Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2052
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post09 Mar 2014, 20:02

The test pilot's job is to be bullish, at least in public / approved interviews. Their criticisms are aired behind closed doors - as they should - which eventually surface when suppressive efforts are deemed worse than the admission of problems. While positive comments are usually attributed to an individual pilot, criticisms are almost never attributed to an individual TP.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post09 Mar 2014, 20:05

'maus92' at least you could point us to a 'test pilot' job description to back up your claims above. What tosh.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Mar 2014, 21:52

I guess the headline says it all - I do not think F-35 is mentioned but hey it will be there in the mix one day. :doh: It is a long article best read at source - only some bits excerpted below which will be relevant to future F-35Cs in the mix.

Why the Navy Wants More Growlers
12 Mar 2014 Dave Majumdar
"The Navy is eyeing expanding its fleet of electronic attack aircraft to better fit into the service’s next generation plan for fighting a high end air war.

As part of its yet-unpublished unfunded requirements, the Navy is requesting 22 additional Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft that the service would like to purchase in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget.

“Today we have the minimum numbers in each squadron,” Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said during a Wednesday hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. “[This request] is an insurance policy, it’s a hedge”

The thought behind the request — according to sources in the Navy and in Congress — is to grow Growler squadrons from five to as many as eight aircraft per unit to support the airborne electronic attack (AEA) tactics the service envisions under the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) construct to defeat complex integrated air defense systems (IADS) that are under development in Russia and China....

...Under the NIFC-CA construct, Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare, told USNI News in December 2013 that the service would need a minimum of two airborne EA-18Gs linked via a high-speed data-link to each other and to a third point—a Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye — to perform a time distance of arrival analysis to precisely locate threat emitters.

Manazir said that the Navy hopes to use either the Rockwell Collins-developed Tactical Targeting Network Technology waveform or a Link-16 Concurrent Multi-Netting-4 network to link the jets together.

With the three separate points, the Navy expects to be able to narrow down the location of multiple mobile threat emitters to a narrow enough “ellipse” as to generate a weapons quality track in real time.

However, an industry source said that the tactic works best when there are three Growlers working in conjunction with each other. The Navy performed a demonstration of the new tactic with three Growlers in the summer of 2013, the source said...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2014/03/12/navy-wants-growlers
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2889
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post12 Mar 2014, 23:19

spazsinbad wrote:.......Under the NIFC-CA construct, ..that the service would need a minimum of two airborne EA-18Gs linked via a high-speed data-link to each other and to a third point—a Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye — to perform a time distance of arrival analysis to precisely locate threat emitters. ..Navy hopes to use either the Rockwell Collins-developed Tactical Targeting Network Technology waveform or a Link-16 Concurrent Multi-Netting-4 network to link the jets together. With the three separate points, the Navy expects to be able to narrow down the location of multiple mobile threat emitters to a narrow enough “ellipse” as to generate a weapons quality track in real time.
However, an industry source said that the tactic works best when there are three Growlers working in conjunction with each other. The Navy performed a demonstration of the new tactic with three Growlers in the summer of 2013, the source said...."...]



Is this a job that One F-35C can perform with it's own EA/EW suite??? Hee..!, Hee..!, Hee..! :devil:
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7717
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post13 Mar 2014, 00:32

neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:.......Under the NIFC-CA construct, ..that the service would need a minimum of two airborne EA-18Gs linked via a high-speed data-link to each other and to a third point—a Northrop Grumman E-2D Hawkeye — to perform a time distance of arrival analysis to precisely locate threat emitters. ..Navy hopes to use either the Rockwell Collins-developed Tactical Targeting Network Technology waveform or a Link-16 Concurrent Multi-Netting-4 network to link the jets together. With the three separate points, the Navy expects to be able to narrow down the location of multiple mobile threat emitters to a narrow enough “ellipse” as to generate a weapons quality track in real time.
However, an industry source said that the tactic works best when there are three Growlers working in conjunction with each other. The Navy performed a demonstration of the new tactic with three Growlers in the summer of 2013, the source said...."...]



