Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 101 of 102 FirstFirst ... 5191979899100101102 LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,030 of 3044

Thread: Rafale news & discussion part XVI

  1. #3001
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    "Marty", Rafale solo display pilot is participating to Trilat and will make a demo on VIP day.

  2. #3002
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,484
    @xman

    What exactly is your understanding of networked fusion?
    Unless there is a central processing unit that collects, fuses and subsequently re-transmits the fused sensor picture every platform will do the sensor fusion on its own anyway utilizing onboard and offboard sensor data. From my understanding of your post, you consider networked fusion as the exhange of raw data only, rather than completely pre-proessed tracks. As stated you need some pre-processing anyway and tracking is nothing but the correlation of successive detections. The primary question would be to what extend it makes sense to share raw data in the first place? Exchanging raw data makes, from my point of view only sense when your platforms sensors can't establish a track own their own for whatever reason or when your ESM fails to identify a specific emitter because it's unknown to your emitter library. I can't immediately think of any other good reasons for the exchange of raw data or detections.

    As far as the fusion is concerned the source with the lowest data quality/accuracy is typically the bottleneck for successful fusion, though you may well fuse good detection/track data and exclude those that don't pass the quality threshold for fusion. The same concept could be applied when fusing offboard data with onboard data. A minimum quality threshold could be agreed as a standard by all parties and ownship transmissions are degraded to match a defined threshold if necessary. The otherway round your onboard processing may use different quality threshold if necessary rejecting those data that whiöe above the agreed quality standard, might still be considered as inappropriate for your own standards. So you cam effectively choose between fewer high quality data or more low quality data with all entailed consequences.

  3. #3003
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    @xman

    What exactly is your understanding of networked fusion?
    Unless there is a central processing unit that collects, fuses and subsequently re-transmits the fused sensor picture every platform will do the sensor fusion on its own anyway utilizing onboard and offboard sensor data. From my understanding of your post, you consider networked fusion as the exhange of raw data only, rather than completely pre-proessed tracks. As stated you need some pre-processing anyway and tracking is nothing but the correlation of successive detections. The primary question would be to what extend it makes sense to share raw data in the first place? Exchanging raw data makes, from my point of view only sense when your platforms sensors can't establish a track own their own for whatever reason or when your ESM fails to identify a specific emitter because it's unknown to your emitter library. I can't immediately think of any other good reasons for the exchange of raw data or detections.

    As far as the fusion is concerned the source with the lowest data quality/accuracy is typically the bottleneck for successful fusion, though you may well fuse good detection/track data and exclude those that don't pass the quality threshold for fusion. The same concept could be applied when fusing offboard data with onboard data. A minimum quality threshold could be agreed as a standard by all parties and ownship transmissions are degraded to match a defined threshold if necessary. The otherway round your onboard processing may use different quality threshold if necessary rejecting those data that whiöe above the agreed quality standard, might still be considered as inappropriate for your own standards. So you cam effectively choose between fewer high quality data or more low quality data with all entailed consequences.
    There is a conceptual problem here (which has been overcome btw). if within a network you fuse a HQ track with your own and send it back to the network, the prvious track will probably be deleted... In favor of your higher QT track and so on... So it is difficult to process already processed data. Anw, data shared for fusion aren't anymore QT only dependent. threat, planar coordinates etc. are taken into account.

  4. #3004
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,484
    Within L16 each track gets a track number assigned to unambiguously identify it within the network. If such a track is received and fused with onboard track data the complementary attributes are tagged to it. The kinematic data are typically updated with those derived from the onboard sensors. If you transmit low quality detections it always entails the risk of being unable to distinguish between multiple contacts, which may preclude fusion. Update rates are another issue, raw detections usually lack velocity vector data which makes it difficult to predict the contacts likely position compensating for the latency between detector/transmitter and receiver. Raw data or pure detections not correlated with previous detections make it difficult to determine threats. As said unless your own sensors are for some reason unable to track a target or when for example range data are missing the exchange of bearing data is useful to triangulate targets (multiship geo-localization).

  5. #3005
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    the exchange of bearing data is useful to triangulate targets (multiship geo-localization).
    Not so many planes are able to do that, are they?

    Thx for the explanation.

  6. #3006
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    Rafale demo during Trilat. First time in North America i think.;. Not complete, FAA did not accept to qualify the "square dance"

    Last edited by halloweene; 21st April 2017 at 21:58.

  7. #3007
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Rafale demo during Trilat. First time in North America i think.;.

    Love those types of displays- athletic, fast. Personal preference but I find them more exciting than the post stall aerobatics at low speed.

    Video really displays the Rafale's impressive roll rate.

  8. #3008
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Love those types of displays- athletic, fast. Personal preference but I find them more exciting than the post stall aerobatics at low speed.

    Video really displays the Rafale's impressive roll rate.
    Every plane tries to show its best in demo. Asked Cpt Martinez (the pilot) : it is 2016 demo minus square dance (linked to regulations i guess) . He is damn happy to particpate !
    Last edited by halloweene; 21st April 2017 at 22:39.

  9. #3009
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794
    What is square dance?

  10. #3010
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,016
    Fron another site:

    "The "Square dance" goes like this : start straight at 450kt , do a barrel immediatly followed by a 90deg turn , do that 4 times in the row while keeping your airspeed, end up at the same 450kt . "

    From memory, that's where he pulls most G's during the display 10+ or something like that

  11. #3011
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794
    This?


  12. #3012
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    This?

    yes. starting at 0.55
    Last edited by halloweene; 22nd April 2017 at 13:19.

  13. #3013
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794
    Impressive, thanks..

  14. #3014
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    289
    When I refer to pre-processed, I am not talking about the contextualization and formatting of the data to allow its publication over a network for data for fusion, but to the data & information transmitted it carry. Fusing data vector lacking proper relevance, synergy or which are too poorly commensurate to the other inputs in the fusion lead to little contribution if at all to the fusion output.
    Sensor fusion notably intend to overcome deprivation , space and temporal coverage limitation , accuracy and confidence. Fusion of an additional input "too poor" would allow to address deprivation of sense ( loosing own sensor input ), partially improve output confidence by correlating results. But it will not allow enhanced resolution that fused coherent signal of same properties allow , nor would significantly reduce ambiguity in other inputs measurements . It would bring to some degree better space and temporal coverage, but constrained to the native accuracy and confidence of the provided signal.

    In the context of envisioning a standard network fusion solution generic to different platforms, you would need a common representational model accommodating different fusion algorithm and engine and sharing data whose characteristics are compatible and commensurate to the various platforms own sensors input . The later could lead to a sharing degraded pre-processed data to a level where it is no longer significantly contributing for fusion by the most performant platform while lesser performant platform fusion would rely on the better outside input than its own. At such level, it could be simpler to share tracks as in a L-16 DL to fuse them as already done by several platforms , rather than attempting to share on network degraded IR/visible light / EM sensor signal feeds for fusion.

    A proprietary network fusion solution dedicated to a specific platform on the other hand benefit from sharing identical fusion algorithm and engine and sensors and can truly leverage to its full the fusion of deported and less altered sensors signal from other platforms to its own.

  15. #3015
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,192
    Quote Originally Posted by xman View Post
    When I refer to pre-processed, I am not talking about the contextualization and formatting of the data to allow its publication over a network for data for fusion, but to the data & information transmitted it carry. Fusing data vector lacking proper relevance, synergy or which are too poorly commensurate to the other inputs in the fusion lead to little contribution if at all to the fusion output.
    Sensor fusion notably intend to overcome deprivation , space and temporal coverage limitation , accuracy and confidence. Fusion of an additional input "too poor" would allow to address deprivation of sense ( loosing own sensor input ), partially improve output confidence by correlating results. But it will not allow enhanced resolution that fused coherent signal of same properties allow , nor would significantly reduce ambiguity in other inputs measurements . It would bring to some degree better space and temporal coverage, but constrained to the native accuracy and confidence of the provided signal.

    In the context of envisioning a standard network fusion solution generic to different platforms, you would need a common representational model accommodating different fusion algorithm and engine and sharing data whose characteristics are compatible and commensurate to the various platforms own sensors input . The later could lead to a sharing degraded pre-processed data to a level where it is no longer significantly contributing for fusion by the most performant platform while lesser performant platform fusion would rely on the better outside input than its own. At such level, it could be simpler to share tracks as in a L-16 DL to fuse them as already done by several platforms , rather than attempting to share on network degraded IR/visible light / EM sensor signal feeds for fusion.

    A proprietary network fusion solution dedicated to a specific platform on the other hand benefit from sharing identical fusion algorithm and engine and sensors and can truly leverage to its full the fusion of deported and less altered sensors signal from other platforms to its own.
    Nice post..

