Page 54 of 65

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2018, 09:41
by Dragon029
Those are just holes to make that part of the mechanism lighter:

Image

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2018, 10:07
by spazsinbad
OK thanks. I thought they were glass lenses or something. Cool. https://i.imgur.com/nrx6MlD.jpg

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 21:48
by spazsinbad
Lots of details not excerpted below in 6 page PDF with anti-radiation missiles & other gear NGJ Digital Attack & SPOOKAY!
Putting the GRRR in Growler - RAAF to equip Growler for the future with AARGM & NGJ
July 2018 Max Blenkin

"...The Growler currently carries the ALQ-99 jammer pods which come in mid-band and low-band configurations.

Despite being continually upgraded, the ALQ-99 was developed in the late 1960s and was first deployed on US EA-6B Prowler aircraft at the tail end of the Vietnam War.

To have remained in service so long, ALQ-99 must do a lot right. But the ALQ-99’s technology is analogue-based in a digital age, and reported problems include poor reliability, regular failure of the built-in test facility, high drag resulting in reduced aircraft performance, and interference with the Growler’s APG-79 AESA radar.

In Australian and US service, the ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) will replace the ALQ-99, a limited number of which the RAAF acquired through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) deal in which Australia acquired its 12 Growlers.

The ALQ-99 is not a single unit which does everything. Depending on the mission, a Growler could carry up to five of the 450kg 4.5m pods on wing and centreline hardpoints, but a typical Growler loadout is two configured for the mid-band of the frequency spectrum, and one for the low-band....

...From the outset of the Growler acquisition, it was envisaged that Australia would acquire a better jammer as the US Navy replaced its ALQ-99 pods. As the only Growler operator outside the US and at this stage the only other customer for NGJ, it not only seemed fair to contribute to development costs, but also gave Australia input to ensure it is capable of dealing with the kind of threats likely to be encountered in this region.

But development of the new jammer to succeed the ALQ-99 has proven to be challenging, with the US not expecting to see IOC of the NGJ mid-band (NGJ-MB) capability until early next decade, and the follow-on low band (-LB) capability later still.

Australia is definitely interested and is willing to share in the development costs, which are substantial. For a fifth-generation air force, Growler is a very important capability with nothing remotely comparable in service anywhere in the region.

In November 2017, Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies announced the signing of an MoU between Australia and the US for the development of the NGJ, specifically, Australia and the US Navy will jointly develop the ALQ-249(V)1 NGJ-MB capability.

“This is a very important milestone for both nations, one that took four years of communication and collaboration to successfully achieve,” AIRMSHL Davies said.

The MoU provides a framework for communication, coordination and cooperation between the US Navy and the RAAF during the engineering and manufacturing development phase. This followed an earlier announcement by Defence Minister Marise Payne at the Avalon Airshow in February 2017 that the government would invest A$250 million in this development.

“As this is a rapidly evolving area, we will work in partnership with the US Navy to develop the next generation jamming capability, which will ensure that our aircraft remain at the technological forefront throughout their service life,” she said.

NGJ is a key element of the ADF’s AIR 5439 Phase 6 enhancing Growler Airborne Electronic Attack Capability (AEAC) project. The wide-ranging program has a nominal budget of $5-6 billion over a two-decade timeframe (2016-2035), and will ensure upgrades to the Australian Growler fleet mirror those of the US Navy.

NGJ has been a long time coming and much of its intended capability remains closely held. In the basic jamming role, it can produce sufficient power in appropriate frequencies to swamp hostile radars.

But more than that, it has been reported that NGJ will also have a cyber-attack capability, using the Growler’s and perhaps the F-35’s AESA radar to insert data into remote systems. That could have the effect of spoofing a hostile air defence system to conceal inbound aircraft, or show them as friendly, or at a different location.

On F-35, while it’s still early days, it has been envisaged that NGJ could integrate directly with that aircraft’s onboard systems and not require a specialised aircraft configured for EW...."

Source: Australian Aviation Magazine July 2018 No.361

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2018, 08:19
by magitsu
Here's some footage from last weekend to complement that brief Growler look. First from inside the tent, then from around 1 min flight checks and take off prep with air traffic controller radio comms included. 4.40 actual take off. 6 mins landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANR8_w4oEIc

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 10:49
by krorvik
So, spazsinbad, is this your doing? And, will we ever see an aussie F-35 buzz the Kuznetsov that way? (Yeah, trying to stick to topic).

Image

Credit: Chris Bolton @ twitter: https://twitter.com/CcibChris/status/10 ... 7319574528

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 11:19
by spazsinbad
KUZNETSOV will NEVER MAKE IT to our LOC for any buzzing by any bodies. NOT ME in photo.

That photo shows the CO of VF-805 at that time (date to follow) in lead. Must have been feeling his oats that day. Flight Deck of HMAS Melbourne is 37.5 ft above sea level. The pile of whatnots is the barrier in a heap on the port side. Two lights on right are aft of mirror comprising a bunch to make the meatball in the mirror (reflected back aft up glideslope).

Co-incidentally I'm uploading the latest edition of the 4.4Gb PDF which features this photo plus a Zoomed version seen below.... Upload will finish about 15 hours from now because I ain't got NBN in my area yet. <sigh> LINK BELOW FOLLOW.