Is this a job that One F-35C can perform with it's own EA/EW suite??? Hee..!, Hee..!, Hee..! :devil:




Who knows? :devil:


http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/BAE_S ... AN/ASQ-239


BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239

The AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda is an Integrated Defensive Avionics Suite developed for the F-35 Lightning II. It is based on the F-22 Raptor’s AN/ALR-94 suite. The AN/ASQ-239 is many times more sensitive than previous generations of RWR and can precisely geo-locate the direction of the threat. Thus, it can provide targeting information for a AGM-88 HARM.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Mar 2014, 05:45

maus92 wrote:The test pilot's job is to be bullish, at least in public / approved interviews.


I thought it was their job to fly and test the aircraft? Boy am I backwards :doh:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1245
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post21 Mar 2014, 17:26

XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:The test pilot's job is to be bullish, at least in public / approved interviews.


I thought it was their job to fly and test the aircraft? Boy am I backwards :doh:


It does make one wonder if the accuser has ever been in the same room/city/state, as a test pilot :) actually it makes me wonder if they have been in the same room as ... like ... any pilot. :) :) but heh being backwards etc. etc...

BP
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post21 Mar 2014, 21:06

Sheez guys, don't you remember the code:

Pilot (or anyone) says positive things about F-35 = complete lies, obviously either paid by LM or Govt or simply too dimwited to know better.

Pilot (or anyone) says negative things about F-35 = gospel truth, spoken by someone enlightened and brave enough to tell truth...despite obvious threats to career by LM and/or Govt.
:wink:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Mar 2014, 23:51

blindpilot wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote:The test pilot's job is to be bullish, at least in public / approved interviews.


I thought it was their job to fly and test the aircraft? Boy am I backwards :doh:


It does make one wonder if the accuser has ever been in the same room/city/state, as a test pilot :) actually it makes me wonder if they have been in the same room as ... like ... any pilot. :) :) but heh being backwards etc. etc...

BP


its getting to the point where a man can't even be bitter in the onslaught of all this positivity.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Mar 2014, 17:47

Back on topic in an a...backwards way (similar to Majumdar story above) and HeadLine says it all... Long story Short....
Growler Advocates Outline Stealth Vulnerabilities 24 Mar 2014 Amy Butler With Guy Norris in El Segundo, Calif.

"Despite a squeeze on investment accounts, the Pentagon's fiscal 2015 budget strategy prioritizes funding for the stealthy F-35—but at what cost, some in industry ask....

...Meanwhile, the Air Force is also planning to mothball seven, or half, of its EC-130 electronic attack aircraft in fiscal 2013, saving $315.8 million. Air Force Maj. Gen. Jim Jones, director of operations, plans and requirements, says that the service “can't afford to program to a no-risk force, [and further investment in stealth] is a piece of that. . . . All of these capabilities add up to a more survivable capability.” When questioned about whether the Air Force would backfill the lost EC-130s with some other capability, Jones declines to provide information, acknowledging that this is likely an “unsatisfying” answer. This could point to a capability being developed in the classified world....

...“All aircraft can be seen by certain radars. The trick is to disrupt the [kill] chain when someone can lock weapons on you. We are talking about the 'perishability' of stealth,” Gibbons says.

Growler advocates argue that the EA-18G, with its wide-spectrum EW and electronic-attack capabilities should be the “quarterback” for future strike packages, with the electronic-warfare officer in the backseat essentially managing the electronic battle.

