Forum: General F-35 Forum

Exactly. The ALQ-99 radiates power in all directions, whereas newer AESA/EA systems can target specific areas.

F-16.net Sponsor

cola wrote:

neurotech wrote:

The Thales AESA-based EA pod reflects the reality that having directional control of a EA jammer is significantly more effective than the undirected systems such as the ALQ-99.

What do you mean by directional control?

Most jammers just radiate in all directions. One of the great advantage of AESA phased arrays is that the emitted waves can be directed in a narrow beam at a specific target. A jammer using that technology will not only have much more jamming power for a given power usage, but also doesn't give itself away to threats in other directions. Theoretically, it should be able to jam multiple threats simultaneously while continuing to search for other threats.

Another interesting factoid about F-35C 'brungback' which all depends on ratio of fuel and weapons required to be back onboard dunnit. Very Happy

Reference to BINGO discussion page 3 of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-30.html

F-35 Interview with Mr. Steve Weatherspoon 29 June 2010
Conducted at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas
By RADM Casey W. Coane, USN (Ret)

http://www.ausn.org/Portals/0/pdfs/maga ... t-2010.pdf

"...For you aviators, here are a few factoids you should like:
10,000 lbs of ordnance bring back to the ship. Twenty thousand pounds internal fuel arriage (Navy model). No HUD on the glare shield – HUD data is displayed directly on the helmet visor. No requirement for night vision goggles; internal IR sensors display that type of visual on the visor. New helmet weighs a few ounces more than today’s standard but less than today’s helmet plus NVG. No NVG ejection issues. Sensors are cued by turning the pilots head in the direction of what he/she wants to see. High and low gain nose wheel steering. Only the heaviest gross weights will require a “burner shot.”

Question: How do you have a stealthy tail hook?
Ans: You hide it behind internal doors that open when the gear handle is down."

What I found interesting was that originally only 1/3 of Navy jets would receive the EOTS.

popcorn wrote:

What I found interesting was that originally only 1/3 of Navy jets would receive the EOTS.

And that they liked it so much they all have EOTS now.

Last edited by maus92 on May 15, 2012 - 06:42 PM; edited 1 time in total

AN/ALQ-99s have steerable antennas. Although the beams they emit are not as focused/precise as those transmitted by an AESA, they are directional.

Indeed it has.
NGJ's main advantage and the drive behind the project is ALQ99's (in)ability to perform against rapid frequency shifting emitters.

maus92 wrote:

AN/ALQ-99s have steerable antennas. Although the beams they emit are not as focused as those transmitted by an AESA, they are directional.

Doesn't it depend on which band they are targeting & what version AN/ALQ-99 they are using?
Apparently, Directional control in the low-band was problematic, but this may have been addressed with recent upgrades.

First Rule of EW is putting iron on the antenna. [Link pending approval] it's got to be a cooperative, multi-effector, effort with the intention of ultimately rendering the threat inoperative as much as dazed and confused.

With this as a given and the F-35 lacking options in the way of internal carriage of multiple A2A and A2G weapon types, I would look for EWP as a carrier for interim JDRADM 'conversion' AIM-120D first. Delta AMRAAM has used up the last chunk of the missile internal volume for ERAAM style 11" motor improvement, it has an IMU with full trajectory monitoring and presumably GPS onboard from the C7 plus an intelligent datalink. All of which says: AGM-88 Block VI D in a clipped-fin package to me.

If you can't shoot in for whatever geolocate + SAR snapshot /=/ ROE reasons, then you need to be able to keep the threat on the side and slant angle of your jet that gives the least amount of signature penalty for jammer coverage vs. bearing approach.

Last I read about the NGJ, they were doing everything they could to investigate 'bent' (off axis) AESA designs where a single antenna gave you full coverage of the lower hemisphere in both RX/TX modes and a highly capable cooling system was used to support the high duty cycle requirements of low and midband focussed spot jamming. Power was not an issue because the HiRAT was wrapped around the inside of the pod and aft sector coverage was not considered important (making this an SOJ platform by definition).

The F-35C has a new generator and a massive weapons bay volume which, aside from the heat and acoustics issues, is very nearly useless as a [Link pending approval] class weapons carriage box in a generation of GU-38/39 and smaller warheads.

If you want to put EA onboard the jet, working some thermal abatement for those areas and doing an EF-111 treatment seems wiser to me, not least because the likeliest pod you would be using would be the one which houses the GE425/GAU-22 and your space is not going to be very large there unless you wire shut the bays.

My problem with the Growler is that it's not going to do the high fast (transonic at 30-40K) profile that the F-35 is designed to to take it out of the medium SAM environment. When even the baseline fighter just doesn't like to perform above about 25K, you can bet that 3 pods, two tanks and a pair of HARM later, the Growler is not going to have the Ps needed to evade any kind of sophisticated threat network.

And when I say sophisticated, I mean 3D longwave with some low altitude blinking gapfillers cueing range-tracking camera passives, especially in the ME. The cameras aren't cheap but they are cheaper than radar and they mount on a single lorry equivalent ([Link pending approval] ton) truck. You then mount the missile launch boxes -whereever- (disassociating them from the emitters completely, on presurveyed and landline equipped hardstands) and fire your boosted MRM or telephone pole true-SAM up into the gaggle as it passes over.

