F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants
is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile.

The Navy doesn't look like it really starts the AARGM-ER quantity ramp until 2026 so 2028
doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

Yes, AARGM can target an emitter just with GPS coordinates.

SiAW is retaining the ARH capability of AARGM-ER though they might be able simplify
the passive RF stack since F-35 and B-21 have exquisite ESM and don't need
AARGM to operate on-rail as an emitter detector/tracker.

My question has more to do with the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 than whether AARGM or AARGM-ER can use GPS coordinates to hit a target. And can you do it with a one ship relatively quickly or do you need to fuse the emitter info from more than one F-35?

More about different training roles in TOPGUN for different personnel which was news to me - good info to read it all.

TOPGUN’s Impact September 2019 Proceedings Magazine Vol. 145/9/1,399
By Commander Christopher “Pops” Papaioanu, U.S. Navy, and Mr. Brad Elward

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... uns-impact

... Tactics development and combat systems capabilities go hand-in-hand. The greater the comparative advantage in combat systems capabilities, the less complex fighter tactics need to be, and, as a result, the more effective average fighter aircrew will be. The Navy’s current combat systems are relatively equal to those of our peer adversaries, so fighter tactics have become more complex to ensure they remain effective. This has reached a point where there is growing concern within TOPGUN that fighter aircrew are being asked to do too much. As new capabilities, including the F-35 B and C, are integrated into the Navy–Marine Corps fighter community, TOPGUN will look for opportunities to simplify tactics. As naval aviation adapts from operating in a permissive, counterinsurgency environment to a nonpermissive, high-end fight, TOPGUN’s role in defining the training to go along with this shift will be significant. ...

Very interesting article, amazing how many successful spin-offs and approaches it created.

A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile. ...

You're forgetting this sensor:

Australia Signs Contract With Kongsberg To Integrate RF Sensor In Joint Strike Missile

Australianaviation.com.au April 7, 2017

Kongsberg Defence Systems has entered into a contract with Defence for the integration of a new capability in the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) worth the equivalent of $23 million. The unique, state-of-the-art radio frequency (RF) seeker sensor developed by BAE Systems Australia will enable the JSM to locate targets on the basis of their electronic signature, Kongsberg said in a statement. ... “The company will provide a low-cost, lightweight and highly sensitive electronic support measure receiver for incorporation on JSM, which will feature an additional land attack and littoral attack capability, as well as a two-way communications line for target adjustment and inflight termination,” BAE Systems stated. [i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs] ...

https://australianaviation.com.au/2017/ ... e-missile/

I take the points about speed and retaining ARH capability.

A subsonic cruise missile that can't find targets in all weather or in the presence of obscurants is not a great choice for a reactive SEAD weapon where the emitters are mobile. ...

You're forgetting this sensor:

Australia Signs Contract With Kongsberg To Integrate RF Sensor In Joint Strike Missile

I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.

My question has more to do with the geolocation capabilities of the AN/ASQ-239 than whether AARGM or AARGM-ER can use GPS coordinates to hit a target. And can you do it with a one ship relatively quickly or do you need to fuse the emitter info from more than one F-35?

I get the impression that single ship geolocation even with small baseline interferometers is
on the order of many tens of seconds typically into the minutes.

For (I think) a two-ship T/FDOA, the AT3 goals were a 50 m CEP against an emitter
at 50 nautical in less than 10 seconds. I think they got close and some of AT3 ended up on
the latest HTS R7+ revs.

So HARM HSCM and AARGM/ER can both take the GPS target coordinates (really an ellipse)
inferred from the geolocation techniques. And then you need a seeker to search the error ellipse
or submunitions that can cover it. Which brings the Air Force to SiAW.

I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.

Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]

JSM has ESM and a two-way datalink, so can provide ESM data input back to theater-level F-35 coverage, which fuses ESM contact geolocation data, then cues the nearest SAR and EOTS to find the emitter and confirm classification, PID and precise location, then updates JSM with PID precision target location. If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data (SAR, EOTS or even DAS), and JSM homes using F-35-derived data and isn't reliant on its own IR sensor and on a target's radar being active.

It's effectively got virtual multi-spectral target sensor input from any sensor or platform that can still see and track that target.

I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.

Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]

If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data

Which in the conditions described above (where IIR isn't useful) will require the F-35 to emit.
Probably continuously both in a SAR/GMTI sense and for in-flight target updates for the weapon
since the weapon time of flight is long and its seeker acquisition range is going to be greatly
reduced by conditions.

This is a not what you want to do in an air defense environment that required AARGM-ER in the first place.

I'm not since that doesn't help you counter emitter shutdown under conditions that degrade the IIR seeker.

