Forum: General F-35 Forum

bigjku wrote:

I would say I see stealth and jamming as very complimentary technologies really. I think the USAF is just trying to save expense knowing that in theater the Navy will be tasked to support them as needed anyway by the CINC. I doubt the USAF just wants to not jam radars either and I would guess if they had the funding and an airframe suited to it they would have their own such aircraft in service.

Seems to me that jamming often knocks back but not out radar performance which should blend perfectly with stealth in allowing you to close and get the mission done. Stealth reduces the burden on the jamming aircraft and the jamming aircraft reduce the burden on the stealth designs. Seems pretty freaking logical honestly.

I think you could say that they are even multiplicative, rather than additive. The advantage of both together is probably much greater than using either in isolation.

F-16.net Sponsor

1st503rdsgt wrote:

maus92 wrote:

The article specifically mentions the F-35, and Navy confidence about the efficacy of the stealth technologies it employs.

Well, I suppose the USN needed to comfort itself somehow after losing the A-12 and NATF. "The grapes were probably sour anyways."

The Navy had to be able to say something if ever they were questioned why the billions they invested in the SH fleet (and by implication the whole CSG paradigm) should not be considered a waste given the growing lethality of air defenses. Growler is, in a sense, the latest fig leaf.

Not,to,say EW doesn't have value and a role to play. But to my mind, even the longevity of Growler is open to,question given there are a number of compelling alternatives to providing EW ,support that will be available in the foreseeable future.

Salute!

@Big: Yep, there's a tradeoff with jamming and other ECM techniques ( not to be discussed here in detail) coupled with the stealth or even other platforms with an RCS of a marble versus a golfball.

I flew one mission in Red Flag along the wing of a Spark Vark. Was mission commander, so went in first to take out a SA-4 site that could cause rest of the strike force much agony. We came in and the EWO did his stuff, then turned on the big stuff as we bored in and dropped on the SAM site. Heh heh, we called it the "shower of power". The Spark Vark was better for speed than the EA-6, so we cruised in at maybe 540 knots and dropped about a minute or so after he turned back. Worked like a charm.

@ Maus: I worked with the company that did the armament control system for the F-117( during the 1991 Desert Storm drill) , and though the HARM was not integrated, it was not outta the realm of technical feasibility. My point is that a LO platform has a better chance of taking out many IAD assets than a big RCS bird. Add in the jamming plus some decoy/attack drones and you have an even better chance.

One big problem back in the 80's was lack of a "standard" armament interface with the "smart" weapons. The McAir stuff like the HARPOON and the Raytheon HARM required dedicated boxes in the jet. Proprietary stuff and all that. So by 1988 or so, the only light attack jet like the Hornet had all the boxes. I don't consider the Intruder to be a "light" attack jet.

The Viper had all the data bus connections at the store stations ( MIL-STB 1760 and 1553) to program/target the weapons, but many of the signals were unique and we didn't have all the "code" provided by the company boxes. So we finally got the USN to demand the "code" and signal interface stuff from McAir for the Harpoon. Hell, we had already paid for it. From then on, it was a piece of cake, and no new black boxes for the Viper. Same for the HARM a few years later.

USA and USMC also had their problems with the Hellfire. It had more dedicated wires and boxes than the HARM or HARPOON.

So clever engineers built adapters to place in each store station and send all the data and power via the new, standard interface.

+++++++++++++

The "standard" interfaces were adopted by NATO in mid-eighties, so all new weapons and old weapon upgrades had to be standardized. This really helped. AMRAAM and Penguin were first kids on the block.

Funny, but the B-52 was the first USAF iron hauler to fully implement the "standard" interface with all it's requirements. Viper was close, but had a few unique signals/wires for old weapons like the AIM-9L, Maverick and such. AMRAAM interface was there from the beginning, but not the Sparrow ( see? no BVR capability like the Eagle. Think politics involved by the Eagle mafia?)

By the early 90's, our weapon integration problems were mostly software for the jet's weapon and nav computers. JDAM was being developed, and it was a piece of cake to put that sucker on the BUFF or the Viper or the newer Hornets.

My job was to develop the crew interfaces and weapon control algorithms for the computer geeks to code. I didn't have to account for 60 discrete wires to the weapon, and let the "adapter" handle all that from a simple, reliable 1553 data bus.

later,

Gums sends...

Did you ever get to do any work on the UAI spec?

btw, the F-16 has UAI now.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20510.html

popcorn wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Navy's Move To Growler 70% Complete; Build-Up Reflects Stealth Doubts

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. / AOL Defense / 15NOV

"WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON: "Every two weeks, we get another Growler," Cmdr. Christopher Middleton said at the Navy's electronic warfare hub here. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. And it's those Growler aircraft that will be the cutting edge of future Naval strikes against future "anti-access area denial" defenses like those being built by China."

