JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

[brar_w]

[brar_w]

F-35C shines in first carrier trials aboard carrier Nimitz

After 10 days of sea trials here, the differences between the F-35C Lightning II and its predecessors are becoming readily apparent as the plane is launched, trapped and maneuvered topside.

Sailors who got the opportunity to work with the next generation strike fighter said the F-35C has attributes that aren't found elsewhere in the airwing. It has a smoother ride, it's easier to taxi, and it has less complicated landing procedures. In many ways, it does a lot of the heavy lifting itself and takes work away from sailors.

"It's truly an administrative task," said Cmdr. Tony Wilson, the lead test pilot for the F-35C, in an interview Nov. 13 as the 10 day testing wrapped up. Pilots and flight deck crews found the more compact plane easier to fly and maneuver aboard ship, good attributes for an aircraft that's seen many delays and is now slated for a 2018 fleet introduction.

The stealth fighter handles well and its control system cuts the pilot's workload, he said.

The most stressful task in carrier-based aviation — the landing — has been simplified with the delta flight path, a program that partially automates the approach and adjusts the plane's trajectory just seconds before the aircraft reaches the flight deck. This system allows pilots to focus more on other aspects of flying, Wilson said.

"It's going to make landing on the boat a routine task," he said. "This makes it fun," he later added.

Compared to legacy aircraft, the F-35C has a more graceful approach, said Lt. Chris Karapostoles, a landing signal officer assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23.

Compared to the F/A-18 Super Hornet, also known in aviation circles as the Rhino, the F-35C can adjust its approach faster and smoother, making it more likely to hit the three wire — the ideal landing, Karapostoles said.

'Nothing scary'

Karapostoles' job is to monitor aircraft as they fly in for a landing. Along the way he helps pilots adjust their course, and, if necessary, he waves off landings because of unsafe conditions or a bad approach. The goal is to land aircraft as safely and quickly as possible.

So far there haven't been any wave-offs for a bad approach, but there were a few due to wind and deck motion. It was "nothing scary," Karapostoles said.

One touch-and-go, however, didn't go as well as hoped, officials said. The maneuver was supposed to simulate an approach to a landing, but the aircraft hit the deck too far forward. Had it been a real landing rather than a simulation, the plane's tailhook would have missed the arresting gear, resulting in a bolter where the pilot quickly lifts back off the deck and circles around the carrier to set up for a second attempt, Karapostoles said.

Otherwise the plane has consistently caught the three wire, he said. The three wire is one of four arresting cables on the Nimitz's flight deck and is the preferred landing zone.

The F-35C test pilots have made approximately 100 traps on the Nimitz, and the three wire was caught so many times that the metal cable had to be replaced. The one wire, the cable furthest aft on the flight deck, hadn't been used at all, Wilson said.

"We've been beating up the three wire," he said.

When it snags that wire, pilots have a softer landing in the F-35C than what they're used to in legacy aircraft, Wilson said.

Sailors on the flight deck will notice a few changes as well.

Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1st Class (SW/AW) Matt Beilke said the F-35C isn't as long as F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets. On a flight deck and hangar where there are dozens of aircraft, every inch counts and this compact size makes it easier to move aircraft around tight spaces

"The F-35 turns easier," Beilke said. "On the deck it turns on a dime."

Also, it doesn't have to power up as much as legacy aircraft, so there's less hot exhaust on the flight deck, making it a safer environment.

But Beilke also said he can't give a full picture of how well the F-35C will perform in topside maneuvers. Only two F-35Cs and a few other aircraft were on board for the testing. Things might be different when there's a full air wing on board, he said.

He said the F-35C was as loud as other aircraft in the wing, and there didn't seem to be any differences on the flight deck with the one-engine F-35C compared to the two-engine Hornet and Super Hornet.

The test sensors added to the aircraft for flight testing made it a little harder to chain to F-35C and aircraft handlers had to avoid bumping any sensors, he said. Those test sensors will be removed by the time the aircraft hits the fleet. Once that happens, he'll be able to tie up the plane just like he ties up legacy aircraft, he said.

Besides the two-F-35Cs, there were two other new pieces of hardware on the flight deck. Lawnmower-sized generators were brought on board and positioned near the island. Carriers are wired for a 115-volt system to power equipment on legacy aircraft while the F-35C requires a 270-volt system. The generators were put on the deck to provide this alternate voltage.

Officials said that the generators will only be used for carrier tests, and the Navy is adding 270-volt power to carriers during planned availabilities. After receiving the upgrades, carriers will have both 115- and 270-volt systems.

"Ships will be modified," said Jim Gigliotti, the director for F-35C and Navy program manager for Lockheed Martin.

The F-35C made its first carrier trap on Nov. 3. and two of the next-generation aircraft are on the Nimitz for a series of tests. Most of the evaluations focus on catapult launches and landings, and as of Nov. 13 the test team was slightly ahead of schedule and was preparing for the plane's first carrier based launches and recoveries at night.

Future carrier integration tests will evaluate how the F-35C performs with weapons in its bomb bay and with weapons attached underneath its wings.

The Navy plans to purchase 260 F-35Cs to replace aging F/A-18A-D Hornets. The Marine Corps wants 63 F-35Cs for its carrier-based fighter squadrons.

The F-35C is expected to reach initial operating capability in August 2018. By that point the Navy plans to stand up an operational squadron with 10 F-35Cs and trained pilots.

[brar_w]

Final tally of the DT1 Phase trials are out :

The initial sea trials of the F-35C wrapped up on 14 November 2014. The trials ended with pilots in F35C test aircraft CF-3 and CF-5 performing 124 arrested landings; 222 touch-and-goes; two bolters, both intentional for test purposes; and 124 catapult launches on thirty-two flights covering 38.6 flight hours.

A comprehensive gallery of the at ship trials:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=2

-----------

Earlier Today, The Pentagon announced the financial terms of the LRIP Block 8 contract. The LRIP block 8 is not an incremental production block (production has not significantly increased from LRIP Lot 7 as it takes place every other block). The Lockheed portion of the contract (Lockheed delivers completely built F-35 minus the engine, but including all the key systems and sub systems) breaks down to 95 Million for the Alpha, 102 Million for the Beach, and 116 Million for the Charlie. These are Recurring item fly-away cost and include the 500 million or so paid earlier for the long lead items for the same batch. The overall contract is for 29 US aircraft (A mix primary of A's and B's) and 14 aircraft for 5 international partners. All customers pay the same JPO negotiated price for the same variant. Overall, despite of a flat production compared to LRIP the cost of the aircraft minus the engine has fallen by 3.5%, with the Alpha version being closer to 4% lower in cost over LRIP7.

The next production bump is going to be in the next negotiated contract (LRIP9) about which we should hear this time next year.

[NRao]

CF-18 modernization could set the stage for a Canadian F-35 purchase

[NRao]

Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea

There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well.

How well? For starters, the two weeks of scheduled tests were completed three days early with 100% of threshold test points accomplished. For the first time ever, a new carrier-based aircraft conducted night operations during its initial round of testing at sea — operations that are usually performed in later rounds. As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test.

As the Navy news release put it, “The aircraft demonstrated exceptional performance throughout its initial sea trials.” Two follow-on sets of tests are scheduled in 2015 and 2016, but the Navy can now be confident that the F-35C will be ready for its first scheduled fielding with the fleet in 2018.

When these features are combined with the speed and maneuverability afforded by Pratt & Whitney’s revolutionary F135 engine, the result is what military experts call a “fifth-generation” fighter.

Nice feature for a turkey to have.

One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the pilot’s perspective.”

[NRao]

Israel lays cornerstone for JSF base

The Israel Air Force has launched the construction of a base for its forthcoming Joint Strike Fighter.

The air force laid the cornerstone for the F-35A base at the Nevatim base near Beersheba. The facility was designed to contain a squadron, or about 25 JSF fighter-jets from Lockheed Martin.

IsraeliJSF“This is a very important event in IAF history,” Nevatim base commander Brig. Gen. Eliyahu Hacohen said. “It strengthens our deterrence.”

The cornerstone ceremony took place in mid-November for a facility that would include simulators for JSF. Officers said the base would also contain hardened aircraft shelter to withstand an enemy attack.

Israel has ordered 19 F-35As in a deal estimated at $2.7 million. The air force has sought to acquire another 31 fifth-generation fighter-jets from Lockheed Martin.

“We call the F-35 project a ‘mega project’ because unlike other projects of its kind, it holds 20 different projects, each with its own constraints,” the air force director of F-35 infrastructure, identified only as Lt. Col.
Lior, said.

Officers said the air force would first construct the squadron and simulator buildings. They said the air force has already nominated a commander of the first JSF squadron, identified as Lt. Col. Yotam.

“It is obvious we’re changing our operational perception,” Yotam said. “The founding team will have to be creative. Laying the cornerstone is an important milestone for this massive project.”

[NRao]

USAF’s F-35 and F-22 jets fly first operational integration training mission

The US Air Force's (USAF) F-22 Raptors and F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighters (JSF) have carried out a joint training mission over the Eglin Training Range, Florida, US.

Involving four F-22 Raptors and F-35A conventional take-off and landing fighters, the trial represented USAF's first operational integration training mission aimed at improving integrated employment of fifth-generation assets and tactics.

During testing, the aircraft jointly flew offensive counter air, defensive counter air and interdiction missions, exploring ways to maximise their fifth-generation capabilities.

Virginia Air National Guard, 149th Fighter Squadron source and F-22 pilot major Steven Frodsham said: "The missions started with basic air-to-air and surface attacks.

"As the training progressed, the missions developed into more advanced escort and defensive counter air fifth-generation integration missions.

"The lessons learned and tactics developed from this training opportunity will help to form the foundation for future growth in our combined fifth-generation fighter tactics."

58th Fighter Squadron commander and F-35 pilot lieutenant colonel Matt Renbarger said: "The F-22 was built to be an air-to-air superiority fighter and the F-35 was built to be a strike fighter.

"These airplanes complement each other and we're trying to learn how to take that from a design perspective into a tactical arena and be the most effective combat team we can be working with the F-22s."

According to the USAF, the training enabled both units to gain operational familiarisation and capture lessons learned to improve future exercises.

The service is planning to team both of the fifth-generation capabilities to efficiently perform missions in future.

In February, Air Combat Command chief general Michael Hostage was quoted by Air Force Times as saying that F-22s will undergo service life extension and modernisation, as they are required to support F-35 fighter.

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant.

"The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22."

[NRao]

First Australian-made vertical tails installed on JSF plane

The first set of vertical tails made by Marand Precision Engineering have been installed on an F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter plane.

Aerospace Manufacturing And Design reports that the components were installed last week on November 13 at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth, Texas manufacturing site.

“We are proud of this incredible milestone for our team and for the work our company has done to establish a unique capability in the field of aerostructures manufacturing,” said Rohan Stocker, Marand’s CEO, in a statement.

“The Marand team has risen to the challenge of doing incredible work thanks to the support from BAE Systems.”

Marand has been subcontracted by BAE Systems to make vertical tails, and this is one of the largest Australian manufacturing projects for the JSF. The delivery of 722 ship sets is planned.

The company also makes engine removal and installation trailers for the JSF program, as the sole global source of these.

[brar_w]

Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter Confounds Critics With Perfect Performance In First Tests At Sea

There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well.

How well? For starters, the two weeks of scheduled tests were completed three days early with 100% of threshold test points accomplished. For the first time ever, a new carrier-based aircraft conducted night operations during its initial round of testing at sea — operations that are usually performed in later rounds. As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test.

As the Navy news release put it, “The aircraft demonstrated exceptional performance throughout its initial sea trials.” Two follow-on sets of tests are scheduled in 2015 and 2016, but the Navy can now be confident that the F-35C will be ready for its first scheduled fielding with the fleet in 2018.

When these features are combined with the speed and maneuverability afforded by Pratt & Whitney’s revolutionary F135 engine, the result is what military experts call a “fifth-generation” fighter.

Nice feature for a turkey to have.

One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the pilot’s perspective.”

The Delta flight path and how the control software has changed carrier aviation (made it much easier to land in tough sea states) according to those flying it were something posted by me a few months ago when the Marines and the Navy pilots talked about it in the long video I posted. It should be on this thread a dozen or so pages back . The F-35 carrier trials are a long time in the making. The much hyped "TAIL HOOK" trouble that was spotted quite early post the F-35C01 rollout, was remedied within 14 months. When bloggers, arm chair experts were busy criticizing lockheed and the JPO for this, the design team was busy finding a fix, developing a solution and implementing it. As the Pilot explained in the video, it took around 18 months from the time the problem was first spotted to the time a design was put on and the first aircraft with the modification rolled out. There was no need to RUSH the Charlie to sea just after 18-20 months because the IOC is not pressured by either of the three trials. It is software dependent. So the US Navy took their time, used the ITT birds to expand the envelope, do weapon releases, High AOA testing (nearly done from what I hear ) and waited for the Gen II helmet to be completely jitter free so they could do Night flights @ DTI rather than wait for DTII. All the time did give plenty of AMMO to the armchair bloggers and those that make their living off of articles that are click bait.

Edit: Here you go : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxe4Jv1cJxI

[NRao]

Talking hooks, long article, so will not quote it:

Redesigned Tailhook Tests Well In F-35 Sea Trials

[NRao]

Less than 3 min vid of the Delta flight path (part of teh vid mentioned by brar_w):

[brar_w]

Less than 3 min vid of the Delta flight path (part of teh vid mentioned by brar_w):

Its funny how the Axe's of the world would never talk about something like this because it doesn't fit their narrative, and doesn't generate clicks. . Or something like this The F-35C test pilots have made approximately 100 traps on the Nimitz, and the three wire was caught so many times that the metal cable had to be replaced. The one wire, the cable furthest aft on the flight deck, hadn't been used at all, Wilson said.
Those who are going to fly this thing day in and day out however, have a more serious task at hand. Incorporating the Charlie into the CAW, has a long long way to go and it won't happen before the early-mid 2020's. IOC in 2018 is just a start. Carrier aviation is tough that is why the Admirals would rather keep upgrading existing and qualified aircraft rather then introduce a new aircraft. The USN despite of sequester is looking at introducing both the F-35 and the UCLASS in the 2020's. Not an easy thing to do.

[NRao]

Axe and others (like this thread) started when the F-35 program was in the dumps. it was an easy pick for criticism. What they failed to do was proper leg work, which anyone could have done.

Bias also played a role: When Gen. Bogdan first took over the project he was very critical and was oft quoted, but when he changed his negative narrative to a positive one the crowd did not follow - the new narrative did not fit their bias, no data points to fit their predictive curve, so quit quoting him!!!!

Finally, the reactive nature played a role. It is normal to compare and evaluate to what we already know. It is much more challenging to wade through what are the advances in technologies and understand them.

[brar_w]

The problem is that historically large programs have had their tough times and times where everything goes to plan. The F-16 was totally like this as well. FBW problems, crashes after crashes and the nickname "Lawndart" stuck around for a while even though it was a borrowed name. Then all of a sudden when GD got a grip of it, they said that the pentagon shook them up and scared them into improving. I see a lot of this here. The program had a ton of technical challenges, they fired a few top managers, hired full time software teams (instead of outsourcing) and the program manager at the JPO did what they could to make it more efficient. As a result these bloggers started talking about how Gen Bogdan brought the program back. Of course he played a vital role, but it was also the hundreds of engineers working at ONR, NAVAIR, LMA, Northrop Grumman, Vision systems, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins, BaE, Rolls Royce, Raytheon etc that were working their a$$ off overtime trying to overcome dozens of challenges that they were presented with.

Even the cost argument has had a shifting goal post. First it was a very high LRIP 1 price. It was 2x or 3x or 4x of a Full rate of production Super Hornet. Then they challenged concurrency, the very model that worked to bring upfront Recurring flyaway cost down on the Viper. Once the concurrency model was battered down, they continued to hammer on about high early LRIP prices. Then came the problem with Concurrency cost. It was too high according to their calculation, and that continued for a few years until it was revealed that concurrency cost was actually 1/3 of what was earlier predicted. Then the trajectory curve started to actually favor the JSF, Costs were coming down and concurrency work became a fixed price contract with the OEM responsible for all undeclared overruns. Now that the cost curve is actually approaching the magical 100 million (combined, with the engine) even before full rate of production (or the highest rate of limited production) has begun, and that the Lockheed promised cost of 85 Million looking doable, they are moving the goal post again claiming that the CAPE said it would cost more than the F-16. The Same CAPE that has revised its Life cycle cost form 1.4 trillion to under 1 trillion (That difference is more then some nations GDP btw ). 5 years from now, when the Marines would have 3-4 years of hard operations data and CAPE further reduces its life cycle estimate, they will switch the argument to something else, or pick another program to report like crazy on. Too bad for these suckers that the LRS-B is being made in secret. I believe, some of them have even wished it was not so (heck with national security) so that they could get drunk and talk about it on Facebook and then get suspended

One thing that continued to get regurgitated, by the crowd and was picked up on a few occasions on this thread as well was the notion that the USN was somehow not receptive to the F-35. Mac does a pretty good job here to deal with that retarded argument

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... -f-35.html

To add to this, the USN was never receptive to PGMs. Heck they still do not have the JASSM stand off missile, but feel the LRASM is what they need going forward (go figure). They were also not receptive on data links until NIFCCA all of a sudden popped up and the heart of that was " data link" pipeline. The problem with the Navy is that the success of the admirals is determined by the number of ships and subs they are able to acquire during their tenure. NAVAIR has practically outsourced all advanced aerial combat development to the USAF. This may change in the next decade, but its clear that its the marines that are really driving innovation at the moment to the frustration of the Pax river folks no doubt.

[NRao]

not to burst your bubble:






JK.

[brar_w]

F-35, ASRAAM and Paveway IV checks..

[brar_w]

Carried over from the Rafale thread:

Brar_w,

The F35 has limited EW coverage as it will use its radar for the job which limits its operational use. I can't say about the T-50.

I have spoken about this issue earlier perhaps half a dozen pages back on this thread. Even the biggest detractors point to the fact that it is unlikely that the F-35 has 360 degree coverage because they do not know the full capability of the Barracuda. Even Bill Sweetsman only guesses this by using the argument that " had they added what was proposed years ago by Northrop, we would have known of it through delays" in one of his articles on the matter.

Bottom line is that the Barracuda, the Electronic warfare suite on the F-35 (not the only EW thing on the F-35) is highly classified and unlike the other systems onboard the aircraft, only a limited amount of information is shared. This isn't much different from the F-22's Electronic warfare suite, which it is an improvement upon which even till this day happens to be the most sophisticated kit on the F-22 according to those that built it (and this coming from a Lockheed PM, for a product that Lockheed did not design). The advantages of clubbing the Apg-81 onto the Barracuda is that you get a potential of using a 1600+ element AESA radar exclusively for jamming if required, or using a portion of it. Regardless, the power you have at your disposal is far greater than what a barracuda can manage on its own unless one proposes a electronics warfare sensor that is the size of the FCR.

Now coming to the point of How the F-35 does things compared to how a 4th gen does thing. The falcon edge is similar to the spectra (though not as advanced). Its most sophisticated version never found its way into the USAF birds due to cost of the upgrade but ultimately got exported on the block 60. It had your traditional 360 degree EW coverage much like the more modern Spectra that exists on the Rafale. The basic problem is then as it is now is to do with the POWER. This brings me back to the question, What is the sort of POWER the Spectra operates with? This is important, as your range, abilities to manipulate and wideband coverage is all dependent on the power you can provide to the Jammer - a law of science. So i can plant an AESA based Electronic warfare suite into an aircraft, but how much power can I provide it? What would be its size, cooling requirement etc. The Rafale comes with a 1200 element AESA. Is the spectra more powerful then the Radar? Of course not, the radar is still the most powerful radiating element in modern fighters and fore good reason (detection and the complexity of doing all the stuff it needs to). So again, i can design a compact AESA based (Gaa or GaN) solution that TRIES to cover a wide bandwidth and is 360degrees but my entire scope of the sensor would be dependent on the power i can provide it. The range of the jamming is again a function of power. Once you have a non-stealthy aircraft, you do not have the luxury of getting closer to the source to jam it. You have to use high power jamming to influence the sensor hence the stand of jamming and hence the dedicated SO jammers in the NGJ with their 180KW of power output covering 3 frequency bands. Now you can get closer and do some very tricky things with precision jamming, but modern IAD's and those being designed now for a 2020+ threat all incorporate passive sensors..How do you expect to get close in the first place? That is the dilemma that has forced literally all designers of combat aircraft to embrace stealth for future threats. All but the Europeans that have a very small domestic market, couldn't agree on one fighter to market and have a very limited export market precisely because they chose to develop a 4.5 generation aircraft at a time when more then a dozen countries around the world are either procuring, developing or planning to design/procure fully stealthy 5 generation platforms. You can mask all you want, but your threat will just keep adding the sensor mix and you'll soon have a dozen or so sensors to deal with all covering a wider EM band and fully passive systems and some even IR based systems. This is important, want to send a non-stealthy package down range into enemy territory that is protected by multiple active and passive sensors covering a huge range of freq. you will require power given that the enemy is using multiple ways to detect you even within the EM spectrum. The USN's solution with the Growler is designed around this very fact, that the frequencies a threat can cover are going to continue to grow and therefore the level of stand off jamming required would need to keep up pace. Remember, it is the USN's responsibility for stand off tactical jamming even for the USAF assets while it is the USAF's responsibility to provide heavy bomber coverage to USN assets on need and most of the cyber falls under USAF as well.

BTW, Northrop grumman have offered gallium nitride solution for the F-35's (I am still looking for the original article form 3 or so years ago but i believe it was by Stephen trimble who reported on it) classified barracuda but much of what the Boeing fans state about the 360 degrees capability is up in the air since no one knows the capability of the Barracuda, or why the USAF bosses are so confident in the F-35's Electronic warfare abilities to go and say NO to the growler even for covering the F-35's. Ultimately, the F-35s needs little jamming to get through, and as time goes by this jamming would be upgraded and added but they have spent a greater part of 2 decades finding an optimal mix of JAMMING and RCS with the B-2, F-22 and F-35 programs (the latter two in particular). Also keep in mind that what we speak of the F-35 is only about the F-35 Block 3F that goes active around the same time India gets the first Rafale (not saying india should buy the JSF but just providing a context), block 4 has a classified element and they will soon begin writing requirements for Block 5. Stealth aircraft start off from a much higher "survivability" and EW upgrades and additions would only enhance that, whereas no stealthy aircraft will only get lower in survivability.

Your understanding of EW is a bit outdated. Raw power is much less relevant for lattest generation defensive EW jammers like Spectra: modifying (or canceling) the returning echo of an hostile radar requires high precision rather than brute force.

I would say it requires BOTH especially considering that the nature of the IAD threat is growing rapidly and the number of elements that one has to deal with now cover both the active and passive EM domain and IR.

More precisely you are mixing offensive jamming (like the growler) which aims to disrupt coms and radars on large areas to allow other aircrafts to survive, with defensive systems like spectra which only aims to protect the fighter jet its embedded with.

When you are dealing with tactical strike missions and getting a strike group to penetrate you have to think "offensive" unless you want to have to deal with each and every element of the IAD on " as it comes" basis. As IAD's advance and link up, your threat is going to spread very wide and as such you have to think strategic and how best to tackle that threat so that you can have your assets penetrate. Almost all designing aircraft for such a level of threat are going in for a mix of both Stealth and jamming with the latter being split into precise, narrow jamming and heavy stand off jamming depending on the need of the mission and the mix of the aircraft in the strike package.

>>Jamming a large areas to allow other fighter jets to fly safely in a combat area requires high power (Prowler, Growler). You need to jam all azimuth which is not very discreet.
>>For defensive jamming for a single aircraft like the rafale you need scalpel precision jamming to generate false returns (speed, location...). Jamming is not all azimuth but focused on the threat (pencil beam jamming) which is more discreet.

And all modern aircraft that have a sophisticated EW suite, or plan to keep it relevant (such as the Gripen is doing NOW) are doing that. You are dealing with a 2020+ threat and by the very nature of the evolving threat your IAD's are exponentially growing in capability. Like I said, all nations facing a threat level similar to the one being designed by the CHINESE are unanimously agreeing upon solutions that incorporate STEALTH..Even the french are doing this, on the next generation platforms. A lack of stealth as a primary design requirement is a major drawback for the rafale in the 2020 timeframe. Of course that doesn't mean it is not a capable platform, but that fact still exists and that is because of the french along with other EU nations decided to take less of a risk and develop 4.5 generation aircraft while those that had the need and the appetite for such risk are going all out with stealth, sensor fusion, electronic warfare etc.

This was what Colin Clark quoted the ACC commander as saying :

...One of the keys to spoofing is, I’ve heard from several operators, being careful to avoid overwhelming the enemy with high-power jamming. That’s another problem with the Growler approach.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,’” Hostage says.

Colin further goes to add:

Combine that information with the kinetic, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35 and we may know why South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia have all recently committed to buy substantial numbers of F-35s, in spite of the aircraft being behind schedule, facing significant technical problems and, of course, being really expensive overall. Several sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations — from government and industry — tell me that each country went in to discussions with the Pentagon with a great deal of skepticism. But once country representatives received the most highly classified briefing — which I hear deals mostly with the plane’s cyber, electronic warfare and stealth capabilities — they all decided to buy.

Quite a different narrative (with a lot of input from the ACC commander who sat face to face) from what Bil Sweetman would paint when he writes an article for a tabloid in which he references his interaction with a Russian_Air defense maker, yet makes absolutely no effort to reach out to Northrop grumman, BAE, Lockheed Martin or any of the ACC folks working in Electronic Warfare or to the USN for a rebuttal or just to get their perspective (or perhaps no one will entertain him fearing a rant one night before the actual sit down )


EDit: Regarding MACE XIII, what aircraft participated exactly? From what I could find it were F-16A/B's, F-18 (classic hornets), F-4 Phantoms and Rafale from the fighters out there.

On SPECTRA:

Quote:
The upgrade will also see a series of improvements to Spectra. Developed by Thales and MBDA, Spectra is a fully automated system that provides electromagnetic detection, laser and missile warning, jamming and four chaff/flare dispensers.

French industry sources say that during operations over Libya in 2011, Rafale literally disappeared from the radar screens of the Libyan air force, performing “soft kills” on enemy radar systems [already related in one of the lastest issue of FOX3].

Bruno Carrara, director of the Rafale program at Thales, says the F3-R upgrade will involve a more advanced electromagnetic detection capability based on new digital wide-band-receiver technologies, improving the suite’s spectrum analysis as well as its instantaneous interception capability.