  16. #3016
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,440
    We should find out how to shoot down F22s & F35s rather than how to communicate with them.

    All this vassal mentality has got to go, seriously.

  17. #3017
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794
    EQ02 for Qatar



  18. #3018
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794


  19. #3019
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post

    Looks nice in 2 shades painting.

  20. #3020
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    We should find out how to shoot down F22s & F35s rather than how to communicate with them.

    All this vassal mentality has got to go, seriously.
    Right, given that there are more F-22s flying today than Rafales (and more F-35s flying today than Rafales)... whatever brilliant plan you come up with is going to need to work really really well.


  21. #3021
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    We should find out how to shoot down F22s & F35s rather than how to communicate with them.

    All this vassal mentality has got to go, seriously.
    I'm going to guess that your not happy Melenchon isn't going into the next round? Hardly worth starting a war over. Look at the predicament the U.S. is in..... grass is always greener.

  22. #3022
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,452
    In fact, Le Pen, one of the candidate selected for the second row of the presidential election is openly Pro-Russian ( as is most of the Eu extreme right). This involves an anti-US rhetoric.

  23. #3023
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,201
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    In fact, Le Pen, one of the candidate selected for the second row of the presidential election is openly Pro-Russian ( as is most of the Eu extreme right). This involves an anti-US rhetoric.
    Her?
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #3024
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,794
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    In fact, Le Pen, one of the candidate selected for the second row of the presidential election is openly Pro-Russian ( as is most of the Eu extreme right). This involves an anti-US rhetoric.
    Many of average Europeans are getting pro-Russian.. Not pro-Russian in the sense of "we want to get united under a red flag" rather than acknowledging that the sanctions are not bringing any useful benefit for Europe.. acknowledging that the western support for extreme Sunni groups in Syria is deeply morally disturbing.. acknowledging that further polarization of the world in the direction of Cold War vol.II is utter BS..

    What Europe currently lacks are political representatives sharing this opinion without having awkward policies on other topics (domestic, EU, etc.).. A voter who does not buy into the pathetic "Putin is a Satan" official media line, but at the same time does not want to leave the EU or build barb-wire fences around the borders lacks viable options..
    Last edited by MSphere; 24th April 2017 at 00:01.

  25. #3025
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,278
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Right, given that there are more F-22s flying today than Rafales (and more F-35s flying today than Rafales)... whatever brilliant plan you come up with is going to need to work really really well.

    Provide there are enough F35 at one place to fight France . I doubt there any airbase capable of it.

  26. #3026
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,440
    FBW Melenchon is but a little Hitler, I'm sure glad he was ousted. I'm not saying that France should go to war with the US, I'm saying we should pursue our own policies instead of the ludicrous US policies. If you see the signature of my post it's pretty obvious I didn't participate in this mascarade that you folks call the less worse political system.

    And the Rafale being a fighter needs to be able to tackle ANY threat, because it's it's job. The job of a french air superiority fighter is NOT to provide assistance to the USAF. Period.
    Last edited by Nicolas10; 24th April 2017 at 16:44.

  27. #3027
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,440
    hopsalot, I didn't say France should devise a plan to fight the USAF/USN. I said the main task of the Rafale should be to down other aircrafts. That's all.

    But I like the way you're thinking.

    (edit: if we can call that thinking)

  28. #3028
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,332
    FBW Melenchon is but a little Hitler, I'm sure glad he was ousted. I'm not saying that France should go to war with the US, I'm saying we should pursue our own policies
    Figured his anti-NATO stance and his views on the problems in the Middle East and Libya would coincide with yours. Anyway, I don't see (why you view) the AdlA as an extension of the USAF (and I doubt the officers of either feel that way either). Close military cooperation and an inter-operable C3 structure makes for "good neighbors".

    Whatever your views of NATO, I would argue that the majority of Europe is better off due to close cooperation via NATO and EU, than post Treaty of Paris (1815) to 1945.
    Last edited by FBW; 24th April 2017 at 17:29.

  29. #3029
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,127
    The Le Pens are pro-Putin, it is obvious. Jean-Marie Le Pen has had several secret meetings with Putin. For the life of me I don't understand why our far right politicians in the west are enamored with him. I hope that if she wins, she will distance herself from him like Trump did and becomes a strong proponent of NATO.

  30. #3030
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,440
    Yeah be a vassal mister atheist.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 19 users browsing this thread. (4 members and 15 guests)

  1. haavarla,
  2. Scar,
  3. xman

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES