation, and, more specifically, who died and made them God? Their clean and professionally designed homepage identified itself as an "independent research organization" focused on Australian defense issues. Its principals are mostly retired RAAF officers. It's named after the RAAF's first commander, Sir Richard Williams.

On the other hand, although it's called the Williams Foundation, Williams didn't found it. It's brand, spanking new, launched in Melbourne in February 2009 - but, apparently, with its views on the JSF already established. A clue to the speed with which the organization reached its conclusions can be found at the end of the foundation's inaugural press release. "We had hoped to obtain some start-up funding from Defence. However, that has as yet not happened. Luckily for us two defence-related companies have made generous offers of support.

Chemring Australia, a manufacturer of defence pyrotechnics and air, land and sea based decoys is one of our two major sponsors. The second is Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F22 and the F35. "

Well, just fancy that. But as an editor, I would advise them to check the Oxford definition of "independent" - as in "free from outside control or influence" and "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence" - and revise their mission statement accordingly. "

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:183c5ac0-7799-4f38-88e4-1b9282737ba6
 

longbow

New Member
And no, I use my own name, you have a lot of 'sock puppets' here?
'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!:p:
 
Top