During a flight demonstration last summer, Boeing showed that two EA-18Gs were capable of passively detecting a threat emitter and passing “very accurate” targeting data for a strike within “minutes.” Company analysis suggests adding another Growler to the engagement would allow for generating target coordinates in seconds. This operational concept could condense the time element of the kill chain and get at the “counter-shutdown” problem for air defenses, when threat emitters intermittently radiate and then shut down to avoid being targeted by radar-seeking weapons such as the AGM-88E Advance Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

In its campaign to restore funding for the Growler, Boeing will have to walk a careful line. The company has to make the case that without more Growlers, even the stealthiest aircraft in the Pentagon's fleet are vulnerable to emerging air defenses. This is a thorny and challenging argument to make as it quickly veers into classified territory. And its Pentagon customer is loath to acknowledge that its multibillion-dollar investment in stealth aircraft could be made vulnerable by comparatively small investment in networked air defenses. Boeing is already aggressively engaging Congress to lobby for more Growler money and has launched a grass-roots advocacy campaign website.

Although F-22s and F-35s are the most capable platforms at penetrating air defenses, they are not silver bullets and still require capable escorts to standoff at the edge of a hostile range to control the electronic battlefield, Growler advocates say. They suggest doubling the number of Growlers in each carrier air wing to 10. There is “plenty of room” on the future carrier deck to accommodate the additional aircraft, the industry official says.

While carrying the most advanced and fused avionics available, the F-35 is able to influence only the electronic battle within the frequency of its own Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 radar. But if an F-35 encounters a threat not in its database or outside its own radar band, it likely would not address it—whereas an electronic-warfare officer on an EA-18G could discern its capabilities and suppress it, if needed, the industry official says....

SOURCE: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 674336.xml
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2889
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post22 Mar 2014, 19:46

spazsinbad wrote:Back on topic in an a...backwards way ...........Growler advocates argue that the EA-18G, with its wide-spectrum EW and electronic-attack capabilities should be the “quarterback” for future strike packages, with the electronic-warfare officer in the backseat essentially managing the electronic battle. ...]


I hate to be the bearer of criticism to my former fellow shipmates but.....How can you be a quarterback with a "clubfoot"?

The EA-18G can't be regarded as a controlling influence in a naval strike package with the F-35B/C; as a very capable strike asset (contributor), yes. Radiating jamming RF will appear as defining (location) to the strike targets, as headlights on a dark road in a moonless night. The Hawkeye, Growler and the SBug will continue to be creditable tactical assets with their weapons carrying capacity and their systems ability to link to the F-35s for sharing data and weapons selections and controls. Each a/c commander/ pilot will have their roles and responsibilities spelled out before they leave the deck (mission planning). Quarterbacking will be left to the nimble and quick around the scene of the engagement with speed, range and tactical oversight capabilities (F-35).

These folks seem to be spending a lot of their time trying to circumvent the F-35s leading edge capabilities and inventing new ways (quarterbacking??) to prop up their old steeds, it's time to get a new horse. The sooner the SBUG mafia gets on board with "time is moving on", the sooner they can better apply their experience, insights and innovative thinking to using "all" of the tools they will have on the flight deck, including the F-35.

Don't get me wrong, about supporting improvements in the legacy equipment, adding IRST to the Tom Cat was a great improvement and a proven tactical tool. Now that it is being added to the SBug, it will make it a more capable asset. I can support the additional 22 Growlers if they are used to replace the Corp's Prowlers and support the development of the NGJ for the fleet but not at the expense of the F-35.
Offline

enrico

Banned

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Mar 2014, 22:01

I don't think the "SBUG mafia" is getting any more convinced as time goes by. They're just getting gradually promoted to positions where they can be more vocal.

Some related light reading:

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files ... nsahel.pdf

Oh by the way, who was running CNAS when this report was produced, and where's he going next?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6154
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post23 Mar 2014, 02:15

enrico wrote:I don't think the "SBUG mafia" is getting any more convinced as time goes by. They're just getting gradually promoted to positions where they can be more vocal.

Some related light reading:

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files ... nsahel.pdf

Oh by the way, who was running CNAS when this report was produced, and where's he going next?


They are trying to get more growlers and we know they are going to get more F-35s as time goes on. If you want to try and convince yourself that trend is going to somehow reverse against all odds and after the navy failed to achieve escape velocity years ago (with much higher ranked people, and in worse days of the program) in the first place you are welcome to it.

BTW, that PDF is about the importance of EW, It might seem a tedious detail but there is a difference between the growler which is an EW aircraft, and what that PDF is advocating, and the Super Bug. Though externally similar they have different jobs and capabilities. HTH
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2014, 22:51

As always best to read the post at URL rather than the 'reminders' here excerpted. And YAY! RAAF for their GROWLing! :devil:

Why The Navy Really Wants 22 More F/A-18Gs 26 Mar 2014 Colin Clark

"CAPITOL HILL: After several years of appearing to dislike the F-35C, or at least appearing lukewarm to buying it, the Navy today finally revealed why it wants to buy more F-18Gs from Boeing.

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the F-18G, known as the Growler, emits a broader set of electronic warfare frequencies than does the F-35, Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, told reporters after today’s House Armed Services air and land force subcommittee hearing. The two planes flying together are a much more effective strike package, according to Navy analysis, than either one flying on its own. The F-18G “supplements and complements” the F-35, he said. In fact, Manazir said the new planes were not needed for strictly naval missions but for joint forces, including fighting alongside our allies.

The F-35 is targeted against a narrower array of frequencies and emits only in a fairly narrow swath in front of the aircraft, according to Manazir....

...Manazir said the Navy has determined that using F/A–18Gs reduces the length of a “campaign and increases our effectiveness,” good reasons to buy the aircraft. And this is with the current Growler, not ones that will use the Next Generation Jammer. Those aircraft, he said, would be even more capable....

...Why it took the Navy so long to discuss this and lay to rest the many rumors that have floated about the real reasons the service wanted more Growlers is another question, one I can’t answer."

SOURCE: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/why- ... e-fa-18gs/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23940
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Mar 2014, 11:15

First half of this article important to read whilst only last third excerpted below:
Navy Wants More Growlers to Fight a Deadlier High End Air War 26 Mar 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...Meanwhile, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is also an extremely capable electronic attack platform — but only over a limited part of the spectrum, Manazir said.

The F-35 uses its Northrop Grumman APG-81 for its electronic attack capability and therefore is limited to jamming enemy emitters within its own frequency band.

“The EA [electronic attack] capabilities of the F-35 are designed to support its own strike package in a specific portion of the EM [electromagnetic] spectrum. The EA-18G by design has a much broader and wider application of EA capabilities,” wrote Capt. Scott Conn, who heads the strike branch under Manazir’s office, in a statement to USNI News.

“The EA-18G is utilized as a theater level asset, attacking the full spectrum of threat kill chains from communication systems, surveillance, acquisition, and fire control radars,” Conn wrote.

“The EA capabilities of the F-35 complement the EA-18G, and the synergy between the two are very effective against advanced IADs [integrated air defenses] threats.”

Manazir testified that the EA-18G would be used to support the F-35B and C in their penetrating strike role in an anti-access/area denial environment (A2/AD).

“Stealth provides significant survivability but it does not address the complete kill chain of the threat. The combination of stealth and EA is extremely effective; EA effectiveness is usually based on what is called J/S Jamming signal/Signature signal,” Conn stated, expanding on Manazir’s testimony.

“With stealth [aircraft] the signature is magnitudes lower than conventional [aircraft]. Thus, specific jamming from the EA-18G with ALQ-99 or Next Generation Jammers can be significantly more effective for a stealth [aircraft] than for a conventional [aircraft.]”

Further, the EA-18G would be needed to support a “stand-in” jamming capability, Manazir said. The stand-off jamming would be needed while the “stand-in” jammers penetrate into hostile territory—but Manazir did not elaborate on exactly what that stand-in capability would consist of."

SOURCE: http://news.usni.org/2014/03/26/navy-wa ... nd-air-war
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests