Swedish Defence Major Saab offers Gripen- E Fighter Production Facility In India

[randomradio]

@gambit

Do you remember I told you once that radars no longer have a clutter rejection threshold?
Watch 33:00.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Well there goes the Tejas, it uses the same engine as the gripen which India will still have to buy from the US, along with importing a lot of other systems sweden doesn't manufacture(like the targo HMD etc).

 

[randomradio]

Well there goes the Tejas, it uses the same engine as the gripen which India will still have to buy from the US, along with importing a lot of other systems sweden doesn't manufacture(like the targo HMD etc).

Rafale will also have Targo. It will be made in India by HALBIT, HAL+Elbit.

 

[Hassan Guy]

Rafale will also have Targo. It will be made in India by HALBIT, HAL+Elbit.

Oh,I forgot it was Jewish.

 

[gambit]

@gambit

Do you remember I told you once that radars no longer have a clutter rejection threshold?
Watch 33:00.

Sorry, he said no such thing. All I heard was 'clever software', 'extending the detection range', 'change the display', and claim of detecting 'stealth'.

 

[Basel]

Sorry, he said no such thing. All I heard was 'clever software', 'extending the detection range', 'change the display', and claim of detecting 'stealth'.

Which one is overall better F-16 (latest version) or Gripen NG??

Will later be better with ej-200 engine??

 

[randomradio]

Sorry, he said no such thing. All I heard was 'clever software', 'extending the detection range', 'change the display', and claim of detecting 'stealth'.

You missed everything between "'change the display' and claim of detecting 'stealth'".

Transcript:
"Took away any limitation in radar cross section that all radars have.
...Radars can't/don't want to detect small targets because they would see birds and... would be cluttered.
With this clever software we took that away and now you can see a stealth aircraft."

His claim of detecting 'stealth' is unimportant, the point he is making is the radar won't reject a bird as clutter. The 'clever software' has achieved the capability to differentiate between false positives and an aircraft with very low RCS.

So yeah, 'no more' clutter rejection threshold in radars. A better statement would be that the threshold has been lowered significantly. So a sparrow would be rejected post processing, not before.

Which one is overall better F-16 (latest version) or Gripen NG??

Gripen is better in every way.

Will later be better with ej-200 engine??

Gripen with EJ200? Very bad. The EJ200 has significantly lesser dry and wet thrust.

But with the EJ230 Stage 1, definitely better. More thrust, but also more advanced. It is better optimized for supercruise and has much lower cavity resonance than the F414.

An uprated Kaveri is the best option. It's variable cycle and has a flat rated thrust.

 

[Basel]

You missed everything between "'change the display' and claim of detecting 'stealth'".

Transcript:
"Took away any limitation in radar cross section that all radars have.
...Radars can't/don't want to detect small targets because they would see birds and... would be cluttered.
With this clever software we took that away and now you can see a stealth aircraft."

His claim of detecting 'stealth' is unimportant, the point he is making is the radar won't reject a bird as clutter. The 'clever software' has achieved the capability to differentiate between false positives and an aircraft with very low RCS.

So yeah, 'no more' clutter rejection threshold in radars. A better statement would be that the threshold has been lowered significantly. So a sparrow would be rejected post processing, not before.



Gripen is better in every way.



Gripen with EJ200? Very bad. The EJ200 has significantly lesser dry and wet thrust.

But with the EJ230 Stage 1, definitely better. More thrust, but also more advanced. It is better optimized for supercruise and has much lower cavity resonance than the F414.

An uprated Kaveri is the best option. It's variable cycle and has a flat rated thrust.

ej-200 is not better then current engine?? Although it will tweaked to be installed in Single engine plane, for example RD-93 is tweaked too for JFT although it's older tech then ej-200.

 

[randomradio]

ej-200 is not better then current engine?? Although it will tweaked to be installed in Single engine plane, for example RD-93 is tweaked too for JFT although it's older tech then ej-200.

Although the EJ200's dry thrust is similar to the F414's, its wet thrust is 1 ton too low, 90KN vs 98KN. So the Gripen won't have a TWR of greater than 1 with EJ200.

What you are referring to is the EJ230 Stage 1. It is uprated to 103KN and delivers more thrust than the F414, but it's not developed yet.

