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

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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post28 Mar 2018, 23:27

SpudmanWP wrote:
optimist wrote:As I said, it was a big statement for the Harris ALQ-214 system to lead the world. I wouldn't put the BAE ALR-67 part of it in the same league as the ALR-94 or ASQ-239, but it isn't that it's such a dissimilar system.


The Harris claim is valid since it's a "self-protection jammer" and the ASQ-239, & ALR-94 are not.

??you said it yourself "The only transmitting component of the the F-35's ESM, apart from the APG-81, are the towed jammers."
The AN/ASQ-239 system has self protecting jamming, using the ale-70 and APG-81, likewise the harris unit uses the ale-55 and the system also uses the apg-79 for protection jamming
Aussie fanboy
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post28 Mar 2018, 23:36

It's not the same thing since the F/A-18's jammer works in 360, not just in the forward sector.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post28 Mar 2018, 23:44

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.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 03:10

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).

On the F-35, there is no internal jammer that can operate in the entire 360 around the F-35 (yet).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 06:39

No mention of an 'enhanced engine upgrade here' (shame on Janes).
US Navy plans to modify 45 more Super Hornets
27 Mar 2018 Garrett Reim

"The US Navy plans to modify 45 more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the next two years to increase the aircraft’s service life and capabilities, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced on 27 March. The potential contract will cover modifications to up to 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2019 and a maximum of 30 aircraft in FY2020, NAVAIR says. The modifications are designed to extend the fighter’s airframe life from 6,000-9,000h, adding up to 10 years of service.

Boeing will also convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration starting in the early 2020s. This conversion will include adding an enhanced network capability, a longer range thanks to internal conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, reduced radar signature and an enhanced communication system. Such updates are designed to keep the type effective in combat until at least into the early 2030s...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ts-447133/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1343
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 11:15

" ... a longer range thanks to internal conformal fuel tanks, ... "

"longer range thanks"??? ... a politeness upgrade? ... too PC

And "internal conformal"??? ... this does not scan, shutting down.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 12:05

One is a HOWLER - aviation reporting is full of them - extra range compared to less range or something left out there. Reading between lines and guessing (often without supporting info) is the lifeblood of clickbait journalism - let the reader fill in the blanks. Let them laugh themselves silly. And why not? Most of AVweak journalism is locked from prying eyes for good reason and FliteGlobular only gives little away (also I think newbie reporter). They can't tolerate the GUFFAWING.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4481
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 17:15

SpudmanWP wrote: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).

Hey Spud, I'm not finding anything that says how the -214 provides jamming (360 or otherwise). Is it unreasonable to say that it accomplishes this using the APG-79 and the ALE-55? Thus it is no different than the F-35s system?
"Spurts"

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 17:43

Early Docs make it clear:

IDECM Block II is a second interim configuration and will replace the ASPJ with the ALQ-214(V)2, providing onboard jamming capability. This configuration is planned for the fourth and fifth F/A-18E/F deployments.

IDECM Block III is the final configuration and will consist of the ALQ-214(V)2 radio frequency countermeasures and ALE-55(V) fiber-optic towed decoy.

...

The IDECM provides three layers of defense. The first is suppression, which denies, delays, and degrades adversary acquisition and tracking. The second is deception, which misleads guided weapons away from the carrying aircraft if a track solution is achieved and a launch occurs. The third layer, known as end-game, makes the FOTD the preferred target, seducing adversary missiles that leak through the first and second layers of defense.


The Data-sheet also shows the weight of the jammer (57lbs) itself.
https://www.harris.com/sites/default/fi ... -sheet.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4481
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 17:52

It's actually not clear at all. No where does it say that the -214 provides 360 jamming without the towed decoy. The 57lb is the weight of the dual transmitter. They also show the transmitter. It has no antennas. That is only the electronics to generate the power and waveforms needed and send them to the antennas, wherever they may be.
"Spurts"

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 18:31

Transmitters are not the antennas. Since all of the modules in the PDF are in a single rack, there are obviously antennas that are not listed involved. The program does not use the term 360, just as it does not for radio comms, because the antenna are not ESAs. I'll try to dig up some more detailed information.


---Update

I figured out why I could not find info on the -214's antenna, It's because it re-uses the antennas for the previous "ALQ-165 Self-Protection Jammer" antenna locations. Once I started Googling that, I was able to find a bunch.

Here is the NATOPS manual that describes them.
6. Forward fuselage (right side)
b. Flush LEX antenna (ALQ-165 low/high band transmitter) - CHECK CONDITION

14. Aft fuselage (left side)
d. Antenna radomes - CHECK CONDITION
(1) ALQ-165 high band transmitter (top)
(2) ALQ-165 low band transmitter (middle)

20. Forward fuselage (left side)
f. Flush LEX antenna (ALQ-165 low/high band transmitter) - CHECK CONDITION




https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 19:09

So, are the SH jammers AESA, or not? and if AESA, GaS or GaN?
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 19:10

For IDECM, the towed decoy is the primary jammer. The onboard jammers exist mainly
to supplement the towed decoy in the event of decoy malfunction/inventory exhaustion
or a case where the threat emitter is out-of-band with respect to the decoy.

The onboard stuff has gotten upgraded mainly because the Super Hornet's towed decoy has
been unreliable.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4481
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Mar 2018, 21:19

SpudmanWP wrote:I figured out why I could not find info on the -214's antenna, It's because it re-uses the antennas for the previous "ALQ-165 Self-Protection Jammer" antenna locations. Once I started Googling that, I was able to find a bunch.
https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf

Thanks Spud. That cleared it up greatly. So even if there is a small deadzone directly above or below and aircraft it has some jamming capability for/aft/sides. Power will be lower than towed decoy or APG-79 due to antenna sizing, but the capability is still there. I appreciate the help in expanding my knowledge base.
"Spurts"

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

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2650
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post30 Mar 2018, 01:09

Who conferred a jamming capability upon apg79?
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests