Forum: General F-35 Forum

With the NGJ and the F-35, I would guess the problem is that the Growler needs additional internal avionics and hardware to adequately conduct the escort jamming role. The hardware in the pods provides the power and the waveforms, the hardware in the fighter provides the C&C capability to intelligently use that capability. This is different from the self-defense, with some limited offensive, jammer role that the AESA has. For example, the AESA is going to be wavelength and power limited, relative to a dedicated EW pod. Though, this discussion is limited because few things are more secretive than EW.

Cooperative EW sounds like a way of using technology and multiple sources as a means of compensating for the limitations of just using an AESA array. That doesn't solve the problem of coordinating and managing the electronic attack.

Given the thermal and weight management problems in the F-35, it is logical that the USN decided to forgo additional engineering problems trying to shoe-horn those devices into the F-35C.

Final question: with regards to the F/A-XX vs F-35 debate, does electronic attack require two people in the airframe. One to fly / monitor the battlespace and the second to focus on the EW?

F-16.net Sponsor

Talk about your "Glass is half empty" kind of answer Wink

Given the direction that sensor fusion and datalinks are going, I see C Cooperative EW (CEW) as a way of automating the use and sharing of EW assets across the battlefield no matter what the source (APG-81, NGJ, internal jammers, towed arrays, etc). I see it as a way of spoofing HOJ missile modes and confusing radar operators as to the true source of jamming signals.

btw, The weight and thermal issues of the F-35 (primarily the B) have to do with empty weight, not external store. They are designed to carry 15k+ pounds of external stores, which the NGJ falls into. The NGJ provides for it's own power and cooling, so thermal issues are not a problem.

I suspect there is more going on in the EW/EA space than public knowledge.
e.g low-band NGJ capability.

One area that I haven't seen much comment on is upgrading the data-link on the EA-18s,
although this can be done with software on the APG-79 radar.

Last edited by spazsinbad on May 13, 2012 - 11:59 PM; edited 2 times in total

SWP, would not the NGJ (pod?) need to weigh less than whatever KPP 'bringback weight' is minus required fuel to do so? Perhaps this is where the SRVL will become important for USMC LHAs if the NGJ weight is more than KPP store bringback weight? Bringback weight applies to F-35c although much higher weight allowed.

That only helps if the two APG-79s are nose to nose.

Since the F-18G just got a new lowband -99 pod, the priority is midband for the initial NGJ.

spazsinbad wrote:

SWP, would not the NGJ need to weigh less than whatever KPP 'bringback weight' is minus required fuel to do so? Perhaps this is where the SRVL will become important for USMC LHAs if the NGJ weight is more than KPP store bringback weight?

Despite what the Marines might think, I do not see NGJ on F-35Bs coming off an LHA (at least not 3/5 pod versions).

If the Marines fly the NGJ on F-35s, I see it happening on the F-35Cs that they will be flying from the CVNs and from ashore. The F-35C has a RCLW (Required Carrier Landing Weight) of ~46k. Given a 2k fuel reserve and an empty weight of 34.8k, that leaves 9.2k for the NGJ pods.

As always the figures for RCLW include unknown fuel requirements on any given day - which would be averaged out for sure but are not stated. From the usual 'Scoreboard' source here is the F-35C KPP for RCLW: [downloadable here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html]

“...The Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons & two AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal & external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard....”

The BINGO fuel requirement would be larger than a 2k fuel reserve - but what? NATOPS will have many BINGO profiles but we don't have them. For sure the bringback on the F-35C is substantial.

Here is a good question; Does the +600nm KPP include the fuel reserve for those "two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel". If so, its range is a hell of a lot longer than 600nm Smile

You mean 'combat radius' where ferry range is 1200nm. There are BINGO profiles in all USN NATOPS publications which are extensive to allow for all sorts of aircraft conditions. I do not have an F-35C NATOPS Very Happy

But please send one if they are available.

The fuel requirement might seem excessive but to allow for operations without a tanker (which may become unserviceable for example) all contingencies are catered for as best as possible at any one time in any given condition - aircraft or weather. It is not complicated on the day because requirements are worked out before briefings. One becomes adept at mental arithmetic using easy to remember numbers for calculating fuel flow for best range/endurance etc. Nowadays aircraft computers will solve this problem easily but I don't have that experience. The BINGO profiles give this endurance/range information in more detail. [A 'pocket NATOPS' was carried in the aircraft [PCL Pocket Check List] which had these very important graphs in an easy readable to use format.]

A Navy pilot has a lot more freedom of action before being told what to do. If BINGO fuel is reached that pilot is free to go to the Bingo field because it is now an emergency (created by lack of fuel). To continue to attempt to land on the carrier would require permission from the carrier. And that may be the option due to benign weather, a clear deck and pilot experience. Not so if weather conditions bad and of course if not a ready deck. A navy pilot will sweat the fuel always even if he has lots of fuel. To get aboard with the maximum carrier landing weight crossing the ramp would be ideal. Then there is always a minimum fuel at which NO carrier landing can be attempted. No point in risking the ship if flameout occurs inappropriately during such an approach. Getting to that condition might occur during bolters / waveoffs not really the fault of anyone. IF a pilot is flying badly then he is told to go to the beach before fuel is a problem or Bingoed if the carrier has a problem well before fuel becomes a problem for that bingo. Always remembering that likely there is a tanker overhead ready to offload fuel. That is always nice. Very Happy

Not to forget that in the near future both the Super Hornet and eventually the F-35C will become 'easier' to carrier deck land due to new flight control software advances with new visual landing aids perhaps etc to ensure a first approach to arrest scenario every time. Weather and deck gremlins must always be catered for though.

Spudman - on a more optimistic note, the Marines are investigating some sort of netted jammer technology, a rapidly fielded and upgradable jammer which will be carried on F-35Bs. Each F-35B carriers an individual jammer, and the jammers are linked together in a network. The CONOPs there seem to be that the network of jammers will be controlled either on the ground or in the air, ie not by the F-35Bs, and they can achieve some degree of battlefield jamming.

That seems to be a good upgrade for the CAS jamming role. The requirements are far narrower, just the X-Band SHORAD / communication network, so the hardware limitations aren't nearly as bad. Furthermore, with the combined jamming power, and suitably advanced algorithms, that could work in allowing the CAS aircraft to fight more readily.

Or, in the future, a flight of F-35A/Cs carrying this networked jammer can have their defensive EW coordinated by an EW RIO in an escorting F/A-XX. The RIO can do the more complicated commands for the networked jammers, allowing the F-35s to focus on the mission at hand.

Why waste the space of an EW RIO in a F/A-XX. Better to let several people run it from the CVN. IIRC, they have already started testing jammers controlled by datalink.

One of my thoughts for leveraging NGJ technology would be to mount a single LO NGJ pod to a F-35's centerline to act as a "self-protection" jammer. Since each F-35 (or just one or two) in the flight would have one, its power requirements would not be as great as a stand-off jammer's. Throw in "Cooperative EW" and these could spread some real havoc wherever needed.

Thanks for your interesting inputs, neurotech...

Would you happen to have any personal views on either the Thales AESA based AEA escort/attack pods currently available, or the Elta/Rafale next-gen AEA/SoJ pod reportedly under development? Any impressions on the existing Elta, Rafale, or Elisra pods?

I thought I'd read somewhere that DoD intends for NGJ to be the overarching Airborne Electronic Attack Architecture for all services and that individual initiatives, including presumably native jamming capabilities inherent in specific platforms e.g F-22, F-35, were going to be capped eventually.. Idea being that NGJ would be a modular architecture and various aircraft woukd be capable of supporting subsets of the total system.

I thought I'd read somewhere that DoD intends for NGJ to be the overarching Airborne Electronic Attack Architecture for all services and that individual initiatives, including presumably native jamming capabilities inherent in specific platforms e.g F-22, F-35, were going to be capped eventually.. Idea being that NGJ would be a modular architecture and various aircraft woukd be capable of supporting subsets of the total system.

I thought I'd read somewhere that DoD intends for NGJ to be the overarching Airborne Electronic Attack Architecture for all services and that individual initiatives, including presumably native jamming capabilities inherent in specific platforms e.g F-22, F-35, were going to be capped eventually.. Idea being that NGJ would be a modular architecture and various aircraft woukd be capable of supporting subsets of the total system.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Next Generation Jammer Deferred for F-35 Indefinitely