Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1366
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 02:18

SpudmanWP wrote:Transmitters are not the antennas.



eh? Tuned tranducers are bi-directional in emmisions and receptions, all transmissions occur via antennas, and the same attenna transmitted with, is PERFECT for reception of same signal. So why would you want to carry the extra weight of another tuned antenna array in same band? Ok, it could be needed for optimal polarisation and aspect coverage, plus boosted gain and sensitivity. But does this mean you elect to not use the transmitter antenna, as a receiver antenna as well, when you certainly could?

I don't think so.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 16:06

eh?
Sprstdlyscottsmn was just wondering about antenna locations. Sorry if I was not clear enough.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 18:12

SpudmanWP wrote: Sorry if I was not clear enough.

I think he just missed the reference to the 57# component in the data sheet.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 22:58

SpudmanWP wrote:
optimist wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:It's not the same thing since the F/A-18's jammer works in 360, not just in the forward sector.

are you saying the ale-55 is less directional than the ale-70 which only jams in the forward sector? I don't think that would be the case.


Let me try to explain how this works.

Each plane can receive EM information (think RWR) and identify & triangulate transmission sources. On the F-18 that is the ALR-67(V)3 while on the F-35 it is the ASQ-239.

Each plane can transmit jamming signals with internal equipment without using an expendable. On the F-18 that is the ALQ-214 (360 around the F-18) while on the F-35 it is done through the APG-81 radar (much more powerful than the -214 but only transmits in the forward sector).

Each plane has towed decoys (4). The F-18 carries the ALE-55 and the F-35 has the ALE-70.

The F-18 has chaff but not the F-35 (it's VLO and does not need it).

The ale is part of On the F-35, there is no internal jammer that can operate in the entire 360 around the F-35 (yet).

I think you will find that the term transmitter also refers to a box that then sends a transmission through an antenna , which also can be called a transmitter. To be radiated
While the super hornet has onboard transmitting antenna (ALR-67), as part of the ALQ-21. The ale-55 and on the f-35 the ale-70, are both jamming transmitting antenna. Both radars are also jamming transmitting antenna, not just the f-35. As I said the systems aren't that dissimilar, as said 10 years ago.

"But more importantly the Block 2 Super Hornet will be the first fighter to use its active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for electronic attack, with a software upgrade to allow its array of transmit/receive (T/R) modules to be used as a powerful directional jammer.

Under a "sensor integration" plan, the Raytheon APG-79 AESA will be linked to the Raytheon ALR-67 radar warning receiver (RWR) via the fighter's fibre-optic network switch.


Read more at http://www.australiandefence.com.au/EF4 ... 66UBFkx.99 "
and confirmed here
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-208213/
Last edited by optimist on 30 Mar 2018, 23:18, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2668
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 23:16

Read it very closely. That was all a ‘plan’...
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 08:27

You might be right and the 214 isn't using the apg-79 in the end, but I thought it did. I know the RAAF was pretty excited about the capability and other techy stuff of that and the growler
we got out rhino in 2010/11 this was 2012. Although this was about converting 12 to growlers, it said of the apg-79 ability
https://www.asiapacificdefencereporter. ... pabilities
A key capability of the aircraft is the installation of the Raytheon AN/APG-79 multimode AESA tactical radar which has passive detection, active radar suppression modes of operation to provide air-to-air, air to ground, targeting, tracking and self-protection. This radar provides critically important data to the EA and SEAD EW functions.

This was posted last year. If we haven't got the said capability in previous upgrades, I hope the aussie $6.8m upgrade does the job this time.
http://adbr.com.au/raytheon-receives-ap ... -contract/
Raytheon is being awarded a US$17.9 million order for the upgrade of the APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system for the US Navy and Australian F/A-18F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft, the US Department of Defense announced on March 23.
The contract includes a purchase for the Australian government under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program worth US$6.8 million. The work is expected to be completed in March 2021.


This is about as official as I can find as of 2017 with ref to the 214 and apg-79
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-0 ... -20743.htm
2. The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar
System is classified SECRET. The radar provides the F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet aircraft with all-weather, multi-mission capability for
performing air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting and attack. Air-to-
air modes provide the capability for all-aspect target detection, long-
range search and track, automatic target acquisition, and tracking of
multiple targets. Air-to-surface attack modes provide high-resolution
ground mapping navigation, weapon delivery, and sensor cueing. The
system component hardware (Antenna, Transmitter, Radar Data Processor,
and Power Supply) is UNCLASSIFIED. The Receiver-Exciter hardware is
CONFIDENTIAL. The radar Operational Flight Program (OFP) is classified
SECRET. Documentation provided with the AN/APG-79 radar set is
classified SECRET.
3. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving
Set is classified CONFIDENTIAL. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 provides the F/A-18E/
F aircrew with radar threat warnings by detecting and evaluating
friendly and hostile radar frequency threat emitters and providing
identification and status information about the emitters to on-board
Electronic Warfare (EW) equipment and the aircrew. The Operational
Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files (UDF) used in the AN/ALR-
67(V)3 are classified SECRET. Those software programs contain threat
parametric data used to identify and establish priority of detected
radar emitters.