Our SOP Standard Operating Procedure: at low level no.2 never goes lower than leader. An ex-Wessex 31B Pilot talks about photo timeframe:
“I was on the flight deck, I do remember I was standing next to the Flight Deck Photographer & told him to get his camera ready when I saw the two smoke trails astern of the ship. I joined the ship in Sept 70 &, as a Wessex boggie [new pilot] spent most of the time as Pedro to get some deck land experience. Regular Pedro (SAR Wessex) from 11 Sept to 29 Sept. Back to the ship 26 Oct to 26 Nov for Exercise "Swan Lake" (off Perth WA). So it seems the date is somewhere between 11 Sept & 26 Nov [1970]. [PEDRO = SAR HELO] Wasn't a celebration of the Nullabor Express 'cause that was 884 & 889. Most likely first time on board - 11/9 & 29/9 [1970], only did 2 Pedros in the second period.” Sep 1970

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 14:01
by quicksilver
Is it ‘low slot port’ down under?

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 15:59
by krorvik
Thanks for excellent context to the photo Spazsinbad - had a feeling you had knowledge to share.

As for the Kuznetsov, it seems a miracle when they can leave their home port these days...

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 16:41
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:Is it ‘low slot port’ down under?

Probably I have told the story somewhere here - perhaps in the 'Military Aircraft of the Cold War' A-4 Skyhawk threads or in this forum? I'll look. Anyway most of the first A4G pilots (such as this VF-805 CO seen above) were at least from the Sea Venom F.A.W. Mk.53 era (&/or like CO above had even flown the Sea Fury as junior RAN FAA pilots). They did not warm to the new LSO regime (LSOs not used in Sea Venom / Gannet era) having very loud disagreements with them often. Yet eventually these oldies warmed to their usefulness (probably after night flying). Anyway the Venom carrier circuit was 400 feet, often in my early first embarkation we would CHARLIE down Starboard side at this height but also at NATOPS 1,000 feet then descend during the break down to 400 feet, making base turn LEVEL at this height until picking up the mirror about halfway around the turn to then fly the ball etc. Makes for a much tighter quicker circuit and this was all I knew until the LSOs (trained in the USofA like USN LSOs) managed to convince our CO (same as above CO) to fly the NATOPS circuit at 600 feet and to enter at 1,000 feet etc. This took some 'getting used to' just as I was settling in to a 400 foot circuit. So we did a descending base turn which requires more adjustments during the turn and it is always a bit longer timewise with usually a longer straightaway to do more harm to 'meatball, lineup and airspeed (optimum angle of attack)'! 8) :shock:

I see the GIF NATOPS graphic attached has enter circuit at 800 feet. My recollection was 1,000 feet - for sure this was standard circuit entry height ashore at NAS Nowra. All this is getting to be a long time ago now - for me 1971-1972. :roll:

My famous 'to me anyway' A4G Optimum AoA land circuits: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53769&p=385817&hilit=circuit+height#p385817

Back on topic with a very long text description of what seems to be an USMC style F-35B simulation circuit - whereas the usual RN FAA style Harrier circuit is to fly a long straight in approach transitioning to be port alongside to V.L. etc.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=172162&hilit=circuit+height#p172162

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 21:04
by quicksilver
‘Low slot port’ possesses a specific significance in the RN. I thought it might be common to your service.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=lo ... RE&PC=APPL

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 22:36
by spazsinbad
AAhhh good one. I was not there when photo taken. It would be unusual to join the circuit at that low level on the port side. I do not know what the pair did subsequently. To me it would seem they are doing a low flyby but only my guess. The term 'low slot port' is unfamiliar whilst it is perhaps used only in the SHAR era? Or is it made up as a video title for a low fast flyby? Dunno. I can ask around the old 'A4G then to SHAR' pilots. Same video as posted by 'QS' above below.

One thing to bear in mind is that our PEDRO / SAR helo (Wessex 31B usually but sometimes when near NAS Nowra for CarQuals they may have an Iroquois substitute) is on the port side inside the circuit area usually. Does not mean - with permission from FLYCO - that aircraft cannot do a low flyby however as a circuit entry down port side it would be highly unusual for sure. Vaguely I recall (when obtaining a copy of the photo soon after) it was a low fast flyby but.... The CO there was on my No.3 A4G OFS and he could sure beetle around the joint. The LOWest Fast Flyer was an ex-Buccaneer jock who kept me on my toes in low level formation over the sea. Then there is the photo of one of our USN exchange jocks (a SLUF pilot) leading a four flypast HMAS Swan (also posted earlier in this forum). Low flying over the sea was our 'game' for sure. Could not find the photo with a quick couple of searches so I'll post it again. Our USN leader in the TA4G went on to command a conventional aircraft carrier. I'm No.3 in formation in 883 (deputy leader) with wingmen on left of leader/deputy). I was looking ahead quickly to ensure my wingman would miss the destroyer radar. MACCHI phot A/C.

One may well note we are all more or less level in height with our leader as per SOP. It was a very windy bumpy day.


Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 23:03
by quicksilver
As I wrote above, ‘low slot port’ has a specific significance in the RN (to which the video testifies); whether it pre-dates SHAR, I do not know.

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 23:07
by spazsinbad
Well then please explain what that term means. I'll assume it is not a state secret.

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 23:22
by quicksilver
Are you blind m8?

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 23:29
by spazsinbad
What are you on about? Why are explanations so difficult for you. At moment my 4.4Gb PDF is still uploading (should be finished in about 3 hours from now) meanwhile my access to the internet is EXTREMELY SLOW. I see nothing that explains what the term means - have you assumed the term in is regular use? An explanation would be appreciated. Meanwhile...

A tidy example of our low flyby SWAN. We are at 250 knots so that the Macchi Phot aircraft can keep up/change position.

The last two A4Gs have my design (in red) logo on the tail. It was unpopular at first then gained traction subsequently.