Buying Growlers instead of Lightnings

[lookieloo]

I've got another dumb question.

Assuming that a radar-system can somehow be made sophisticated enough to detect the JSF with any practical effectivness; and given that the F-35 returns only a tiny fraction of radar energy compared to the Growler... does it stand to reason that any jammer made for the F-35 wouldn't need all that much power to be effective?

[quicksilver]

The answer is yes. However, the F-35 will be used to jam for 4th Gen stuff as well as other F-35s.

[hornetfinn]

True. The required jamming power to overcome radar is directly proportional to RCS of the target. So, to jam radar effectively for -30 dB (0.001 m^2) target would require 1/1000 of the power to do the same for 1 m^2 target. Or conversely the radar burn-through range would be reduced to about 3 percent from the original with same jamming power. This is because radar is two-way system while jammer is a one-way system (fourth root vs second root. So the radar would have serious trouble finding a small RCS target if it can also use jamming. A let's say enemy has a big radar which can detect a 1 m^2 target from 600km away without jamming and 300 km away with jamming. A 0.001 m^2 target could be detected about 107 km away without jamming, but only less than 15 km away with jamming. This is assuming the jamming power is constant in both cases and jammer is effective against the radar system. Of course the 0.001 m^2 aircraft could use 1/100 the power the 1 m^2 aircraft would need and it could be detected only at about 30 km away. This means the same jammer could jam more radars at the same time effectively. It's also the reason why APG-81 will likely be extremely effective as a jammer as it will require very little power to suppress radars that target it or other F-35s.

One source: http://www.tscm.com/rcs.pdf

Small RCS is very good by itself, but combined with jamming, it's even better. Of course enemy would know of that activity, but so what? Enemy would not be able to do much with that information.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Wow. Now I see the benefits of Growler plus F-35 being able to shrink even an L-band detection of the F-35 to a few dozen km at best. thanks again for the radar lesson!

[delvo]

First, let’s dispel some myths...

5. EW requires a dedicated controller (aka 2nd crewman) and the F-35 only has one.
Besides obvious improvements in automation, a lot of the control, target classification & designation, etc, can be handled by controllers on the ground. Before you say “Impossible”, the Navy’s own AEA Office is talking about EA from unmanned platforms as being the future. There is an item in the Notional Block 4 update to the F-35 that say “Cooperative EW”, sure sounds like distributed EW control to me.

My first thought in response to this idea was that, if any equipment were to come along that they decided was important enough and needed a second crew member to run it (I'd think not jamming here but local control of an accompanying drone swarm), models A and C can have another seat added without needing to do anything radical to the plane's design, just some loss of internal fuel capacity. But then I remembered that USAF is already working on something that can roughly be described as mostly F-35 technology in a different shape & size with more room, which will end up being called "B-3". So they'll have very little reason to be interested in a 2-seat fighter, and even if the Navy wanted the 2-seat option, the fact that they'd be alone in that would make them less likely to get it. Not that it matters much in this case, since whatever that hypothetical future equipment might be, it isn't NGJ...

2. Potential for just a single pod.
Because they can be smaller on the F-35 there is a distinct possibility that a single, centerline pod can handle all the bands needed for the strike package. This will reduce drag and increase the range of any F-35.

Do Big Bugs even have an equivalent spot, where they could mount an external electronic gizmo without occupying a weapon station?

[spazsinbad]

Edited Graphic from 'hornetfinn' link previous page: http://www.terma.com/media/199692/terma ... y_2012.pdf (1.2Mb)

[spazsinbad]

Have been meaning to find this post and here it is earlier.... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=19135&p=223304&hilit=Generation#p223304

IN FOCUS: US Navy Next Generation Jammer proceeds, but F-35 integration deferred indefinitely 11 May 2012 Dave Majumdar Washington DC Flight Global

"...It is still an open question as to whether the NGJ will be integrated onto the F-35. Analysis has shown that it will be costly to integrate the new pods onto the stealthy fifth-generation jet, Green says. "Some of the preliminary numbers that we had for integration on the F-35-these were not small numbers," he says. "With the budget challenges that we have, it was decided that we would really take a singular approach right now with the Growler."

It will be several years before the USN takes another look at integrating the NGJ onto the F-35, Green says. That is because of the sheer cost of integration. In fact, when that might happen is anyone's guess.

"Depending upon the capacity that we need in airborne electronic attack, it is conceivable that we would stay with the Growler and not even look at a second platform until late into the next decade," Green says...."

SOURCE: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ly-371742/

[bring_it_on]

I don't think anyone apart from perhaps the USMC requires a NGJ capacity on the F-35, at least not in the medium term. The USN has the growler and wont get full NGJ capacity till the mid 2020's..In that time frame they would/should be in the advanced stages of at least knowing what the Super Hornet replacement will look like. Lockheed has submitted a modified F-35 as a cheaper alternative to its full on 6th gen designs. Thats the platform for the NGJ...

The answer is yes. However, the F-35 will be used to jam for 4th Gen stuff as well as other F-35s.

If the higher capacity air defense systems are an issue (S400+++ etc) then you do not need the size or a wide band approach to jamming as you would from the NGJ which is a dedicated penetrating jammer for support. The F-35 already has powerful X band jamming and perhaps some other EW tricks that we don't know about. You can pick the higher bands you want the aircraft protected against and can develop an integrated solution (Bill Sweetman has suggested (on another forum) that Northrop Grumman has an active GaN based solution for the F-35)..Your jammers needn't be as large or as big to get the work done, but then we have to assume that the services actually do see the threat from the same angle the author BS sees it as (which i doubt) or chooses to approach the threat with "his solution". I have always been in favour of a NGJ_Lite for the F-35 that is mounted on the Multi Mission Pod..You do not need the range or intensity of jamming that the NGJ provides, or need to equip every F-35 with such a pod..

Having said all this, the Air force is likely to look at the A2AD threat and respond to it in an integrated manner as they have always done. The F-35 is just one piece of the solution, you have other assets with varying roles that complement it. Programs such as the LRS_B, ISR assets, other classified systems etc etc etc

Such radars are freaking huge, and expensive..and tackling them needn't require a solution that needs fitting on thousands of fighters..Its hardly a surprise that new threats from A2AD are covering new radar frequencies etc..Why else do we have programs such as the NGJ, LRS_B ?

[maus92]

In a related event:

HASC Endorses 2 Super Hornets Per Month, Wants Black Hawk Plan
May. 7, 2014 - 08:14PM | By JOHN T. BENNETT | Defense News

"...The House Armed Services Committee began its markup of the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act by approving several en bloc amendment packages. Included was one offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., that “encourages” the Navy to use advanced procurement dollars to build at least two Boeing Super Hornets per month.

Hartzler’s amendment does not require the Navy to do anything. Rather, it “encourages the chief of naval operations to utilize the advanced procurement funds for F/A-18E/F aircraft in [fiscal 2014] ($75 million) to extend the production line to a minimum production rate of two aircraft per month.”

The amendment notes that monthly rate would ensure a strike fighter aircraft production line “is in place for future procurement.” Boeing builds the Super Hornets at a production facility in Hartzler’s home state of Missouri..."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Hawk-Plan

This is another step to ensure the production line stays open beyond 2016.

[Corsair1963]

In a related event:

HASC Endorses 2 Super Hornets Per Month, Wants Black Hawk Plan
May. 7, 2014 - 08:14PM | By JOHN T. BENNETT | Defense News

"...The House Armed Services Committee began its markup of the fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act by approving several en bloc amendment packages. Included was one offered by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., that “encourages” the Navy to use advanced procurement dollars to build at least two Boeing Super Hornets per month.

Hartzler’s amendment does not require the Navy to do anything. Rather, it “encourages the chief of naval operations to utilize the advanced procurement funds for F/A-18E/F aircraft in [fiscal 2014] ($75 million) to extend the production line to a minimum production rate of two aircraft per month.”

The amendment notes that monthly rate would ensure a strike fighter aircraft production line “is in place for future procurement.” Boeing builds the Super Hornets at a production facility in Hartzler’s home state of Missouri..."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Hawk-Plan

This is another step to ensure the production line stays open beyond 2016.

Still has to pass the US Senate and get the President to sign it. So, it's hardly over...........

[quicksilver]

No, guys. No...

"Endorse" is just the editor's words. "Encourage..." is just happy talk from the Committee. It funds nothing, nor directs anybody to do anything. Essentially it says, 'we like the idea but we're not going to spend any money on it, nor compel others to do so." Gets certain committee members off the hook with a "we gave it a shot, but..."

There are many spin cycles to go before this comes out of the wash in conference later this year. However, this is a huge disappointment for Boeing. Navy UPL was 22 -- they got NOTHING, nadda, zip, zero, zed from the HASC.

Nothing, folks...nothing.

[lookieloo]

No, guys. No...

"Endorse" is just the editor's words. "Encourage..." is just happy talk from the Committee. It funds nothing, nor directs anybody to do anything. Essentially it says, 'we like the idea but we're not going to spend any money on it, nor compel others to do so." Gets certain committee members off the hook with a "we gave it a shot, but..."

There are many spin cycles to go before this comes out of the wash in conference later this year. However, this is a huge disappointment for Boeing. Navy UPL was 22 -- they got NOTHING, nadda, zip, zero, zed from the HASC.

Nothing, folks...nothing.

I thought they at least got five.

[quicksilver]

The 5 aircraft idea was pulled from consideration because they didn't have the votes.

Instead of aircraft, they got "encouragement."

[maus92]

No, guys. No...

"Endorse" is just the editor's words. "Encourage..." is just happy talk from the Committee. It funds nothing, nor directs anybody to do anything. Essentially it says, 'we like the idea but we're not going to spend any money on it, nor compel others to do so." Gets certain committee members off the hook with a "we gave it a shot, but..."

There are many spin cycles to go before this comes out of the wash in conference later this year. However, this is a huge disappointment for Boeing. Navy UPL was 22 -- they got NOTHING, nadda, zip, zero, zed from the HASC.

Nothing, folks...nothing.

They got five Growlers.

House Adds 5 Growlers, Amphib to Defense Budget
By Kris Osborn Thursday, May 8th, 2014 3:56 pm
Posted in Air, Naval

"The House Armed Services Committee added funding to the 2015 defense budget for five EA-18G Growler aircraft, a new amphibious assault ship and the refueling of an eleventh aircraft carrier for the Navy.

The HASC’s full-committee mark-up of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act adds $450 million to the legislation for production of five new Growler aircraft even though the Navy’s unfunded priorities list asked for as many as 22 new Growlers."

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/05/08/house ... se-budget/

This amendment was also passed enbloc:

"EA-18G Stretch
The Committee understands and supports the Department of the Navy's requirement for
additional airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft; based on the Department's
Congressional testimony and formal war fighting campaign analysis. Controlling the
electromagnetic spectmm is paramount to strike capability in future contested
environments. The EA-18G Growler provides full spectmm capabilities for the Navy and
Joint Forces. However, the Department insufficiently funded the Growler requirement,
threatening shutdown of the manufacturing line. In concert with the procurement of 5
Growlers in FY15, the Committee encourages the Chief ofNaval Operations to utilize the
Advanced Procurement funds for F/A-18 E/F aircraft in FY14 ($75 million) to extend the
production line to a minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. This extended
production will ensure an AEA manufacturing line is in place for future
procurement. The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to brief the House
Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2014 on the ability to extend the
production line to a minimum production rate of 2 aircraft per month. The Committee
urges the Navy to provide the necessary funds to fulfill its AEA requirement in Fiscal
Year 2016, and if needed, beyond."

You are right in that the fight for more Growlers and Super Hornets is far from over.

[quicksilver]

Yep, I stand corrected. Read the full language from the official docs this afternoon...

5 were added in the Chairman's mark earlier, which the full Committee sustained on Weds. There was an attempt to add more (another 5) in another amendment that was pulled because they didn't have the votes.