"To break through such defenses, the Navy is very publicly working on a joint "AirSea Battle" concept with the Air Force, but the two services have taken8 starkly different approaches to defeating enemy radar."

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."

More|

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/15/navys ... stealth-d/

Maus, you would probably want to distinguish between what Cmdr.,Middleton quoted and what Author Freedburg believes. Putting everything in " .." in the above post attributes statements to Cmdr.,Middleton that he did not make.

Hmm, I reread my post, and it contains the proper number/sets of quotes. The outer quotes indicate passages that were taken directly from the referenced article, and within the quoted section, there are quotes from various sources as reported by the author. But it is always best to read the entire article.

Quote:

The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft.

So just for some clarification, did the Navy have a certain amount of Growlers planned and is now exceeding that amount because of lack of faith in the F-35? Or was this a number they decided on years ago and are now simply approaching? or did they simply increase that number for a reason that has nothing to do with the F-35?

Because the answer to those questions is important if the headline is to be believed. I'm glad the author didn't include that helpful piece of information. Because if the navy wanted like say 70, and then all of the sudden said "you know on second thought, Stealth is just mumbo jumbo lets buy like I don't know... 114!" that might show lack of faith. But if the actual story is Built navy jets continue to be built. thats not as exciting.

Quote:

the real limiting factor for Navy electronic warfare is not aircraft but personnel -- and the people he's most short of are not the pilots to fly the planes but the maintainers to keep them flight-worthy. The personnel shortfall is "90 percent support," not pilots, he told AOL Defense. In fact, the fleet is so feverishly retraining Prowler mechanics to work on the Growler that Middleton's unit has hired 202 contractors from L-3 to work on its remaining Prowlers.

So the alternate headline could be:

Navy's Move To Growler undermanned; shortfall Reflects Growler Doubts

oh.

So in short, If the author could refrain from jumping to conclusions without presenting evidence, that is Bill Sweetman's M/O and he probably hates scabs. However, even poor slow Bill Sweetman knows that if it aint F-35 related, it just aint news. so the headline can't be "navy gets more growlers" it has to be "Navy gets growlers because it doesn't love the F-35. Team Jacob 4 ever <3"

And on that note, Maus92 do you ever bother to read this stuff before you post here? Or do you just see something negative about the F-35 and just knee jerk post it? I'm waiting for you to include some anti F-35 Facebook posts.

Also I thought that an equipped growler couldn't break the sound barrier?

Quick! someone tell the Navy stealth doesn't work and they can quit building ugly ships with stealth features now.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Navy's Move To Growler 70% Complete; Build-Up Reflects Stealth Doubts

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. / AOL Defense / 15NOV

"WHIDBEY ISLAND, WASHINGTON: "Every two weeks, we get another Growler," Cmdr. Christopher Middleton said at the Navy's electronic warfare hub here. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. And it's those Growler aircraft that will be the cutting edge of future Naval strikes against future "anti-access area denial" defenses like those being built by China."

"To break through such defenses, the Navy is very publicly working on a joint "AirSea Battle" concept with the Air Force, but the two services have taken8 starkly different approaches to defeating enemy radar."

"Navy leaders have long been skeptical of stealth, and for good reason. Stealth certainly shrinks an aircraft's radar return, but it cannot eliminate it. And because Moore's Law doubles available computing power every 18 months, radar systems just keep getting ever better at detecting the subtle clues of a stealth plane's presence. From a Navy perspective, the only sure way to keep a radar from seeing you is to jam it -- and then, ideally, to blow it up."

More|

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/15/navys ... stealth-d/

Maus, you would probably want to distinguish between what Cmdr.,Middleton quoted and what Author Freedburg believes. Putting everything in " .." in the above post attributes statements to Cmdr.,Middleton that he did not make.

Hmm, I reread my post, and it contains the proper number/sets of quotes. The outer quotes indicate passages that were taken directly from the referenced article, and within the quoted section, there are quotes from various sources as reported by the author. But it is always best to read the entire article.

Quote:

Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft. The Navy target is to buy 114 EA-18G Growler aircraft.

You proof read that?

Popcorn beat me to it. I have to 2nd that request to clarify the misleading use of quotes.

This article reads as if everything is being said by USN Cmdr Middleton, when in fact most of the wording in this article is the opinion and phrasing written by the journo author, "FREEDBERG"!

So no, the Cmdr did NOT say the USN needs these aircraft to support future strikes against advanced enemies such as China... which one can easily misinterpret as being implied in this article!

That would be a provocative and stupid assertion and suggestion to make in a press release by any Cmdr against another major power today, be it an American Cmdr or PRC Cmdr!

But what the Cmdr in this interview should have reinforced and emphasized, as it was too ambiguous and a bit antagonistic sounding in my view at least, is that the CAPABILITY as a means to maintain levels of DETERRENCE going forward, will be provided by USN's plan to acquire said Growler fleet.