The other missile we _really_ need to think about is the hunting type, based on recce or target drone technology (Mirach 600 or BQM-74 for instance) which can be catapult launched from another small truck and combine the cruise performance of a 200nm SA-5 with the loiter of a jet (at least an hours flight time) and the sprint/high-G capabilities of a rocket boosted SRM for the endgame. MALD is the perfect example of what such a system can do because it doesn't waste motor impulse crossing from hither to yon before the signature vanishes from the cueing radar but rather can be _right there_, already. And possibly with pack hunting capabilities via datalink seeker picture sharing. You only need look at Iran's first 'UCAV' to see that there is absolutely no reason for the definition of robotic air vehicles to remain tightly clustered under one sailplane category.

When you look at systems like this in the near to midterm (2020 is an easy aimpoint), the need to look beyond expensive, slow, fuel-heavy, manned jets as your primary penetrator force becomes essential. If the F-117 with Afterburner and AMRAAM F-35 is any kind of example, we are not going to be getting 8+ munitions off the jet with 2+2 backup on A2A and DEAD. So we will have to go to massive numbers of formation carriage count jets which, by itself, somewhat defeats the purpose of the F-35 as an ISR vacuum. But also generates a much larger risk payoff for saturation attack. And further loads the support mission (especially tanking) side of the equation. Remember when Stealth was supposed to /lower/ all those costly requirements?

If you are going to start looking at half a billion or more dollars exposed to threats that they cannot 'jam' because they are point-to-point microwave linked between passive EO and longwave RF (possibly not even in the same target nation), you need to think about speeding up reactivity and lowering target terminal area risk by shifting to pure missile based forces using ARRMD equivalent (X-51) technologies to go Mach 10, 100K AGL, and 800-1,200nm downrange. All from the back of a HIMARS or a [Link pending approval] VLS.

Looking at this strictly through the lens of SAM site vs. passing Jet is so retro SEA. The SA-21 doesn't fire a volley of 1-3 SAMs, it fires them in dozens and increasingly those missiles have strapdown + ARH of their own which means they can be blindfired into proximal lockon with even a stealth airframe.

Interesting read, as always, anon.

It's most probably a credible strategy indeed, to be contemplating more along the lines of stand-off saturation deterrent and capabilities + saturation diversions/decoy, etc along with other next-gen creative diversions and covers, etc.

Those can still be force-multiplied by capable modern SoJ systems as part of an overlapping capability, true. Nothing will likely ever be 100% survivable in the objective of putting a tgt at risk though, sure, but that's probably not the goal which a strategy would necessarily be shooting for either.

Keeping methods, techniques and systems evolved and innovative, continuously, rather than probably sinking excessive capital investment in monster singular platform developments taking decades to develop might also be a sound acquisition and modernization strategy.

There arguably needs improved balance between risk in developing game-changing next-gen systems and capabilities, vs actually fielding interim 'good enough' capabilities, force structure and deterrence.. all while taking into account the overall budget, yep, including procurement, heading into indefinite austere environments and loss of buying power.

Sustainable, risk-balanced, cost-effective, reliable, asymmetrical, good-enough...are all terms which could be part of that next-gen paradigm.

How all of this is relevant vis-a-vis any hypothetical NGJ-equipped F-35C (or Super Hornet/G for that matter) as part of the overall equation in the future? I'd personally advocate for a CFT-equipped F-35C-EW baseline for extended range. Forget Transonic as a critical mission parameter imho. Subsonic 10-11km altitude and hanging a single Next-Gen pod (of some model), or two, could be (and might have to be) a 'good enough' capability to accept, given the inherent design of the F-35 being factored in.

The same could apply for a next-Gen Growler mod acquisition strategy. Do away with an enhanced-Growler's wing tanks and develop/integrate the proposed CFT as a replacement. Add a CL-tank and 2x pylon-aligned SoJ pods under the wings, or perhaps a single next-gen pod under one wing and a funky-loaded EFT under the opposite wing? Could MALD be released from the Growler's intake/fuselage stations?

As for the suppression piece of the equation, via a next-gen 'interim' stand-off deterrent/capability, perhaps ponder and evaluate going back to modernized AGM-78 type system (employing main-body of the RIM-174 + role-appropriate seeker integration), if countering High-end defense threats with a high-end suppression system is absolutely essential to offset said threat as part of the strategy. Carry under the F-35C's/F-18F/G's wing or inside a next-gen UCAV designed with sufficient WB space. Perhaps sent to a trajectory of 80k-90k' and reaching M5...then diving maybe 200nm(?) downrange, it might bring a functional and credible 'interim' systems capability to the force (complementing the swarm), and within a reasonable schedule, until a clean-sheet system can be designed and developed farther out? Not to mention, with the significant added kinetic + explosive capacity, the range of flexible surface/ground tgt contingencies and actual tgts put at risk could be expanded.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

Next Generation Jammer Deferred for F-35 Indefinitely