Forum: General F-35 Forum

Navy's Move To Growler 70% Complete; Build-Up Reflects Stealth Doubts

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. / AOL Defense / 15NOV

"WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON: "Every two weeks, we get another Growler," Cmdr. Christopher Middleton said at the Navy's electronic warfare hub here. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. And it's those Growler aircraft that will be the cutting edge of future Naval strikes against future "anti-access area denial" defenses like those being built by China."

"To break through such defenses, the Navy is very publicly working on a joint "AirSea Battle" concept with the Air Force, but the two services have taken starkly different approaches to defeating enemy radar."

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."

More|

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/15/navys ... stealth-d/

F-16.net Sponsor

And this article was brought to you by the fine people at Boeing... Wink

Last edited by spazsinbad on Nov 15, 2012 - 08:12 PM; edited 2 times in total

The RAAF have been smart eh - with 6-12 Growlies on the way.... Very Happy

YEAH yeah yeah

END QUOTE from above URL: "....(Full disclosure: Boeing paid for Sydney's travel, accommodations, and meals but they didn't try to lecture him about the limits of stealth)." However they did lecture him - just did not 'try' - because he was always 'anti stealf' baby. Twisted Evil

Salute!

This topic should prolly be on another forum, maus.

So I opine:

Just look at the public RCS numbers to see the detection range by enema radar of something with an RCS of a basketball, then a baseball, then a golf ball, and then a marble.

Sure, use of bi-static arrays and some computer advaces might help the other side, but the concept is not technically as feasible in actual operation as simply reducing the RCS of your own system. It comes down to RCS, and forcing the other guy to develop, test and employ good systems becomes a trade-off between detection and then the means to hit the attackers. How good are the missile seekers? Do they have to increase the SAM homing systems as well as the detection and tracking systems of the IAD? and the beat goes on.

An F-35 launching a HARM from 20 miles would seem very effective to this old fart when the first clue the bad guys get is the increased RCS of the missile itself and the open bay doors for what? 5 seconds? And then they can shut down before the HARM gets a good positional update and not have to use it's seeker to track all the way down. Oh yeah, think a JDAM launched from 20 miles away and the F-35 turns and gets outta dodge.

Compare that to an F-18 variant that will be seen from God knows range due to high inherent RCS plus that of the external stores and such.

The USN has not employed a stealth platform in combat, but USAF has seen the effects and capability way back in early 1991. Remember that? I'll guarantee that the nasal radiators would have loved to have F-117's launching HARMs versus their Hornets.

USN has more problems than USAF maintaining the low RCS on a daily basis due to different operational environments. OTOH, the F-35 seems to have much less day-to-day requirements to "touch up" the coatings and other stuff than the Raptor or the very old F-117 or B-2.

Gums opines....

If the USN has "long been skeptical of stealth", then explain the A-12?

Gums wrote:

Salute!

This topic should prolly be on another forum, maus.

Should probably be here. http://f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewforum-f-36.html

But on this forum, everything seems to belong on the F-35 board.

Last edited by neptune on Nov 15, 2012 - 09:50 PM; edited 1 time in total

Gums wrote:

Salute!...How good are the missile seekers? Do they have to increase the SAM homing systems as well as the detection and tracking systems of the IAD? and the beat goes on........

Anyone not bringing all their marbles to the game, ain't going away a winner.

The Canoe Club has bought into the F-35 because the neighbors did! Not wishing to be left out, they grudingly bought them mostly for the Marines and their AV-8B. Now that the da.n thing is starting to work, they will be forced into developing tactics for the slightly unwanted toy.

Todate, (3) USN test pilots fly the (3) F-35c at PAX...and 7 USMC test pilots of the 21 USMC F-35 pilots fly the 17 F-35B 10 at Eglin and 7 at PAX.

The Marines on the other hand are getting a supersonic, stealth, ISR platform that can land on a dime (on a USMC boat)! Smile

As Gums has said, the enema missle seekers have to be good enough to find and follow the RCS marble or they will have to be guided from the ground systems (targets).

Either way, the Nav will be drug along until they grasp their new ghostly quarterback's bag of tricks. Then their fleet of weapons haulers and jammers can work co-ordinated attacks that will be truly awesome.

Salute!

O.K., Spud, I was the lead crew-interface engineer for the Northrop-Grumman A-12 entry. Did all the displays/controls plus the weapon control algorithms. This was back in 1985 until contract award to the other guys.

At the time, even the existence of the F-117 was known to few folks. So we were "special access" security clearance folks. Didn't even know what the jet was gonna look like, being heavily compartmented, but knew it had bays and so everything had to be internal except for the Harpoon.

So the USN was, indeed, interested in stealth way back then.

Problem the USN faces/faced is all the investment in their Hornet fleet at the expense of other jets along the way. Stretching out the F-35 acquisition hasn't helped, either.

My personal opinion is that the Northrop-Grumann A-12 would have prolly met the end requirements easier than the GD-McAir "Dorito". Experience in stealth and mucho experience with Naval aircraft compared to GD and to a lesser extent, McAir.

I feel that the bad taste in the mouth from the A-12 debacle influenced many decisions the USN made. I also feel that USN should have started over with a new jet well before the J-35 program. Just my "feelings.

Gums opines...

All I have found is this pic which shows NG prior to the MD/GD A-12 award.

Do you have a NG concept pic?

I think I found it. Looks like a B-2 MiniMe

Salute!