Salute and respects~

maus92 wrote:

Gums wrote:

Salute!

This topic should prolly be on another forum, maus.

I respectfully disagree. The article specifically mentions the F-35, and Navy confidence about the efficacy of the stealth technologies it employs.

Gums wrote:

The USN has not employed a stealth platform in combat, but USAF has seen the effects and capability way back in early 1991. Remember that? I'll guarantee that the nasal radiators would have loved to have F-117's launching HARMs versus their Hornets.

F-117s were often supported by EA-6Bs, and one time when one wasn't, it got shot down. I didn't know that F-117s could fire HARMs....

Part of the reason why the Growler is so important is that its electronics can be updated to counter current threats much faster than new (stealth) shapes and coatings/skins can be introduced (which basically mean a new aircraft.)

What would be really nice is a bunch of CHAMP shooters taking out radars/electronic systems before they have a chance to detect and defend against an attack...

Boeing pays for the trip and we get an article that suggests the Navy is buying all these Growlers because of a need to protect F-35. Never mind the rest of those flying billboards the CSG features called "Super" Hornets. Rolling Eyes

Yeah, electronics are easy to upgrade these days -- it's just software.

And another Whidbey wet dream -- F-35 needs Growler for ARM targeting. C'mon man, where do you guys get this stuff?

So, tell us how many tankers it requires to keep a Growler continuously on-station at -- let's say -- 400 miles from the ship? (For those of you wondering, take your already short-legged F/A-18F, increase its drag index with some funny stuff on the wing tips and some big, fat, juicy ALQ pods under the wings, and then fly it around with only a centerline fuel tank. The answer is a bunch...a whole bunch, because the jet has virtually no TOS at that range. And I'll bet they're lovin dem 'G's down there in Oz too, because they have no range issues to deal with either... Shocked

).

The Navy continues to lay its future at the altar of the past.

quicksilver wrote:

The Navy continues to lay its future at the altar of the past.

We don't believe this new type of ship that carries airplanes is revolutionary; we need more battleships.

count_to_10 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would say I see stealth and jamming as very complimentary technologies really. I think the USAF is just trying to save expense knowing that in theater the Navy will be tasked to support them as needed anyway by the CINC. I doubt the USAF just wants to not jam radars either and I would guess if they had the funding and an airframe suited to it they would have their own such aircraft in service.

Seems to me that jamming often knocks back but not out radar performance which should blend perfectly with stealth in allowing you to close and get the mission done. Stealth reduces the burden on the jamming aircraft and the jamming aircraft reduce the burden on the stealth designs. Seems pretty freaking logical honestly.

I think you could say that they are even multiplicative, rather than additive. The advantage of both together is probably much greater than using either in isolation.

Finally some insightful comments.

Great discussion. Can't add anything to it but have two questions:

1. Why is the military so accommodating to vendors using proprietary systems? It invariably increases costs and requires work-arounds everytime an aircraft is updated.

2. In the early 90's manufacturing and assembly industries pushed the control and automation guys into developing networking and interface standards so they could mix and match their factory automation products. Why so long for UAI?

count_to_10 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

I would say I see stealth and jamming as very complimentary technologies really. I think the USAF is just trying to save expense knowing that in theater the Navy will be tasked to support them as needed anyway by the CINC. I doubt the USAF just wants to not jam radars either and I would guess if they had the funding and an airframe suited to it they would have their own such aircraft in service.

Seems to me that jamming often knocks back but not out radar performance which should blend perfectly with stealth in allowing you to close and get the mission done. Stealth reduces the burden on the jamming aircraft and the jamming aircraft reduce the burden on the stealth designs. Seems pretty freaking logical honestly.

I think you could say that they are even multiplicative, rather than additive. The advantage of both together is probably much greater than using either in isolation.

That is the thing I don't get about the LO criticisms. It is just simple logic really. If you don't have it your cost go up elsewhere for more jamming aircraft, more Anti-radiation missiles, long-range standoff weapons and so on. I am not convinced at all that staying with some obsolete technological platform like the Grippen or Eurofighter saves you a penny in the end unless you cut down the mission definition.

Last edited by strykerxo on Nov 17, 2012 - 12:08 AM; edited 1 time in total

Dare I say it, the Navy has no problem making submarines stealthier and the Zumwalt stealth destroyer. Why do they balk on stealth AC? If what is said about the F-22/35 is true in regards to k/d ratio over legacy AC, then they are worth the price. Who honestly thinks that near tier rivals will not pursue stealth technology.

It used to be the west held the technological edge, while the east had a quantitative edge. The west banked on technology over quantity and it has paid off. Now as the the world changes not only does the west have the technological edge but will have a quantitative edge.

One thing to bear in mind, is that until the FA/XX, the USN will have more non-stealthy aircraft, than stealthy ones. A much greater percentage of the USAF fleet will be stealth, mitigating the need for dedicated stand off jammers.