Forum: General F-35 Forum

IN FOCUS: US Navy Next Generation Jammer proceeds, but F-35 integration deferred indefinitely By: Dave Majumdar Washington DC 11 May 2012 Flight Global

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ly-371742/

"...It is still an open question as to whether the NGJ will be integrated onto the F-35. Analysis has shown that it will be costly to integrate the new pods onto the stealthy fifth-generation jet, Green says. "Some of the preliminary numbers that we had for integration on the F-35-these were not small numbers," he says. "With the budget challenges that we have, it was decided that we would really take a singular approach right now with the Growler."

It will be several years before the USN takes another look at integrating the NGJ onto the F-35, Green says. That is because of the sheer cost of integration. In fact, when that might happen is anyone's guess.

"Depending upon the capacity that we need in airborne electronic attack, it is conceivable that we would stay with the Growler and not even look at a second platform until late into the next decade," Green says...."

F-16.net Sponsor

IMO the folks at the JPO already have a full plate of things to do so perhaps get the NGJ developed and tested on some other platform and consider F-35 integration down the road. My understanding is that NGJ will be modular so only the desired level of functionality that makes,sense could ported over.

Why would they want to put a big transmitting device on a stealth platform in the first place. That's what the Growler is for.

The Growler has a number of changes from the baseline F/A-18F Block II, including higher rated generators. An F-35 may be able to handle one NGJ pod with "minimal" integration, but a Growler carries upto 5 pods (ALR-99 or NGJ) for wider spectrum and power output. I doubt the F-35 could handle the extra electrical (or electrical system thermal) needs of having multiple NGJs. This is a bigger issue than compromising stealth.

Some reports also indicate the F-35 APG-81 radar has the capability to jam enemy radar, making the pod unnecessary in the long term.

lamoey wrote:

Why would they want to put a big transmitting device on a stealth platform in the first place. That's what the Growler is for.

I understand the Growler would be limited to standoff jamming. It would not be able to penetrate into the enemy's defenses in escort to strike aircraft.

[quote="neurotech"]The Growler has a number of changes from the baseline F/A-18F Block II, including higher rated generators. An F-35 may be able to handle one NGJ pod with "minimal" integration, but a Growler carries upto 5 pods (ALR-99 or NGJ) for wider spectrum and power output. I doubt the F-35 could handle the extra electrical (or electrical system thermal) needs of having multiple NGJs. This is a bigger issue than compromising stealth.

Some reports also indicate the F-35 APG-81 radar has the capability to jam enemy radar, making the pod unnecessary in the long term.[/quote

Swap out the liftfan with a generator and you have enough power to light up a,small town.

popcorn wrote:

lamoey wrote:

Why would they want to put a big transmitting device on a stealth platform in the first place. That's what the Growler is for.

I understand the Growler would be limited to standoff jamming. It would not be able to penetrate into the enemy's defenses in escort to strike aircraft.

Depends on what kind of enemy defenses are involved. The EA-6B aircraft has been used as an escort jammer before, such as over Iraq in 1991. The EA-18G was used as an escort jammer in Libya.

From FAS: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ea-6b_prowler.htm

Quote:

The EA-6B will begin retirement in the 2010 timeframe, after a career that exceeded 40 years of deployments in support of USN, USMC, and USAF strike forces. As of early 2000, Defense Department planning for replacing the EA-6B Prowler include a scheme under which the Navy would buy an F/A-18G "Growler" -- an F/A-18E/F modified for escort and close-in jamming. The Air Force would provide standoff jamming with modified EB-52s or EB-1s, and close-in jamming with unmanned air vehicles such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk or General Atomics Predator.

Apparently standoff jamming has taken a back seat, as the EB-52H program was cancelled in 2009.

I read somewhere that EW pods were self-powered by turbines placed in the slipstream. Does anybody know anything about that?

neurotech wrote:

popcorn wrote:

lamoey wrote:

Why would they want to put a big transmitting device on a stealth platform in the first place. That's what the Growler is for.

I understand the Growler would be limited to standoff jamming. It would not be able to penetrate into the enemy's defenses in escort to strike aircraft.

Depends on what kind of enemy defenses are involved. The EA-6B aircraft has been used as an escort jammer before, such as over Iraq in 1991. The EA-18G was used as an escort jammer in Libya.

From FAS: http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ea-6b_prowler.htm

Quote:

The EA-6B will begin retirement in the 2010 timeframe, after a career that exceeded 40 years of deployments in support of USN, USMC, and USAF strike forces. As of early 2000, Defense Department planning for replacing the EA-6B Prowler include a scheme under which the Navy i7would buy an F/A-18G "Growler" -- an F/A-18E/F modified for escort and close-in jamming. The Air Force would provide standoff jamming with modified EB-52s or EB-1s, and close-in jamming with unmanned air vehicles such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk or General Atomics Predator.

Apparently standoff jamming has taken a back seat, as the EB-52H program was cancelled in 2009.

The thing is, the NGJ pods are not going to be rated for supersonic flight so that could be a problem in the escort jamming role. Losing the ability to go, supersonic should the need arise has to be a,concern when you're deep within the enemy's IADS, not so much when you're ina standoff position.

I'm not even close to know anything about jamming tactics, but whatever platform it sits on becomes a target the moment it starts jamming. Jamming from afar, if practical, seems much better as the jammer is in a relative safe location and by being farther away the jammer does not give away the location of the strike package.

lamoey wrote:

I'm not even close to know anything about jamming tactics, but whatever platform it sits on becomes a target the moment it starts jamming. Jamming from afar, if practical, seems much better as the jammer is in a relative safe location and by being farther away the jammer does not give away the location of the strike package.

From what I understand, jamming can be much more selective in the penetration mode, with jamming channeled thru AESA transmitters very precisely aimed,and focused on a specific target. It will be much more difficult to detect than a standoff jammer.

count_to_10 wrote:

I read somewhere that EW pods were self-powered by turbines placed in the slipstream. Does anybody know anything about that?

The ALQ-99 does use a Ram-Air-Turbine for power, as well as additional power from the aircraft itself. There is much debate and research going regarding the RAT as the Navy wants to get rid of it from NGJ or go with a much lower drag/higher power solution, such as HiRAT, that uses an impeller.

The ALQ-99 or NGJ is only part of the solution. There is additional avionics (signal processor computer etc) that push up the power requirements significantly.

Aren't power requirements going to be tricky for stealth airframes? There aren't a whole host a ways to generate additional power without boosting radar signature. Power requirements are also going to limit the ability of the AESA to do the full range of jamming activities.

This does argue for a larger airframe if the USAF / USN wants to build a manned penetrating jamming stealth aircraft. Or, no single airframe can do it all on its own, which we all knew already.

More likely, penetrating jamming will be done by expendable decoys or cheaper UAVs. This will reduce their effectiveness but fit the reality of the situation better.

arkadyrenko wrote:

Aren't power requirements going to be tricky for stealth airframes? There aren't a whole host a ways to generate additional power without boosting radar signature. Power requirements are also going to limit the ability of the AESA to do the full range of jamming activities.

From what I understood, the biggest issue with "power requirements" is really dissipating the heat from the power consumed. Keeping a high end (F-22/APG-77) radar cool is not easy.

arkadyrenko wrote:

This does argue for a larger airframe if the USAF / USN wants to build a manned penetrating jamming stealth aircraft. Or, no single airframe can do it all on its own, which we all knew already.

Why doesn't a mission capable EA-18G meet all the requirements, except stealth. With fully integrated EA package and no pylons, the EA-18G radar signature would be reduced significantly.

arkadyrenko wrote:

More likely, penetrating jamming will be done by expendable decoys or cheaper UAVs. This will reduce their effectiveness but fit the reality of the situation better.

Theres only one problem with that. An RQ-4B airframe costs around $70m which is not that much cheaper than a EA-18G ($100m) and I'm not sure can dodge a SAM as easily. I'm hoping a EA/UCAS X-47 would have better survivabilty, considering the $50-$70m price tag.

This brings goes back to the whole "deployability" issue. The EA-18G is available today from both carrier decks and land based deployments. An EAQ-4B probably wont be available for another year or so minimum, if the orders were received today.

Ok.

If one buys into the idea that non-stealthy airframes are toast in a modern air defense network, which I happen to do, then the Growler will be reduced to doing stand-off jamming or jamming in a relatively lower threat environment.

For penetrating jammers, it wouldn't be the RQ-4B. The airframes would either be, if its reusable, the Boeing / Northrup stealthy UCAV or a modified version of the air launched decoy with an internal jammer.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Next Generation Jammer Deferred for F-35 Indefinitely