Sorry, Spud, but I did not get to see the mockup!!! Damned program was so compartmentalized that few of the thousands working on it ever saw the "toy", as it was called.

The bottom of the chart depicted by Spud is what I did. They couldn't even tell me what companies I was working for except our "prime" contractor (CDC) that was building the armament system computer and hardware for all the store stations and the CVI displays. I would brief in a motel room where no one used real names except me, heh heh. Didn't take long to figure out it was a Navy jet and who were the players. My first briefing was in Dallas, so I figured LTV was involved. Then there were a few folks with the short haircuts (USN) that had some questions for me. One of the Northrop dudes also dropped a clue, so I figured they were in the game, as well. My A-7 background earned me some respect from the USN folks, BTW.

My feeling from the bay dimensions, loadout, etc. is that the jet did not look like the Dorito. Not a pure delta, and maybe more like some of the notional "F-19" models on the street later. Northrop had prolly learned from the B-2 design, but the jet had to be designed for the carriers. So the LTV/Grumman folks prolly influenced many aspects of the design due to their experience.

We were shocked when USN awarded the development to the GD/McAir team. Out of work and couldn't even talk about what we had done for three years. But life goes on, and I got to work on other neat things in the mean time. Like JDAM and WCMD and Marine Super Cobra upgrade and RAH armament system and V-22 armament concepts and ....

Footnote: Crying damned shame that the mockup disappeared and not put on display at the naval museum as Shamu was in the Wright-Patt museum. One of my C-flight friends flew Shamu, and the thing is on his plaque at Wright-Patt, plus Shamu is on display. He couldn't even admit or show his wife the thing until 2007 when we had an A-7 reunion.

Gums sends....

Last edited by maus92 on Nov 16, 2012 - 12:34 AM; edited 1 time in total

Gums wrote:

Salute!

This topic should prolly be on another forum, maus.

I respectfully disagree. The article specifically mentions the F-35, and Navy confidence about the efficacy of the stealth technologies it employs.

Gums wrote:

The USN has not employed a stealth platform in combat, but USAF has seen the effects and capability way back in early 1991. Remember that? I'll guarantee that the nasal radiators would have loved to have F-117's launching HARMs versus their Hornets.

F-117s were often supported by EA-6Bs, and one time when one wasn't, it got shot down. I didn't know that F-117s could fire HARMs....

Part of the reason why the Growler is so important is that its electronics can be updated to counter current threats much faster than new (stealth) shapes and coatings/skins can be introduced (which basically mean a new aircraft.)

What would be really nice is a bunch of CHAMP shooters taking out radars/electronic systems before they have a chance to detect and defend against an attack...

I would say I see stealth and jamming as very complimentary technologies really. I think the USAF is just trying to save expense knowing that in theater the Navy will be tasked to support them as needed anyway by the CINC. I doubt the USAF just wants to not jam radars either and I would guess if they had the funding and an airframe suited to it they would have their own such aircraft in service.

Seems to me that jamming often knocks back but not out radar performance which should blend perfectly with stealth in allowing you to close and get the mission done. Stealth reduces the burden on the jamming aircraft and the jamming aircraft reduce the burden on the stealth designs. Seems pretty freaking logical honestly.

maus92 wrote:

The article specifically mentions the F-35, and Navy confidence about the efficacy of the stealth technologies it employs.

Well, I suppose the USN needed to comfort itself somehow after losing the A-12 and NATF. "The grapes were probably sour anyways."

maus92 wrote:

Navy's Move To Growler 70% Complete; Build-Up Reflects Stealth Doubts

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. / AOL Defense / 15NOV

"WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON: "Every two weeks, we get another Growler," Cmdr. Christopher Middleton said at the Navy's electronic warfare hub here. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. And it's those Growler aircraft that will be the cutting edge of future Naval strikes against future "anti-access area denial" defenses like those being built by China."

"To break through such defenses, the Navy is very publicly working on a joint "AirSea Battle" concept with the Air Force, but the two services have taken8 starkly different approaches to defeating enemy radar."

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."

More|

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/15/navys ... stealth-d/

Maus, you would probably want to distinguish between what Cmdr.,Middleton quoted and what Author Freedburg believes. Putting everything in " .." in the above post attributes statements to Cmdr.,Middleton that he did not make.

maus92 wrote:

F-117s were often supported by EA-6Bs, and one time when one wasn't, it got shot down. I didn't know that F-117s could fire HARMs....

Part of the reason why the Growler is so important is that its electronics can be updated to counter current threats much faster than new (stealth) shapes and coatings/skins can be introduced (which basically mean a new aircraft.)

What would be really nice is a bunch of CHAMP shooters taking out radars before they have a chance to detect an attack...

The F-117 had a low RCS compared to other jets, but it was still detectable in close. Col Zoltan Dani was both lucky and skillful in his air defense. Col Dani adjusted the radar frequency lower than other AD units, and wasn't detected by NATO jets. The F-117 was also detectable by E-2 and E-3 aircraft, at close range.

The impact of the lack of EA-6Bs was simple. IF those jets were flying that night, Col Dani would not have had the radar turned on except in short bursts, and probably wouldn't have got the F-117. The EA-6B and EA-18 can detect lower radar bands than the RWR currently in service. Also, the EA-18 can target CW transmitters, such as for TV or Radio.

In a network centric warfare environment, a EA-18 could transmit targeting data to a HARM equipped F-35, if the F-35 hadn't already noticed the AD radar.