ECM pod can reduce RCS?

I’m confused on one hand some ppl praise the electronick attack capability of APG 81, but on the other side NGJ should equip F-35…

Next Generation Jammer is a stand-off full spectrum jammer (Increment 1, 2 and 3) program. It’s incorporation on the F-35 was suggested and explored at one point to replace the Prowlers with the USMC to provide essentially the same mission of airborne electronic attack. It was also an option for the USAF if it ever wanted to get back into the business of stand off AEA. It was not something that they were exploring to enable to to better defend itself on offensive strike or counter air missions. You don’t put 3 huge pods on an aircraft, equip them to produce their own power just to make an aircraft more survivable.

That is a totally separate mission area. As the recently retired ACC commander commented, the USAF and USN are happy with their current arrangement where one side invests in the stand off electronic attack capability while the other develops the stand in capability. This will continue through the Penetrating Airborn Electronic Attack program that the USAF has been reported to be working in the classified domain and as FBW mentioned PAEA is a capability mentioned by USAF leadership when it comes to the PCA program. It has also been consistently mentioned with the LRS-B program.

There currently aren’t any plans to equip the F-35 with NGJ. The USAF is studying a PEA capability for the late 2020’s. NGJ will be fielded with Mid-band capability only with low band added in increment 2.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/PSAR/Croxson.pdf

Mid band is where a lot if not most of the immediate threats reside. It was also the weakest link in the legacy systems. The low band pods have been upgraded and were considered good enough for the Navy to seriously consider deferring the current Increment 2 plan and overhauling the legacy pods to save money.

There currently aren’t any plans to equip the F-35 with NGJ. The USAF is studying a PEA capability for the late 2020’s. NGJ will be fielded with Mid-band capability only with low band added in increment 2.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/PSAR/Croxson.pdf

TY

I’m confused on one hand some ppl praise the electronick attack capability of APG 81, but on the other side NGJ should equip F-35…

There currently aren’t any plans to equip the F-35 with NGJ. The USAF is studying a PEA capability for the late 2020’s. NGJ will be fielded with Mid-band capability only with low band added in increment 2.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014/PSAR/Croxson.pdf

I’m confused on one hand some ppl praise the electronick attack capability of APG 81, but on the other side NGJ should equip F-35…

…Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha…the former EW (Beeps and Squeaks) instructor added…terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme…

He is arguing that soldiers should continue practicing their sword fighting skills in case that gunpowder thing doesn’t pan out. :highly_amused:

he is arguing that f-35 level stealth & speed is pike and shot era,
an arquebus gun that merely complement good ole pikes

ECM pod can jamming radar AESA

The poor reliability of the ALQ-99 and frequent failures of the Built-In Test (BIT) have caused crew to fly missions with real faults; the ALQ-99 also interferes with the aircraft’s AESA radar, reduces the top speed of the aircraft and imposes a high workload on the two man crew when employed in the EA-18G Growler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALQ-99
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Jammer

EA18G use ALQ-99 jamming pod and radar APG-79 AESA

Its a false choice. The EW studies currently underway will inform the DOD on the joint need of Electronic attack aircraft and will provide the US Navy the basis for its need for the right number of EA-18G’s to serve both its own needs, but also those of the joint forces. They are expected to be released over the next couple of months. That number, whether it is 160 EA-18 G’s, 180, or 200 does not impact their F-35C, or F-18E/F plans nor does it impact the capability of the Next Generation Air Dominance project which is currently completing its Analysis of Alternatives. There is plenty of support within Congress (which pays for all this) to fund for the higher Growler number, while also funding for more Super Hornets and F-35C’s to match the Navy’s short and long term needs.

The new administration, working closely with the SASC and the HASC will no doubt present a supplemental to the current budget and that is likely to include more aircraft (probably a mix of F-35’s and F-18E/F’s that were left out during conference post election). Additionally, the PB18 budget will be present in March which is also widely expected to increase both readiness and procurement funding for new hardware for the US Navy and the USAF. We could well see the numbers the Congress was in the habit of adding in later through OCO being included in the base budget itself given that all three power centers are republican controlled now.

…Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha…the former EW (Beeps and Squeaks) instructor added…terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme…
He is arguing that soldiers should continue practicing their sword fighting skills in case that gunpowder thing doesn’t pan out

Ahh, you mean that.. For the future, I personally would bet on the beep and squeaks rather than mere RCS reduction any day of the week..

…Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha…the former EW (Beeps and Squeaks) instructor added…terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme…

He is arguing that soldiers should continue practicing their sword fighting skills in case that gunpowder thing doesn’t pan out. :highly_amused:

It was “Beeps and Squeaks” geek whining about his job not being needed because of F-35.

:confused: Care to elaborate?

Having read through all that ^^
I fail to see what the article really want to point out.

It was “Beeps and Squeaks” geek whining about his job not being needed because of F-35.