6. The AN/ALQ-214 is an advanced airborne Integrated Defensive
Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) programmable modular automated
system capable of intercepting, identifying, processing received radar
signals (pulsed and continuous) and applying an optimum countermeasures
technique in the direction of the radar signal, thereby improving
individual aircraft probability of survival from a variety of surface-
to-air and air-to-air Radio Frequency (RF) threats. The system operates
in a standalone or Electronic Warfare (EW) suite mode. In the EW suite
mode, the AN/ALQ-214 operates in a fully coordinated mode with the
towed dispensable decoy, Radar Warning Receiver (RWR), and the onboard
radar in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a coordinated, non-interference
manner sharing information for enhanced information.
The AN/ALQ-214 was
designed to operate in a high-density Electromagnetic Hostile
Environment with the ability to identify and counter a wide variety of
multiple threats, including those with Doppler characteristics.
Hardware within the AN/ALQ-214 is classified CONFIDENTIAL.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3272
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 17:17

https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/produc ... ure-system

"The AN/ASQ-239 system protects the F-35 with advanced technology for next generation missions to counter current and emerging threats. Equipped with offensive and defensive electronic warfare options for the pilot and aircraft, the suite provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection, to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats.

The system provides the pilot with maximum situational awareness, helping to identify, monitor, analyze, and respond to potential threats. Advanced avionics and sensors provide a real-time, 360-degree view of the battlespace, helping to maximize detection ranges and provide the pilot with options to evade, engage, counter or jam threats.

Always active, AN/ASQ-239 provides all-aspect, broadband protection, allowing the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars."
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1222
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post31 Mar 2018, 18:17

optimist wrote: ...
This is about as official as I can find as of 2017 with ref to the 214 and apg-79
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-0 ... -20743.htm
2. The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Radar System is classified SECRET. .. The system component hardware (Antenna, Transmitter, Radar Data Processor, and Power Supply) is UNCLASSIFIED. The Receiver-Exciter hardware is CONFIDENTIAL. The radar Operational Flight Program (OFP) is classified SECRET. Documentation provided with the AN/APG-79 radar set is classified SECRET.
3. The AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Set is classified CONFIDENTIAL. ...The Operational Flight Program (OFP) and User Data Files (UDF) used in the AN/ALR-67(V)3 are classified SECRET.
6. ...Hardware within the AN/ALQ-214 is classified CONFIDENTIAL.


Thanks Optimist for the good summary. I have answered a few PM's with the simple comment. Those who speak don't know , and those who know don't speak. Yours is a well measured post.

I will say that in general, the US users/contractors tend towards saying less. The European/Russians tend towards flowery "me-too"isms which may are may not even know what the "me too" is, and certainly only describe their understanding, and a particular implementation of the "feature".

This latest conversation in the thread (and on the Rafale thread) has been good feedback, and often provides solid theory... but again when we talk about EW ... "Those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak." It's as simple as that. When an actual battle is taken, we may learn how various systems actually perform in effectiveness... or we may not hear about that either.

MHO,
BP

Anecdote on outside experts. When I was flying at Beale, we generally(or at least often) knew whether a "photo" in the newspaper was from an SR sortie, a U-2 sortie, or a satellite. I was constantly amused that the newspaper almost always got it wrong. The Sat photo was attributed to the SR-71, the SR-71 was attributed to the U-2, the U-2 was attributed to a satellite etc. etc. Since this was "means and methods," there was a reason to encourage/allow this confusion to exist. That will be true of most of what we speak here.
Offline

usnvo

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 178
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 18:51

Unread post01 Apr 2018, 03:36

blindpilot wrote:Thanks Optimist for the good summary. I have answered a few PM's with the simple comment. Those who speak don't know , and those who know don't speak. Yours is a well measured post.

I will say that in general, the US users/contractors tend towards saying less. The European/Russians tend towards flowery "me-too"isms which may are may not even know what the "me too" is, and certainly only describe their understanding, and a particular implementation of the "feature".



There are a couple of points that argue the APG-79 does not currently offer EW modes.

The biggest one is that Raytheon does not claim that it does. If they had an EW mode, you can be sure that Raytheon would claim it. The fact that they don't is probably a good indication that it hasn't been implemented yet.

Second, the APG-79 has not been declared Operationally Suitable by the Navy yet. Until it is, it is unlikely that any additional capability will be initiated. There are still numerous issues with the APG-79 that are currently being addressed, including interference from the ALQ-99 on the EF-18G and not meeting reliability targets. And the Navy doesn't advertise EW capability.

