How does TIDLS(Gripen) and TRAGEDAC(Rafale) compare to MADL?

armedupdate · by **armedupdate** » 24 Sep 2017, 06:09

How does TIDLS system found on the Gripen and the TRAGEDAC found on the Rafale compare to the F-35's MADL? Obviously the MADL is better, however I want to find more info on the two other two systems, they are other real time datalinks.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 25 Sep 2017, 11:55

TIDLS is very similar to Link 16 in many ways, although it's more specialized because it was designed just for Swedish Air Force needs. Technologically it's very similar to Link 16 system with omnidirectional antennas and transmitting using TDMA network system using UHF/L-band. Just look at here:
http://flygteknik.mcistockholm.se/filer ... lstrom.pdf

It's in Swedish, but can be easily translated.

AFAIK, TRAGEDAC is not a data link system at all, but rather software improvement for sensor fusion and data transmission. From what I've heard, it still uses Link 16 to transmit and receive data, but TRAGEDAC improves how data is fused together. AFAIK, it also allows transmitting data from SPECTRA and FSO to other Rafales and combine the data with radar tracks.

MADL is totally different as it uses directional antennas and much higher frequency than TIDLS or Link 16. It thus has superior stealth (narrow beams), throughput (higher frequency) and lower latency (direct point-to-point). Of course the downside is that it's much more difficult to implement on fighter aircraft.

armedupdate · by **armedupdate** » 26 Sep 2017, 08:02

Doesn't Super Hornet also have this?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... et-376973/

loke · by **loke** » 31 Dec 2017, 10:39

[W]hile many fighters today can share information through the use of systems such as Link 16, the Gripen has some further unspecified additional capability as well, causing Brännström to reflect that in a mixed formation with different fighters, “I believe I’d be the happiest one.”

Presumably the pilot is referring to LINK 16 (and similar) in the above qoute and not MADL.

https://corporalfrisk.com/2016/02/16/a- ... the-pilot/

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 04 Jan 2018, 02:23

MADL only problem is that's much newer then L16; not that's harder to implement into a new fighter

IIRC had some "short range" issues, but that was long time ago.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 04 Jan 2018, 16:45

Well there are the half dozen directional antennas to deal with which make it a bit more complex than L16.

Not sure where you got the "short range" problem from. I seem to remember it was performing well in excess of the spec. Maybe that was after the fix.

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 04 Jan 2018, 22:59

I was first reading about MADL around 2008, IIRC Eurocup was going on in an italian aviation magazine.

Long time ago, anyway.

I'm actually think about how many of those F35's sub-systems are in fact, the top performer in their roles :drool:

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 05 Jan 2018, 14:39

loke wrote:
[W]hile many fighters today can share information through the use of systems such as Link 16, the Gripen has some further unspecified additional capability as well, causing Brännström to reflect that in a mixed formation with different fighters, “I believe I’d be the happiest one.”

Presumably the pilot is referring to LINK 16 (and similar) in the above qoute and not MADL.

https://corporalfrisk.com/2016/02/16/a- ... the-pilot/

Definitely so. I really doubt Swedish pilots would know anything about MADL but they likely know Link 16 fairly well. Problem with comparing TIDLS to Link 16 or any other data links is that they have evolved a lot during their lifetime and it depends a lot which exact versions and implementations are compared to each other. Link 16/JTIDS of today is something very different to 1970s JTIDS. Of course they also have a lot in common, but there is also a lot that has changed. Same with Swedish data link system.

There is pretty good publication about Swedish TIDLS (RAS90/TARAS in Sweden/Swedish) but sadly only in Swedish here:
http://www.fht.nu/Dokument/Flygvapnet/f ... _taras.pdf

Basically TIDLS is extremely similar to Link 16/JTIDS in technical specifications and physical architecture but at logical level TIDLS is optimized for Swedish environment and equipment while Link 16/JTIDS is more generic system (because it has to). Link 16/JTIDS has capabilties that TIDLS does not have because Sweden could not use them.

monkeypilot · by **monkeypilot** » 06 Jan 2018, 16:28

TRAGEDAC is not a datalink, Hornet is right. Intra flight datalink is being set up. Better chances to see something from µTMA datalink and CONTACT SDRs. For french Rafale, should be 2023. (if no crash program). EArlier for Indian ones.

MADL is totally different as it uses directional antennas and much higher frequency than TIDLS or Link 16. It thus has superior stealth (narrow beams), throughput (higher frequency) and lower latency (direct point-to-point). Of course the downside is that it's much more difficult to implement on fighter aircraft.

And shorter range. Is it adaptative due to data loss vs range ?

herciv · by **herciv** » 06 Jan 2018, 21:49

About CONTACT ESSOR and SDR
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ma ... ram-07440/

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 08 Jan 2018, 10:39

monkeypilot wrote:
MADL is totally different as it uses directional antennas and much higher frequency than TIDLS or Link 16. It thus has superior stealth (narrow beams), throughput (higher frequency) and lower latency (direct point-to-point). Of course the downside is that it's much more difficult to implement on fighter aircraft.

And shorter range. Is it adaptative due to data loss vs range ?

Not necessarily shorter range. Directional antennas with significantly higher gain than omnidirectional antennas used in TIDLS or Link 16 is going to compensate the higher atmospheric attenuation (free space loss) of signals. Even small K-band (like MADL uses) antenna can have so high gain that it could fully compensate the attenuation effect given similar transmit power levels. Especially so if it's adaptive which is definitely very possible or even probable in such a state-of-the-art data link system. Not seen any definitive statements about that though.

monkeypilot · by **monkeypilot** » 08 Jan 2018, 15:06

Especially so if it's adaptive which is definitely very possible or even probable in such a state-of-the-art data link system. Not seen any definitive statements about that though.

.
Agree. Anyway on a tctical patrol datalink, too long a range (power emitted) is not necessarily a +

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 09 Jan 2018, 12:47

monkeypilot wrote:
Especially so if it's adaptive which is definitely very possible or even probable in such a state-of-the-art data link system. Not seen any definitive statements about that though.
.
Agree. Anyway on a tctical patrol datalink, too long a range (power emitted) is not necessarily a +

Sure and here the directional antennas of MADL and K-band with relatively high attenuation is also good because enemy systems will receive very little of that transmitted energy unless they happen to be directly in LOS. Another good thing is that data transmission rates are higher and thus transmission times are shorter (or more data can be transmitted within same duration).

monkeypilot · by **monkeypilot** » 12 Jan 2018, 16:31

Noob question. Anyone knows about transfer rate of MADL?

nutshell · by **nutshell** » 16 Jan 2018, 02:00

It's not fixed, distance influences the bandwith.

If the engineers were able to squeeze >100mb/s from the F22 aesa radar in a pseudo wifi hotspot mode, you can expect MADL to go much higher.

VPlus VDSL region at least (200-300 mbit)