Being none to fond of F-35, but this article is ridiculous.
Many of those whom work on SH, may find work at F-35 or F-15 prod line, etc.

Being a long time member , i thought you would have noiticed blackadam has a habit of posting awful article as long as those articles support his nationalist agenda.

Having read through all that ^^
I fail to see what the article really want to point out.
That the USN buy a few more SH, or that NASA still rely on RD-180..??

Even if Russia and China are catching on.
The reality is that US has no parity, and will continue with that for decades to come.
They are now upgrading all F-15, which will just supplement capability, for the F-35 fleet.

Being none to fond of F-35, but this article is ridiculous.
Many of those whom work on SH, may find work at F-35 or F-15 prod line, etc.

tealth dilemma: debates heats up over F-35’s radar-evading tech

Spiralling costs and long delays are constant gripes for many critics of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme. Now, there is an added dimension to the debate as a growing number of industry experts begin to question the F-35’s stealth performance and the programme’s effect on US electronic warfare capabilities.

F35 Stealth

From the outset of its development, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was designed to have a low-radar cross section, making it difficult to detect by enemy radar. Just like its stealth predecessors, such as the F-117 Stealth Fighter, it incorporates special radar absorbing materials and internally stowed weapons – helping to reduce its signature.

All this means, in theory, the F-35 can operate in airspace where there is a high threat from anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weapons such as surface-to-air missiles. Proponents of stealth technology point to legacy platforms such as the F-117 and B-2 bomber as proof of its success. Only one stealth aircraft has ever been shot down in the 30 years they have been flying.

But potential adversaries, such as China, are significantly upgrading their A2/AD capabilities with the development of newer radar systems which can detect stealth aircraft. Stealth secrets have also been stolen through espionage. In 2010, Noshir Gowadia, one of the creators of the B-2 bomber, was convicted of giving classified information to China and other countries.

So not only will countries such as China have upgraded radar systems, they will also know how to nullify any advantage that stealth aircraft have.
Protecting non-stealth aircraft with jamming technology

That’s not good news for the US military’s older fleet of aircraft. The US Air Force’s current ‘Teen Series’ jets such as the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 – often designated 4.5-generation aircraft – have very limited stealth characteristics. External fuel tanks and weapons and a lack of radar-absorbing materials means they are highly visible on radar and, thus, vulnerable in A2/AD environments.

If these 4.5-generation aircraft operate in a contested environment where A2/AD weapons are deployed, they will often be supported by aircraft with electronic jamming capabilities. To protect its fleet of F/A-18 aircraft during missions, the US Navy uses Boeing’s EA-18G Growler electronic warfare (EW) aircraft kitted out with advanced radar jamming equipment.
Russian rockets: the US Government’s RD-180 conundrum

With only two years’ worth of rockets left, the US is scrambling to find a non-Russian alternative, but is it too late?

The F-35 is fitted with its own EW capabilities in the form of Northrop Grumman’s AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar system. Advocates of the F-35 programme say a separate jamming aircraft is not needed because of this technology. It can emit frequencies which can confuse and disable Russian anti-aircraft systems such as the advanced S-400, which uses radar to lock onto enemy aircraft.

There are, however, some figures in the US Navy and industry which say the F-35’s stealth and EW capabilities are simply not enough.

After a House Armed Services air and land force subcommittee hearing in March, Rear Admiral Michael Manazir, the US Navy’s director of air warfare, told reporters that the Growler emits more jamming frequencies than the F-35, making it a much more capable EW platform.

A more realistic operational scenario, he said, would be for the Growler to support F-35 missions in a complementary role.

It is an admission that the US Navy is not entirely comfortable with the F-35’s capabilities in A2/AD environments. So much so that in March it was revealed the US Navy included another 22 EA-18G Growlers on its unfunded priorities list for the 2015 fiscal year budget, costing $2.14bn. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said he saw a growing need for the Growler aircraft.

Growler aircraft
A ‘questionable’ capability – cancelling the F-35

For some commentators, the purchase of more Growlers is seen as the US Navy’s “escape hatch” from the unpopular F-35 programme – which has historically received a lukewarm reception from some sections of the service.

And it’s not just in the US Navy where people worry about the F-35’s performance in penetrating advanced air defences. In a May 2014 article for Air & Space Power Journal, a senior USAF officer questioned the F-35’s capabilities and said there were still good reasons to cancel the programme.

“Even if funding were unlimited,” Colonel Michael W. Pietrucha wrote, “reasons still exist for terminating the F-35.”

The former EW instructor added: “Our assumptions about the operational environment, made more than a decade ago, do not match the current reality…The mission of the aircraft – to penetrate the most advanced air defences and drop precision-guided munitions on critical targets of a peer adversary – remains questionable at best.”

An alternative, according to Pietrucha, would be to terminate the air force’s participation in the F-35 programme. Instead, the USAF would maintain a limited amount of F-35As – as a replacement for the retired F-117s – and upgrade older fourth-generation airframes with fifth-generation technology.

Like the US Navy with its Growler aircraft, Pietrucha says the US Air Force should build up its EW aircraft fleet, which has “dwindled” since the retirement of EF-111G and F-4G aircraft twenty years ago. That seems to fall on deaf ears, however, as the air force is planning to reduce its EW capabilities even further with the mothballing of several EC-130 EW aircraft.
Boeing campaigns to restore funding for Growler

Pietrucha’s article couldn’t come at a better time for Lockheed Martin’s rival Boeing. It’s no secret that, behind the scenes, Boeing has been actively lobbying defence officials in order to keep the F/A-18 production line open past 2016. An order for 50 to 100 more Growlers would do just that.
Taranis vs. nEUROn – Europe’s combat drone revolution

A new generation of experimental stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) is under development.

But Boeing has to walk a careful line in its campaign to restore funding for its Growler aircraft, said Amy Butler, senior Pentagon editor at Aviation Week.

“The company has to make the case that without more Growlers, even the stealthiest aircraft in the Pentagon’s fleet are vulnerable to emerging air defences,” she said. “This is a thorny and challenging argument to make as it quickly veers into classified territory.”

“And its Pentagon customer is loath to acknowledge that its multibillion-dollar investment in stealth aircraft could be made vulnerable by comparatively small investment in networked air defences,” she added.

At its current production rate, Boeing’s Super Hornet and Growler production line in St Louis, Missouri, will stop in the third quarter of 2016. According to Boeing, the programme supports 60,000 jobs in the US and accounts for $3bn in annual economic impact.

In May, Boeing celebrated delivering the 100th Growler to the US Navy, a major milestone for the programme. In what may be an allusion to the F-35’s ongoing costs increases and delays, Captain Frank Morley, US Navy F/A-18 and EA-18G programme manager, said the Growler programme was “all on cost and on schedule”.

“We believe there is a compelling case to be made that the navy needs 50 to 100 more aircraft to meet future requirements,” he added.
Investing in more EW aircraft – between a rock and a hard place

Pentagon officials are in an awkward position. If the Pentagon was to invest in more EW aircraft – such as the Growler – it would signal a lack of faith in the F-35’s capability to penetrate enemy airspace. Equally, if it didn’t invest in additional EW capabilities, the lives of F-35 pilots could be at risk with the proliferation of more advanced A2/AD weapons in countries such as China.

The grounding of the entire F-35 fleet at the beginning of July, after an engine fire on an air force F-35A, will only add to concerns. Technical risk is still a significant factor in the F-35 programme and while its ability to fly in contested environments is not likely to affect the delivery schedule, it is a problem which questions the F-35’s fundamental role as a fifth-generation stealth fighter.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featurestealth-dilemma-debates-heats-up-over-f-35s-radar-evading-tech-4332950/

Guys , please resolves your personal conflict with each other through direct messages , alright. The last 3 pages have been a completely waste, since most posts are people nitpicking words and insulting each other without bring up any particular interesting information.It is very tiring and boring for the third party to read.

Lukos… I think you’re happy to have found a funny formula for you only. repeating it over and over again won’t make it more funny for the others.
You write already a lot of BS, it’s tiresome enough. If you repeat stupidities like a parrot, it’s getting ridiculous…

Lukos… Ok I understand know… My god this guy has nothing else to do in his life !!!:highly_amused: a

You actually said that you needed radar or a laser to lock an aircraft. That’s what I corrected you on.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137768-ECM-pod-can-reduce-RCS/page6&p=2344093#post2344093

There is no discussion, only a troll or a dumb or both at the same time ignore that obviously the radar is used to detect, identify and lock the target prior to fire air to air missile.
What you see on movies is not reality.

You actually said that you needed radar or a laser to lock an aircraft. That’s what I corrected you on.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?137768-ECM-pod-can-reduce-RCS/page6&p=2344093#post2344093

So you don’t read the link you post. He didn’t say you needed a radar or laser to lock an aircraft, he wrote that you needed a radar or a laser range finder to measure the range.

It’s not the same.

Nic

no, as HMD has no sensors capable of doing anything else but say its position inside the cockpit, if it can “see” and “lock” something, it is through the sensors on the aircraft (or eventually a missile wired to act as a sensor inside the weapons system)

Technically speaking, isn’t HMD give the missiles angular direction of target? (in case of over shoulder launch where no others sensors could have sense adversary aircraft)

So in the end, no one can find the official source for the alleged “Rafale break Typhoon radar in WVR” incident?. (Yes, i know it a hoax but it must have came from some sources)

Actually, I heard from a guy that the Rafales had a terrible time, and this guy is a mechanic in Luxembourg, which you may note is near France, which obviously makes it pretty legit.