Orel escribió:Pathfinder, nadie duda de que la fusión de un quinta es superior, ya de entrada por mayor capacidad de proceso y mejor interfaz hombre-máquina. Pero también hay que corregir esta diapositiva: No representa correctamente la fusión de sensores del Eurofighter ni del Rafale que son 4ª generación. Digo esos dos además de por lo conocido, por lo que sé de primera mano de pilotos, no sé si sucederá con algún otro 4ª.
Eso del "Single Best Source/Track" no se da en esos dos casos. En esos dos cazas cada blanco viene dado por la fusión de las trazas de los distintos sensores. No se queda "sólo con la mejor de las trazas, de uno de los sensores".
Y lo de "Multiple inputs" en el EFA tampoco es así. Aquí de Rafale no puedo afirmar. Desde luego el piloto no tiene que ponerse a manejar cada sensor por separado si no queire. Tres ejemplos que sé del EFA:
- el piloto selecciona un blanco en el MIDS pasado por un AWACS, y todos sus sensores en conjunto se ponen a conseguirle información de esa zona, el piloto no tiene que gestionar cada uno.
- el piloto puede elegir que el IRST busque por su cuenta o "esclavizado" al radar. En cualquier caso, no tiene que estar pendiente de él si no quiere, ya se lo fusiona el avión.
- el piloto mira a una zona con su visor de casco Striker, y los sensores allá que miran, él no tiene que gestionar uno por uno hacia esa zona.
Así que como digo, tal cual lo exponen en esa diapositiva eso de "Multiple inputs" tampoco se corresponde con la fusión de datos del EFA, que es un 4ª.
Así que fíjate, dos cosas vitales de la fusión: la gestión de sensores y el "track" final recibido, no se corresponde esa diapositiva con cuartas como EFA ni Rafale.
Dado que esa diapositiva viene de EEUU, ¿es que es así en las versiones avanzadas de Teens yanquis? Porque es un paso por detrás.
Editado: por si tiene que ver, acabo de leer que esa diapositiva es de 2011.
Saludos
Puede dar la sensación de ser lo mismo, pero no lo es. Esto es lo que dice un piloto británico de Typhoon que ha volado el F-35.
https://sldinfo.com/2015/10/shaping-a-new-combat-capability-for-21st-century-operations-the-coming-of-the-f-35b-to-the-new-british-carrier/Question: How would characterize the role of the F-35 compared to the other elements in the evolving RAF air combat force?Group Captain Townsend:The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter. Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks.
The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously.The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.
This is something that other operators are working in the package alongside F-35 need to understand.
That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process. He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space.
I think there is another step change and difference in the way in which the information is displayed to the pilot which is important and is extremely intuitive.
I’ll give you an example. I commanded a Typhoon squadron for two years.
Very early on this job with F-35, I was lucky enough to fly the F-35 simulator. and the different way in which F35 displays information compared to Typhoon is eye-catching.In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me.
There was just so much data available at my fingertips, but displayed in a really different sense in Typhoon.
So very, very quickly, I knew a great deal about the entity being targeted – sensor fusion at work. I think it’s a very different way of displaying information that any other fast jet has done before.Knowing what my wingman is seeing and my wingman knowing what I am seeing, and my ability to communicate what I want to have achieved by my formation, by my package, which all may be by the air wing that’s air-borne at the time. This airplane changes the game in a way which we can conduct that sort of business.(.....)
Es dificil de explicar, parece lo mismo, pero no lo es. El F-35 se creo en torno a la fusión de sensores, todo gira en torno a ello.
Luego, aquí hay una persona que lo explica de un modo más sencillo, para el que sepa inglés....
This is my understanding regarding sensor fusion implementations in 4++ gen fighters and 5th gen fighters. AFAIK, all 4++ gen fighters have very similar fusion implementations in principle but exact details might of course be quite different.
First difference is that 4++ gen sensor fusion is what is called track correlation. This means every sensor has to first create a track and then track information is sent to sensor fusion engine where different tracks are correlated and a single track is created by the fusion engine. For example target range might be taken from radar track, angular information (elevation, azimuth) from IRST track and ID information combined from radar (radar NCTR methods) and RWR (radar emissions from target direction) tracks. In 5th gen fighters (at least in F-22 and F-35) the sensors don't create their own tracks at all but rather all the sensor data is fed to sensor fusion engine. Thus sensor fusion engine has access to all the information the sensors generate. Sensor fusion creates a single track from all that data and can use data from sensors that is unavailable in track correlation systems. For example radar (or IRST system) might get infrequent detections which would not be enough to generate or maintain a track. It also generates more information from targets in shorter time as there as time is not wasted in generating tracks with every sensor before sensor fusion gets to work. Downside of 5th gen sensor fusion is that it requires much better network inside the aircraft (from sensors to fusion engine computer) and much more computing power to crunch the data in real time.
Second main difference is that 5th gen sensor fusion is much more autonomous and can truly automatically cue and task all the sensors. This lowers pilot workload and improves situational awareness a lot in complex situations. It also shortens reaction time a lot and can actually do sensor fusion against much larger number of simultaneous targets. For example if RWR detects something in 3 different directions simultaneously, sensor fusion engine can command radar, IRST and IFF systems to probe for more information in very quick order. In 4++ gen systems the RWR would first have to get more information before giving info to pilot who might then have to control all the sensors to do the same. This would take a lot more time and the situation might change drastically during that time.
Third difference is what data can be used for sensor fusion. In 4++ gen systems the sensor fusion uses only data which has been got from sensors (data link is basically a sensor). In 5th gen systems the sensor fusion can (potentially) use much more diverse set of information. It might be able to use things like threat image and dimension data, geographical and spatial data (terrain features, buildings), ATO&ACO level info, weather data etc. It's basically just a matter of having information sources available and software to factor in the information. I doubt all this is currently done or even planned yet. IMO, F-35 sensor fusion in 2045 will have vastly more capabilities than it currently does.
Basically F-35 sensor fusion does things much faster, much more automatically and against many more targets than 4++ gen sensor fusion. That's the reason for the "God's eye of the battlefield" quotes regarding it.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=28397