Why I wrote:

[i.e. missile is not limited to its own sensor inputs]

If it shuts down or moves, the F-35 updates with target-grade moving-target data

Which in the conditions described above (where IIR isn't useful) will require the F-35 to emit. ...This is a not what you want to do in an air defense environment that required AARGM-ER in the first place.

Is it required?

I'm going to do it:

(1) Tactical EA that's second to none.
(2) MADL for most of the comms involved.
(3) The radar is LPD so let's test it out.
(4) F-15C could not radar-lock an F-22A when visual, F-35 is smaller with better VLO tech, so I'm confident S400 is not going to maintain lock.
(5) I can optimize aspect.
(6) I can use the radius I want once I've found and IDed the target (guided by MDF cue re detection radius).
(7) I have CMs.
(8) I have a towed decoy.
(9) I can dive at the ground to drag a missile down and rely on GCAS to miss the dirt, then terrain mask, using SAR mapping to find the nearest intervening radar shadow.
(10) Once trashed, pop-up to update the JSM, or someone further out can do it.

Risk is low and managed, not so much for the target.

It would seem that on and hunter-killer mission you would want to go in with a lot of options in the tool belt - both AARGM-ER and Storm Breaker. Growler and MALD-X are options tool

The F-35 gets you a lot close to the emitter than a fourth gen aircraft. My question was mainly about the accuracy of ESM geolocation - single ship and multi ship - two or four. A 50 m CEP after 10 sec doesn't sound like it would be enough for AARGM-ER. But does it improve with a four ship? What does it look like after 30 second? If the emitter shuts down, will the F-35 have enough data to shoot AARGM-ER or will it need to cue other sensors like EOTS and radar?

How much of these functions happen in the background without pilot intervention? If the electronic warfare system identifies an emitter will it automatically cue the radar to try and get a more accurate location?

RE: Tailhook.

I am wondering whether the gaps in transitioning squadrons is due to a lack of airframes. From the chart OPNAV showed it appears that each CVW will have a squadron of F-35s by 2030. They will the start adding a second F-35 squadron thereafter, which is weird because a buy of 260/270 does not support two F-35 squadrons per CVW.

NGAD procurement starts in 2031. That's kind of soon for a new program. It must be a mod to an existing fighter or the schedule will slip.

The Marine F-35 program manager mentioned more integration with big deck carriers due to the new commandant's change of course. Does this mean Bs or do the Marines trade B airframes for Cs? I'd do the latter.

...RE: Tailhook.
I am wondering whether the gaps in transitioning squadrons is due to a lack of airframes. From the chart OPNAV showed it appears that each CVW will have a squadron of F-35s by 2030. They will the start adding a second F-35 squadron thereafter, which is weird because a buy of 260/270 does not support two F-35 squadrons per CVW....

...The Marine F-35 program manager mentioned more integration with big deck carriers due to the new commandant's change of course. Does this mean Bs or do the Marines trade B airframes for Cs? I'd do the latter.

Latest SAR and several news reports state: "...the Department of Navy (DoN) decision to continue to procure a total [USN & USMC] of 340 F-35C aircraft...." download/file.php?id=27020

Recently there was hoohaa about only ONE CVN being able to operate F-35Cs - not just allow deck quals or F-35C testing. Not even USS Ford has all the gubbins (secure spaces, modified JBDs etc.) because decision to 'save money' during the build. then modify the FORD for the F-35C later. I do not see the USMC changing their F-35C buy because they have already changed it with no talk otherwise. Offhand I don't recall the number of USMC CVN F-35C squadrons. From same source: "...USMC variant mixture change between the F-35B and F-35C (13 additional F-35Bs and 13 less F-35Cs)…"

A 50 m CEP after 10 sec doesn't sound like it would be enough for AARGM-ER.
[/blain]

Do you have a basis for this? Back of the envelope suggests the entire area is within the beamwidth of AARGM
at a fairly long slant range (with reasonable assumptions about power at 94 GHz). Given typical range resolution
reqs for IADS targets, I don't think this search area imposes excessive scan rate, integration time or
airframe maneuverability reqs.

But does it improve with a four ship? What does it look like after 30 second? If the emitter shuts down, will the F-35 have enough data to shoot AARGM-ER or will it need to cue other sensors like EOTS and radar?

After 20 seconds, a two ship can get the CEP down to around 25 m. In reality, we are talking about error
ellipses so area is the better metric. TDOA and FDOA both like more receivers so accuracy can improve but it
also improves the probability that pairs in the four ship flight are at the desired geometries for the collection
techniques e.g. TDOA wants receivers on different bearings but FDOA wants receivers at different velocities.

Ultimately, It comes back to what sort of target location error AARGM can tolerate.
You may need to cue other sensors but SAR/GMTI can require different collection geometries
and aren't necessarily quick and conditions may not permit EOTS.

Ideally, they'll add the weapons data link to AARGM-ER/SiAW.