That doesn't mean it's not an option of course. Another country may choose to go for an EJ230, but they may have to pay for the development. The F414 is sufficient.

Personally, I think the window has passed. Saab may not develop a much more modern Gripen in the future. They will have to go for a new design if they want to keep up. All major air forces have started studies for hypersonic fighters. Gripen is good enough until then.

 

[gambit]

You missed everything between "'change the display' and claim of detecting 'stealth'".

Transcript:
"Took away any limitation in radar cross section that all radars have.
...Radars can't/don't want to detect small targets because they would see birds and... would be cluttered.
With this clever software we took that away and now you can see a stealth aircraft."

His claim of detecting 'stealth' is unimportant, the point he is making is the radar won't reject a bird as clutter. The 'clever software' has achieved the capability to differentiate between false positives and an aircraft with very low RCS.

So yeah, 'no more' clutter rejection threshold in radars. A better statement would be that the threshold has been lowered significantly. So a sparrow would be rejected post processing, not before.

I said this many yrs ago and will repeat: In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible.

What that mean is that in the initial step of the detection process, EVERYTHING is detected. Then any signal that meets certain criteria is rejected. In that rejection process, the first signal characteristic is amplitude. Basically, if a signal's amplitude falls within a range, that signal is rejected. But amplitude is only one signal characteristic among many. If a signal's amplitude is outside the range of the initial processing stage, the signal is sent to other filters.

Example...Ground clutter is a library on its own and is a filter.

If an F-22's radar echoes matches that of a leaf, what are you going to do ? Process every single signal that came from a real leaf ?

Most radars are capable of distinguishing sky returns vs ground returns. It is not that difficult. Ground returns are like looking at a wall with no holes. You can put your fingertips on a wall and make out its tiny surface features, but you would know that you are touching a wall.

http://code7700.com/radar_beam_width.html

In the above source. Look at the first figure. The larger the antenna, the narrower the beam.

If a radar beam is saturated with returns, such as from electronic warfare (EW) or from ground features, you can either process every signal as an EW threat or reject the scan's entire return as clutter.

If you design your radar to process every signal regardless of source, you maybe processing an EW signal instead of a ground return.

Here, as we Americans say it, is the clincher...

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/247/

Ground clutter is the easiest false echo for the radar operation to recognize. It is easy to recognize since ground clutter does not move in any organized fashion,...

You cannot recognize something unless you already have a memory of what it is. You cannot recognize your mother unless you spent some time with her.

Ground clutter is initially rejected because of its uniformity signal behaviors.

So in order to detect and track an F-22 against ground clutter according to how much the beamwidth produced, you will have to process every return signal no matter how small its amplitude. You will have to process every signal, whether it came from a leaf or a field mouse, to see it if fits the signal characteristics of an F-22.

Or if you recognize that you are looking at the ground, you can reject the signal and risk losing the flight of F-35s.

Gripen is better in every way.

Speaking on behalf of the USAF: " We have no problems if you believe that. "

 

[Basel]

I said this many yrs ago and will repeat: In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible.

What that mean is that in the initial step of the detection process, EVERYTHING is detected. Then any signal that meets certain criteria is rejected. In that rejection process, the first signal characteristic is amplitude. Basically, if a signal's amplitude falls within a range, that signal is rejected. But amplitude is only one signal characteristic among many. If a signal's amplitude is outside the range of the initial processing stage, the signal is sent to other filters.

Example...Ground clutter is a library on its own and is a filter.

If an F-22's radar echoes matches that of a leaf, what are you going to do ? Process every single signal that came from a real leaf ?

Most radars are capable of distinguishing sky returns vs ground returns. It is not that difficult. Ground returns are like looking at a wall with no holes. You can put your fingertips on a wall and make out its tiny surface features, but you would know that you are touching a wall.

http://code7700.com/radar_beam_width.html

In the above source. Look at the first figure. The larger the antenna, the narrower the beam.

If a radar beam is saturated with returns, such as from electronic warfare (EW) or from ground features, you can either process every signal as an EW threat or reject the scan's entire return as clutter.

If you design your radar to process every signal regardless of source, you maybe processing an EW signal instead of a ground return.

Here, as we Americans say it, is the clincher...

