APG-81 vs ASQ-239

[white_lightning35]

Dang so how long is this ban thing. I don't mind creating more accounts?

Great googly moogly, someone find out this man's ip address.

[botsing]

Juvenile and uninformed nonsense will drive away the pilots, engineers, designers, technicians, maintainers.

Which is exactly what these trolls want: to stop the flow of factual information by spreading disinformation and breaking down interesting topics so real experts will not share their thoughts.

Factual information is not a nice thing when it shows you that you are relatively incompetent (like for example with PAK-FA that is lacking compared to western 5th gens), hence why governments like Russia work hard to hide those facts by introducing a lot of noise (sputnik, RT, web brigades).

And you always have people who join the propaganda chain. Some paid, some not too smart and some that just don't want to hear the truth.

[hornetfinn]

If two F-35's fight, would radar or electronic warfare systems get the upper hand? With the RWR detect and be able to do some jamming or will the AESA avoid detection and jamming?

I know it's classified, but what is most probable? They are relatively the same tech and I believe get similar funding. The APG-81 has larger arrays no doubt and have larger gain. However RWRs can detect stronger energy(vs energy reflected from radars)

Also couldn't the APG-81 be used as a RWR?

AFAIK, ASQ-239 and APG-81 work together and ASQ-239 uses APG-81 as one aperture. This old article seems to have a lot of relevant information about this: http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/04/01 ... rotection/

The EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. The F-35's high-gain, electronically steered radar array provides jamming support under the control of the EW system. Because the AESA array provides very directional radio frequency (RF) output, the JSF could target a very small area and selectively jam it, which enhances survivability by reducing electronic emissions.

Basically it's not ASQ-239 vs APG-81 but rather two F-35 avioncis vs each other (with all the sensors working together).

In direct comparison between the two sensors, it's really tough to say. Both have their own advantages detecting each other and it's difficult to say which ones are decisive without knowing both really well. AN/APG-81 advantages are that it knows what and when it transmits, in what frequencies and how the signals are coded. ASQ-239 has the advantage that it get's much more powerful signals than threat radar since it's a one-way sensor whereas radar can only use signals reflected from target. Of course orientation and positioning of both aircraft would make a big difference. APG-81 has really big aperture and working as part of EW system makes a huge EW/ESM antenna. But it sees only fairly limited piece of the sky at any moment. Other apertures are definitely smaller and have lower gain but have spherical coverage on the other hand.

A big problem for APG-81 or any other radar is that F-35 is extremely small target. I think it's very likely that if two F-35s would meet (in VLO configuration), both would detect each other with ASQ-239 (possibly using APG-81 as antenna) and/or EOTS or even EODAS before APG-81 would get a regular radar detection. However the very deeply integrated and automated nature of F-35 avionics suite makes direct comparisons pretty meaningless. The moment one sensor detects something, other sensors would be tasked to get more information about that something.

[geforcerfx]

I would say the EW system would have the advantage, one way system and unlike other system's it might face it prob knows everything about the radar it's reading, since it's networked to the same model. I don't think the APG-81's LPI modes would be able to trick the EW system that it's designed into. Overall outcome would prob be down to which side has the superior battle network up. Not just relying on builtin sensors but all the sensors available, so maybe home team advantage there unless the aggressor is the US then you equal if not better sensor networking capabilities.

[ricnunes]

I would say the EW system would have the advantage, one way system and unlike other system's it might face it prob knows everything about the radar it's reading, since it's networked to the same model. I don't think the APG-81's LPI modes would be able to trick the EW system that it's designed into. Overall outcome would prob be down to which side has the superior battle network up. Not just relying on builtin sensors but all the sensors available, so maybe home team advantage there unless the aggressor is the US then you equal if not better sensor networking capabilities.

On the other hand EW only works if the enemy is emitting (i.e. Radar on).

For example if a flight on enemy aircraft takes off - lets say, the so much and often mentioned Su-35 but you could replace it with Rafales or Typhoons, etc... - and are relying solely on their internal IRSTs and with its onboard radars set of "off" and the same regarding onboard ECM equipment (independently if such technique would be effective on the real world or not) than in this this case an EW equipment (such as the ASQ-239) would be next to useless.
So in order to detect the flight above, specially if the flight above isn't or cannot be detected by someone else on the network then you'll need another onboard detection device, namely the Radar (like the APG-81) or an IRST (like EOTS and/or DAS). Since Radar has a far longer detection range than an IRST, specially against the aircraft mentioned above this clearly becomes an advantage of the Radar (APG-81) over the EW equipment (ASQ-239).

But like hornetfinn said the APG-81 and ASQ-239 are designed to work together in order to create single targets/contacts (the so often mentioned sensor fusion) even because both have their set of advantages and disadvantages and the advantages of the APG-81 more or less compensate the disadvantages of the ASQ-239 while the advantages of the ASQ-239 more or less compensate the disadvantages of the APG-81.

[doge]

Description about F-35 EW.
1
http://www.airdominance.nl/index.php/aircraft-f35.html

ASQ-239 "Barracuda"
The AN/ASQ-239 “Barracuda” is an integrated Electronic Warfare (EW) and self-defense system. It is able to operate not just with other components within the aircraft such as the APG-81 but it can also operate with other F-35’s over MADL to perform EW operations together.
It’s able to precisely geo-locate emission locations hundreds of kilometers away, further then it’s radar can see and from there the APG-81 can be slaved to that data track and then detect and track the object with a very narrow beam, increasing power and detection on target while decreasing detection by other aircraft.
At close range or against targets using Jammers it is capable of narrowband interleaved search and track, which provides precise range and velocity that can then be used to shoot a missile without the need of the APG-81, allowing a 360 degree sphere of targeting other aircraft.
The Barracuda can refer to its data-banks of known emissions and identify the source vehicle or store it for future classification. Other features are false target generation and range-gate stealing, offensive EW is possible, a towed RF decoy is also a part of the package as is a MJU-68/B Flares system.

2
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... ghter.aspx

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps "is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B" with no additional pods or internal systems.
Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical questions: "Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?" Then he said, "There’s a capability here."
O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35A "is as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose." The F-35’s "sensitivity" and processing power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness as well as the ability to detect, locate, and target specific systems that need to be disrupted.
When it comes to electronic combat, the F-35A will make possible a new operational concept, O’Bryan said. The goal is not to simply suppress enemy air defenses. The goal will be to destroy them.

3
http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i/30 ... l-may-2014 (page36-37)

For starters, the F-35’s APG 81 radar is no longer just a radar.
“It’s a multi-functional array” that automatically fuses information from “thousands of radars” in the aircraft, O’Bryan explains.
And rather than the familiar sweeping cone, the F-35’s beam is more like a laser, able to focus on a specific target or on multiple targets (the exact number is classified) with ten times the power of an EA 6B Prowler, he says.
Furthermore, a formation of four F-35s can alternate transmission of the jamming signal among themselves, again automatically.
And with stealth capability, one or all four of the aircraft can operate from inside the target’s firing range.
“You start with 10 times more power, and if you are much closer and you are alternating signals between four airplanes with a stealth data link between them, you can do that jamming in a coherent, cooperative manner.
The signal, the technique, everything is done for [the pilot].”
Equally important, where fourth generation radar are able to detect the arrival of a threat with plus or minus 30 degrees accuracy, the F-35 can pinpoint the threat to within plus or minus one degree, an advantage that is narrowed further with the assistance of a formation of four aircraft sharing that threat trajectory, he says.

4
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArch ... rness.aspx

Col. George M. Reynolds, commander of the 55th Wing, which counts the EC-130H and RC-135 fleets in its portfolio, explained that the EC-130 offers several main capabilities. Those are “countercommunications, counterradar, counterdata, and counternavigation,” he said in an interview.
“We do a full range of military operations, from supporting small teams on the ground all the way up to the high-end conflicts,” he explained. The EC-130 can perform standoff communications or radar jamming of enemy air or surface craft. It can listen for enemy communications, warn troops on the ground that an enemy is nearby, or disrupt the enemy’s attack at selective moments by jamming, Reynolds said. The aircraft has a lot of power for emissions, due to its four engines, he noted.
...
...
...
Service sources said the Air Force was willing to absorb some loss of EC-130s because its new F-35s have an inherent EW capability that will match or exceed what the EC-130s offer. Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-35, frequently points out that the Marine Corps plans to use a standard F-35, without any external jamming pods, as its EA-6B replacement.

5
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/ ... nicwarfare

ELECTRONIC WARFARE
Unprecedented Battlefield Access
The F-35’s advanced stealth and built-in electronic warfare capabilities enable unprecedented battlefield access without the need for dedicated electronic attack aircraft support.
Advanced electronic warfare capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radio frequencies and disrupt attacks with unparalleled precision. All three variants of the F-35 carry active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including false targets, network attack, advanced jamming and algorithm-packed data streams. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars that threaten the F-35. In addition, the ASQ-239 system provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.
While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.
"What we've done with the 5th Generation [aircraft] is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God's eye view of what's going on. [...] It's a stunning amount of information."
—Gen. Mike Hostage, Commander, Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force
The F-35’s survivability, electronic attack, electronic protection, situational awareness, advanced targeting and unprecedented Combat ID will make the entire air wing better. Research indicates that adding more F-35s in a high threat environment is far more effective than adding more single-mission, electronic attack support aircraft. The electronic warfare suite on the F-35 gives improved emitter location capability over legacy aircraft.

A little Question about EW...
Q1) I have often seen the claim that "F-35's jamming is X-band only"
but...
What kind of band is Jamming with the Radar control vehicle(?) on the right of this BAE's video?
https://youtu.be/MFWoYKkKFyE?t=64

ASQ-239-1.gif (3.6 MiB) Viewed 31822 times

ASQ-239-2.gif (3.98 MiB) Viewed 31822 times

Q2) On the relationship EW and CNI(software-defined radio).
Is software-defined radio related to EW?
http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35 ... nterprise/

Take the AESA radar as an example. We commonly refer to it as an MFA, a multi-function array. It has, of course, many air-to-air modes, and many air-to-ground modes. But it also offers capabilities as a fully capable EW aperture. For EW, I mean electronic protection, electronic attack, and electronic support, the latter of which involves sensing or passive ops.
The bottom line is the AESA design incorporated as much connectivity, processing and as wide a bandwidth as technology allowed in order to maximize flexibility and spectrum coverage.
The radar interacts directly with the EW gear, which is imbedded on the F-35’s wing lines and other surfaces. The EW system gives you 360-degree coverage, and covers the radio frequency (RF) spectrum on the battlefield. The F-35 CNI system—communication, navigation and identification—is another flexible, reprogrammable system that further expands 360-degree RF spectrum coverage.
The radar and the EW system are symbiotic and are linked via a high-speed data bus built upon high-speed fiber optical systems. And the systems communicate virtually pulse-to-pulse to assist each other within the RF spectrum. So the radar can draw on advanced jamming resources, and the EW techniques can be channeled through the radar.
The AESA itself has its own attack modes as well and a very sensitive, precise geo-location capability, which can work in conjunction with EW gear. The CNI system is also linked via the high-speed data bus.

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... or-fusion/

The Electronic Warfare Suite
The plane has an electronic warfare suite. It has multiple functions and performs in an integrated manner with fusion.
Some of these functions include radar warning receiver (RWR), electronic support measures (ESM), and electronic countermeasure (ECM). These are functions that are federated on most 4th generation fighters.
In the F-35, the electronic warfare suite has all of these functions built into it, and it’s able to use the antennas all around the airplane, including the multi-function array, all under fusion control and with minimal pilot involvement.
As the airplane flies through battlespace, the EWS is tasked by fusion to build a picture of the electronic order of battle. It identifies emitters, locates them, classifies them and then reports to the pilot what it detects in battlespace.

CNI
The Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) suite is a software-defined radio.
This means that there really aren’t radios in the traditional sense in an F-35. There is one real physical radio in the airplane hooked to the battery for emergencies, but other than that, everything else is a software radio.
Radios don’t exist until the pilot instantiates them with software.
The CNI system actually builds the radio in software once the computers initialize and run their programs.
Radio frequency (RF) waveforms such as Link 16, multi-function data link, instrument landing system, and voice get defined and built in software rather than being fixed in hardware. This scheme allows for tremendous growth and opportunity for change.
New data links and new waveforms are created in software, which, in many cases, means no new hardware to buy and install.

http://www.sldinfo.com/cni-and-madl-dat ... ith-f-35b/

The operational advantages of the new CNI system were highlighted by Major General Silveria of the Warfare Center at Nellis AFB.
The plane has NONE of the items that traditionally on airplanes to transmit and receive. It does not have any of those.
What it has is a rack two CNI (Combat, Navigation and Identification),com ad navigation racks.
It has two racks and you tell the airplane: I would like to transmit in the UHF wave form and it generates that wave form and transmits in the UHF wave form; which is a difficult concept to think about.
There is no UHF radio on the airplane.
There is no ILS on the airplane.
If I want an ILS I have to go in, tap on my glass, and say, hey, good morning jet, I’m going to need an ILS today so I need you to generate the ILS waveform when I need it.

http://www.airdominance.nl/index.php/aircraft-f35.html

Communications, Navigation and Identification (CNI) Avionics System
The CNI uses Software-defined radio (SDR) technology, SDR uses reconfigurable RF hardware and computer processors to run software that produces a desired waveform, the CNI can manage over 27 different wave-forms. One of the new wave-forms is the MultiFunction Advanced Data Link(MADL) developed for the F-35 which has a very high data transfer rate (for video streaming etc.) and is very hard to intercept or jam, giving the aircraft “stealth” communications.
It also acts in a Daisy Chain fashion to operate over wide areas with other F-35s and command and control operating centers. The F-35 will have LPI/LPD Link-16 capability as well. With its full suite of communications it can give information to another aircraft enhancing their situational awareness, this allows an F-35 that has expended its munitions to continue to act as an AWACS, furthering network centric warfare.
If an F-35 sees a ballistic missile it can give that information to a naval vessel who can send an SM-6 after it with the F-35’s targeting data, extending the range of AEGIS, or it can provide geo-coordinate data on a vehicle somewhere and guide in artillery GPS shells/rockets or missiles(tomahawks) etc. With the AESA radar the communications system can send or receive very large amounts of data very quickly.

Q3) Does this include jamming?
https://www.afcea.org/content/?q=progra ... ew-heights

Antennas also present an additional challenge. To maintain the F-35’s radar-evading silhouette, antennas must conform to the fighter’s shape. But building these systems into the skin of an aircraft can create issues such as co-site interference. Phan explains that one of the JSF program’s goals was to minimize the number of antennas on the aircraft. He adds that a ground vehicle can host a range of antennas for communications, jammers and other systems operating on the same band. The JSF does not have multiple antennas; its antennas operate on multiple frequencies and can perform different functions.

Q4) What is this "narrowband jammer"? Is it related to the VHF in the article?
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/the-f-3 ... vhf-threat

The F-35 vs. The VHF Threat
The Diplomat // August 21, 2014
The heated and ongoing international debate regarding the combat effectiveness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a highly contested environment has led many observers to question the fighter’s survivability in the face of advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems and very high frequency (VHF) radars. Yet, few have examined the issue closely using lessons drawn from the only incident in which a stealth aircraft was lost in combat; when USAF Lt. Col. Dale Zelko’s F-117 – call sign “Vega 31” – was shot down by a Serbian S-125 (SA-3) SAM system over the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force on the night of March 27, 1999.
[...]
It is important to remember that the F-35 is no F-117. Designed with network-centric warfare and joint operations in mind, the JSF offers its pilot unprecedented situational awareness thanks to its ability to communicate and process data obtained from a multitude of both onboard sensors and those located on other platforms. Unlike the F-117, which had no radar, the F-35’s powerful AN/APG-81 AESA is also capable of acting as a narrowband jammer that can be employed if necessary against engagement radars once the jet is deep inside enemy territory. These features make the JSF a key “team player”; its capabilities and potential must therefore be viewed in the context of a CEC or collective system rather than as a single platform.

Sorry many Questions...I do not know EW well...@@@@ (F-35 is particularly complicated!)

[hornetfinn]

A little Question about EW...
Q1) I have often seen the claim that "F-35's jamming is X-band only"
but...
What kind of band is Jamming with the Radar control vehicle(?) on the right of this BAE's video?

That is because the AN/APG-81 radar works in X-band and the radar is the main antenna for jamming. However that is because radar has to work in two-way fashion and that restricts the bandwidth because the amplifiers (HPA and LNA) have to be efficient in radar and that requires narrowing the bandwidth. My bet is that F-35 jamming is a lot wider than X-band as one-way operation can be more easily wideband in nature than two-way operation (radar).

Q2) On the relationship EW and CNI(software-defined radio).
Is software-defined radio related to EW?

Well, it can be, but not necessarily. Pretty much any system using radio waves can be done using SDR technology and this includes EW systems as well as communication systems like radios.

Q3) Does this include jamming?
https://www.afcea.org/content/?q=progra ... ew-heights

Antennas also present an additional challenge. To maintain the F-35’s radar-evading silhouette, antennas must conform to the fighter’s shape. But building these systems into the skin of an aircraft can create issues such as co-site interference. Phan explains that one of the JSF program’s goals was to minimize the number of antennas on the aircraft. He adds that a ground vehicle can host a range of antennas for communications, jammers and other systems operating on the same band. The JSF does not have multiple antennas; its antennas operate on multiple frequencies and can perform different functions.

Probably.

Q4) What is this "narrowband jammer"? Is it related to the VHF in the article?
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/the-f-3 ... vhf-threat

The F-35 vs. The VHF Threat
The Diplomat // August 21, 2014
The heated and ongoing international debate regarding the combat effectiveness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a highly contested environment has led many observers to question the fighter’s survivability in the face of advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems and very high frequency (VHF) radars. Yet, few have examined the issue closely using lessons drawn from the only incident in which a stealth aircraft was lost in combat; when USAF Lt. Col. Dale Zelko’s F-117 – call sign “Vega 31” – was shot down by a Serbian S-125 (SA-3) SAM system over the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force on the night of March 27, 1999.
[...]
It is important to remember that the F-35 is no F-117. Designed with network-centric warfare and joint operations in mind, the JSF offers its pilot unprecedented situational awareness thanks to its ability to communicate and process data obtained from a multitude of both onboard sensors and those located on other platforms. Unlike the F-117, which had no radar, the F-35’s powerful AN/APG-81 AESA is also capable of acting as a narrowband jammer that can be employed if necessary against engagement radars once the jet is deep inside enemy territory. These features make the JSF a key “team player”; its capabilities and potential must therefore be viewed in the context of a CEC or collective system rather than as a single platform.

Narrowband jammer is system which jams a narrow frequency range. A barrage jammer can jam a wide frequency range, but at the cost of lower power in each frequency. Narrowband jamming can jam with a lot of power in exact frequencies that enemy radars use, but require knowing exactly what frequencies to jam. Otherwise all that power is lost. I'd say ASQ-239 is pretty capable of knowing what frequencies need to be jammed at any moment and thus can act as effective narrowband jammer using AN/APG-81 antenna.

[talkitron]

Thanks Doge! I have some reading to do.

[doge]

Thank you for answering my question hornetfinn! I understood very well.
F-35 EW is very interesting and deep!

Thanks Doge! I have some reading to do.

It's my pleasure!

[wrightwing]

The ASQ-239 covers a range of frequencies, while the APG-81 can focus on X band, in the frontal hemisphere.

[mas]

What's clear is that the combined sensor fusion of APG-81, ASQ-239, EOTS and EODAS along with multi-ship MADL means that not only will F-35 be physically the most stealthy plane out there but electronically too with its own emissions being kept to an absolute minimum compared to all other fighters. Good luck to all its opponents because you sure will need plenty of it .

[doge]

I'm wondering where to post, so I'll post here.

By-product I discovered while working on the treasure hunt of a Range article. (Unearthing unexpected things.)

Keith Knotts of F-35 Business Development at Lockheed Martin says the F-35 has 10 times the Jamming Power of the EA-18G growler!!!! (!?) wow
I knew that the F-35 had 10 times more jamming power than the EA-6B prowler, but I didn't know that the F-35 jamming power was 10 times even when compared to the EA-18G.
10 times that of EA-18G...!!!! Is the F-35's POWER that so powerful!?
https://www.wingsmagazine.com/the-f-35- ... onal-9203/

The F-35 Lightning II up close and personal
November 14, 2013 By Walter Heneghan

The stealth nature of the Lightning II doesn’t end here. The aircraft can carry 18,000 pounds of fuel and four anti-aircraft missiles at a top speed of Mach 1.6 up to 50,000 feet above sea level with no external ordnance or fuel tanks. Keeping a clean configuration in a high performance mode is key to the aircraft’s stealth profile. Lockheed is quick to boast that this capability far exceeds anything the CF-18 can offer.

The F-35 is more than just a stealth platform. This fifth-generation fighter technology has been designed to counter weapons systems that are just now coming on line, surface-to-air and ship-borne systems. It comes equipped with three external hard points that will allow a less stealthy profile if there is a need to add the two 600-gallon external fuel pods, or up to 18,000 pounds of additional armament. So, if the mission calls for more firepower and less stealth, 12 AMRM and two AIM 9 missiles can be added to bolster the aircraft’s capabilities.

Electronically it is a beast, boasting a fifth-generation sensor system that can be used for border security and arctic surveillance, providing “horizon to horizon” coverage. A key feature of the surveillance capability is an advanced, active, electronically scanned array that uses a lower energy profile than traditional radar systems. The Distributed Aperture System, or DAS, features two cameras, which together with six unique sensors create a global 360-degree image for the pilot to access. This will be the first
fighter that gives a pilot “eyes in the back of his head” or underneath the aircraft.

Knotts proudly stated that, “the F-35 has 10 times the dedicated jamming power of the F-18 Growler variant.” The complement to the DAS is the EOTS – Electronic Optical Targeting System – that is located under the chin of the jet. It is comparable in technology to a “sniper pod “but is integral to the aircraft and comes as “standard equipment.” All this data and information is melded through the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) that connects all the aircraft in a sortie with one another. This system uses a very high speed, low probability of intercept, encrypted datalink.

Overall, the F-35 Lightning II is designed to be a data-collecting behemoth, able to communicate and share information with its sister aircraft and offering the potential to virtually create a complete 3D data picture over 200 nautical miles, with each jet sharing and computing surveillance and targeting solutions from horizon to horizon. From this perspective, the aircraft appears to be groundbreaking. Today’s aircraft fly within visual contact of one another; a flight of F-35s could potentially be miles apart yet still provide reams of data to one another to assist all pilots in the sortie with their battle and situational awareness. Yet, with this new technology, the F-35 can still tie into over 100 other legacy communications and data systems, both airborne and ground-based arrays. The data and communications capabilities of the aircraft are integral to the weapons systems, negating the requirement for additional expenditure to acquire these tools.

[quicksilver]

Shouldn’t be a revelation... It carries the same ALQ-99 carried by the Prowler.

[sferrin]

Shouldn’t be a revelation... It carries the same ALQ-99 carried by the Prowler.

Any idea if it can use it's APG-79 the way an F-35 uses it's APG-81 with regard to electronic warfare?

[ricnunes]

Shouldn’t be a revelation... It carries the same ALQ-99 carried by the Prowler.

Any idea if it can use it's APG-79 the way an F-35 uses it's APG-81 with regard to electronic warfare?

No, I don't think it can.
Actually simultaneous ALQ-99 (Jammer pod) and APG-79 AESA operations in the EA-18G Growler seem to degrade the performance of the later (APG-79 AESA radar). Here:
https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10388sp.pdf
in page 59:

In addition, the simultaneous operation of the active electronically scanned array radar and the airborne electronic attack suite degraded the radar’s performance in certain situations.