Forum: Technology

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

We know the G/H performance, What If We Install The Raptor's AESA Radar, or the F-35's AESA RADAR or another AESA RADAR on It and we program a Trio or Quartet of G/H to Orbit on the designated Area (a powerful on board computer would be required to develop to not saturate the data-link with excessive data).

If the USAF/NAVY start to work on the IDEA (somewhere I read that Israel is working on something alike,and Russia also -we know that Russia supposed to develop anything, but usually is a SCAM-), it maybe operative much earlier than the canceled E-10 was supposed to be.

Advantages: less cost, more endurance, no crews to cry if a new AAA is developed and can down it (the UAV maybe loaded with AMRAAM for self-defense plus advanced decoys/dircm).

Disadvantages: multiple planes required to do the work of one, Battle Command&Control would require another plane or a land base, or a very capable satellite data-link or something like the quantum-tunnel datalink -currently only a theoretical device, supossed possible to be built and capable to do over ligthspeed data interfaces from one side to another side of the universe, no matter what is between-.

This is maybe look alike an advanced development of the Russian Idea to use the Su-35MK as AWACS for less capable (or forward) planes, but can do the work.

The major obstacle maybe the way the commands develop their tactics/strategies by using this approach they would need to re-develope some war tactics.

F-16.net Sponsor

VMF-214 wrote:

Advantages: less cost, more endurance, no crews to cry if a new AAA is developed and can down it (the UAV maybe loaded with AMRAAM for self-defense plus advanced decoys/dircm).

Less cost? The G/H program is already topping $10 Billion. How little money do you think they can do this AESA plan for?
I don't know enough about antenna size, and aircraft power, but I do know that G/H is WAY underpowered (generators, not engine power). Doing this AESA-concept means you'll have a bunch of G/H's that are AESA-only. There's just not enough power to run SIGINT and/or electro-optical sensors. Are you going to buy a fleet of aircraft that currently run $80M - $100M each, and tell congress and the military that it can only carry AESA? And you need 3 or 4 of them flying around together to work?
I thought the original concept with the E-10 using two G/H's to extend it's coverage, relied on the E-10's huge radar.

AAA defense: news flash, but there are a gazillion ways to attack G/H and shoot it down with surface-to-air and air-to-air assets. Remember, too, that Block 20 G/H and beyond is a much bigger and heavier jet, albeit with the same engine. That means reduced range AND altitude than the current "small" G/H's that fly. Did I mention that when it flies lower, it is less effective?

Crews don't cry about the potential to get shot down. However, try telling folks that you're going to fly G/H into a high threat area, but "don't worry, it's only a disposable UAV". $100M disposable.

AMRAAM? Towed decoys? Tack those on and you've got further degradation of capabilities in altitude, duration, and physical space on the aircraft. Will the G/H operator have enough S.A. to be able to employ an AMRAAM, even if this could be done? The criteria nowdays for when a pilot can shoot something is very complex. To do that on an aircraft like G/H would be a huge challenge.
Right now, G/H is an unarmed aircraft. The political implications of flying G/H completely change once you put offensive weapons and towed decoys onboard. Would our "middle eastern allies" allow us to fly the G/H if it was configured with AMRAAM?

G/H is a waste of money. It was a technology demonstrator that should have never been brought into production. It didn't meet spec. And when it didn't, the specs were rewritten. The cost overruns will continue to get worse. The date of the last G/H getting delivered (2015) will probably slip yet again.
In essence, G/H is a welfare program for Northrop Grumman. The taxpayers should be appalled at what they've paid versus what they're going to get. Two Cents

What a P.O.S.
And it doesn't even look good.

Forum: Technology

IDEA: GlobalHAWKS as AWACS replacement