Finally, Boeing doesn't advertise EW capability for the APG-79 on the F-18E/F or EF-18G.

So, to summarize, if Boeing, Raytheon, and the Navy doesn't advertise a EW capability for the APG-79 and the Navy doesn't even consider it Operationally Suitable in its basic configuration yet,it is a high probability that it doesn't currently have EW capability.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post01 Apr 2018, 05:03

It makes sense that if released info on the f-35 is promoted as a major feature. There is no reason for it not to be released about the fa-18efg. There is some release about the radar being an EW transmitter. So some of it is being done, but not as detailed info, as with the f-35. I guess budget shortfalls could have also play a part in the apg-79 development? From what I have seen. Very little has been released of what this $17.8m radar upgrade entails. So it's hard to say at what stage the apg-79 is at.

Though in saying that. Even though it seemed not to be a totally unexpected capability. I know how bad the RAAF spat, when Boeing released info about the E-7A Wedgetail controlling drones.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2009-04-06- ... C-Aircraft
Aussie fanboy
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3450
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 14:11

It still boggles my mind the little strike fighter that entered service in 1982 would still be in production 35 years later. Even more mind boggling is that fact US carrier aviation is almost exclusively built on the Hornet/SH airframe...

But I'll try to look at this from the Navy's perspective:

1.) A decent airframe with a great (SH) AESA radar.
2.) Terrific nose pointing authority
3.) Ability to carry almost every munition in the Navy's inventory
4.) Capable air to air and air to ground, along with excellent EW function (Growler)
5.) Deliveries have been on time and on or under budget

The sad truth though, is that you can claim the same about the F-35 (minus point #5) and take it to the nth degree. And it has far better range, situational awareness and an invisibility switch. So the question again is..

Why on earth are we buying more F-18's, instead of more F-35C's!? Is point #5 that big of an issue, where the wings of the earlier F-18's are going to start falling off??
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 15:53

The "Classic" Hornet is not in production and the SH is a "Classic" in last name (and basic shape) only.

It's early life was plagued by problems (just like any fighter).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 851
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 16:40

mixelflick wrote:
Why on earth are we buying more F-18's, instead of more F-35C's!? Is point #5 that big of an issue, where the wings of the earlier F-18's are going to start falling off??


Because the Navy needs aircraft now, if they get super hornets they have a large amount of pilots capable of flying it they have thousands of sailors familiar with it on the deck (how to load, fuel, control). The F-35 is in it's infancy when it comes to the Navy, they are still testing a lot of stuff. It's time will come, I'm sure in a few years we will look at a carrier deck and it will be 2/3 F-35's with just a squad or two of rhinos block 62 left for CAP or day 2 strikes. But today in 2015,16,17,18 it makes more sense for the navy to buy the jet they know they can get out into the air wings ASAP while also working towards integrating the future.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 16:49

usnvo wrote:Second, the APG-79 has not been declared Operationally Suitable by the Navy yet.


Where did you get this?
I find odd this to be the case since the APG-79 is an integral part of the Block II upgrade and Block II is around for how long? I would say a decade at least.


usnvo wrote:There are still numerous issues with the APG-79 that are currently being addressed, including interference from the ALQ-99 on the EF-18G and not meeting reliability targets.


From what I gather the problem that you mentioned above is not related to the APG-79 radar but instead related to the ALQ-99 jammer pod. For example what's the Navy solution for this same problem that you described above? Upgrading/fixing the APG-79? No, the solution is developing the NGJ (Next Generation Jammer) pod to replace the ALQ-99.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2174
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post02 Apr 2018, 16:56

mixelflick wrote:It still boggles my mind the little strike fighter that entered service in 1982 would still be in production 35 years later. Even more mind boggling is that fact US carrier aviation is almost exclusively built on the Hornet/SH airframe...

But I'll try to look at this from the Navy's perspective:

1.) A decent airframe with a great (SH) AESA radar.
2.) Terrific nose pointing authority
3.) Ability to carry almost every munition in the Navy's inventory
4.) Capable air to air and air to ground, along with excellent EW function (Growler)
5.) Deliveries have been on time and on or under budget

The sad truth though, is that you can claim the same about the F-35 (minus point #5) and take it to the nth degree. And it has far better range, situational awareness and an invisibility switch. So the question again is..

Why on earth are we buying more F-18's, instead of more F-35C's!? Is point #5 that big of an issue, where the wings of the earlier F-18's are going to start falling off??


While I fully agree with you mixelflick, I must say that your point #3 is also on the Super Hornet's side at least for the time being.
For example the F-35C (or any other F-35 variant) cannot carry Maverick, Harpoon, SLAM-ER and HARM missiles or a variety of cluster bombs such as the CBU-97, all of this weapons are part of the US Navy's inventory and can be carried by the Super Hornet while all weapons carried by the F-35C including the JSOW can be carried by the Super Hornet.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 17 guests