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/247/

You cannot recognize something unless you already have a memory of what it is. You cannot recognize your mother unless you spent some time with her.

Ground clutter is initially rejected because of its uniformity signal behaviors.

So in order to detect and track an F-22 against ground clutter according to how much the beamwidth produced, you will have to process every return signal no matter how small its amplitude. You will have to process every signal, whether it came from a leaf or a field mouse, to see it if fits the signal characteristics of an F-22.

Or if you recognize that you are looking at the ground, you can reject the signal and risk losing the flight of F-35s.


Speaking on behalf of the USAF: " We have no problems if you believe that. "

What's you opinion about F-16 Vs Gripen??

 

[randomradio]

I said this many yrs ago and will repeat: In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible.

Agreed. That's why the Swede says a low RCS aircraft can be detected now.

If an F-22's radar echoes matches that of a leaf, what are you going to do ? Process every single signal that came from a real leaf ?

Yes. Pretty much. But in a much smarter way. No different from how a human is able to process a leaf-sized F-22 flying at 600kts over treetops against the backdrop of real leaves. Basically, radar has been given calculable common sense.

If a signal's amplitude is outside the range of the initial processing stage, the signal is sent to other filters.

Maybe in your time, but not today. Today we have filters that can simultaneously match various data from all sensors. Not just radar.

If a radar beam is saturated with returns, such as from electronic warfare (EW) or from ground features, you can either process every signal as an EW threat or reject the scan's entire return as clutter.

If you design your radar to process every signal regardless of source, you maybe processing an EW signal instead of a ground return.

No. Radar/EW suites have become so accurate that they can recognize the difference between man-made and artificial signals. Today's EW suites are many times more accurate than the F-16 radar that you operated. And a modern radar won't process a signal its aircraft did not emit. It's the EW suite's job to process every single signal.

The F-22 is a very fast, non-homogenous 'clutter' in a field of homogenous clutter if you are flying over treetops. The radar has already taken that into account.

You cannot recognize something unless you already have a memory of what it is. You cannot recognize your mother unless you spent some time with her.

This is a temporary tactical disadvantage for the adversary, not a technological one.

If you have an aircraft, say the F-22, nobody has ever seen, meaning not even satellites have picked up, then the first few engagements are enough, regardless of whether the F-22 wins or not, all the data collected by aircraft that engage the F-22 is transmitted real time to all other supporting assets. Data processing starts upon contact and new tactics are electronically developed by computers based on model simulations the same day.

It's even better when it comes to signals processing. The effect is immediate.

So in order to detect and track an F-22 against ground clutter according to how much the beamwidth produced, you will have to process every return signal no matter how small its amplitude. You will have to process every signal, whether it came from a leaf or a field mouse, to see it if fits the signal characteristics of an F-22.

Yes, this can be done today. Even some of the older EW suites can process 50000 signals at once. I'm talking about 15 years ago. Add a bit of 'common sense' into the software and it will be able to filter out all the homogenous signals as it 'learns' the environment. So not just amplitude, even the doppler return is processed simultaneously. If a gerbil manages to do 600 knots, that's a serious problem.

Do you know one particular type of software has already earned a PhD by itself?
http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/planarian-regeneration-model-discovered-artificial-intelligence

It managed to figure out and artificially replicate something as complex as regeneration, that human scientists have not. Figuring out a F-22 among a clump of leaves is easy in comparison.

In fact, they are saying machines are able to identify camoflaged snipers significantly quicker than humans.

Speaking on behalf of the USAF: " We have no problems if you believe that. "

Don't embarrass the USAF. Your latest block F-16 was tested in all conditions in 2009 in India. It was one of the worst performers. The Europeans completely slaughtered the F-16 and the F/A-18. Even the F/A-18 beat the F-16.

No different from many European air force evaluations also, where the F-16 placed at the bottom most of the time.

Here's one from the Dutch. Early 2000s.

Even the basic Gripen is far ahead of the MLU F-16, almost equal to the Adv F-16, never mind comparing it to the Adv. Gripen being flight tested today.

So it's not about belief, we know it, we've physically tested it.

 

[theman111]

They're just desperate to sell

 

[randomradio]

They're just desperate to sell

They realize that they will get pushed out of the fighter market by 2030 decade. But that's good for India because it means they will be more willing to part with technology.