Thales will also update Spectra’s solid-state jamming subsystem, which was one of the first to use electronically steered phased-array antennas. Carrara says for F3R, Spectra will include more powerful antennas, while further increasing the power supply so that more threats can be jammed simultaneously. Like Saab, Thales will use GaN technology because of its power and efficiency.

Since the late 1990s, Spectra’s designers have dropped hints that the system can perform “active cancellation”—receiving a radar signal and mimicking the aircraft’s echo exactly one-half wavelength out of phase so the radar sees nothing.

Carrara again implies that such a capability is in use: “There are other strategies, such as generating signals that will encompass or be higher than the echo from the aircraft, so that the radar threat will receive a signal that will mask the echo from the aircraft,” Carrara says.

“Instead of creating a false echo and drawing the radar to the wrong place, the idea is to produce a signal that will mask the echo of the aircraft, so the radar will be unable to detect the aircraft Spectra is protecting.”[...]

Expect all to be doing this. Investments in Electronic warfare are plenty in those working with stealth aircraft. In fact some of the largest Electronic warfare investments are being made in the US and perhaps Japan (from what I read about them a few weeks back). You look at what those designing aircraft for a threat that is similar to you are doing. This is about keeping up with a threat in the 2020+ period, and as such what happened against a system designed for the early 2000's is rather irrelevant given that all these nations have pretty much come to the same solution that is EW by itself is not going to carry the day.

[arthuro]

I find the post hardly readable but to things to get into consideration:

-US rely on specialized aircrafts for EW (Prowler, Growler) to let other "classic" fighter jet entering a defended combat or they use their stealth assets.

-France cannot afford to get specialized aircraft for EW and don't have stealth jets yet. For this reason France invests massively in defensive EW to achieve equal survivability. And there is an important reason for this : the rafale is responsible for nuclear strikes and must be able to penetrate sophisticated air defenses. This is a strong operational requirement for french air force which must be able to operate without Nato/US umbrella. Spectra is at the cornerstone of this strong focus on survivability.

Therefore compared to other contemporary fighter jet the rafale has a much more developed defensive EW system. (refer to swiss evaluation for instance)

as for MACE XIII EW Exercise you had Typhoon and Gripen as well.

Last but not lest Spectra is being developed to cope with current and future threats. Not only those of yesterday. It is indeed continuously tested against modern threats.

Spectra is continuously upgraded. Comments from the most renowned rafale specialist (Guillaume Steuer) with Henri Pierre Grolleau in Air International

"The Spectra EW system is an impressive system & always improving, new variant almost every year"

https://twitter.com/g_steuer/status/406059924351762432

[brar_w]

US rely on specialized aircrafts for EW (Prowler, Growler) to let other "classic" fighter jet entering a defended combat or they use their stealth assets

That is only one aspect of EA. The stealth fleet has had electronic attack integrated for a long time. Gone are the days when EA was neglected on stealth jets. You also have to a account that the USAF has programs and investments in place for the penetrative EA missions, something that is not widely spoken about in the media. A growler or a prowler is of no use when there is protection to be provided to a fleet of F-22s or to the B-2. Those challenges have to be tackled differently.

France cannot afford to get specialized aircraft for EW and don't have stealth jets yet. For this reason France invests massively in defensive EW to achieve equal survivability

I understand that. But the threat is different. Is France investing in penetrating the A2AD fence being developed by China? That is the threat the USAF, USN, ROKAF, JASDF and the IAF are looking to penetrate. I am a big supporter of the rafale and absolutely love the aircraft, but it would be highly unlikely that the IAF would use it as a First day strike platform when performing SEAD or DEAD against Chinese A2AD assets in the mid 2020's. That task would fall upon the stealthy T-50s and in the future would be shared between it and the AMCA.

Therefore compared to other contemporary fighter jet the rafale has a much more developed defensive EW system. (refer to swiss evaluation for instance)

Compared to other Contemporary aircraft is the key phrase here. This is not comparing to the survivability of either the T-50 or the AMCA of the future. That was my point. The Rafale may (and probably does) have a better defensive EA suite compared to the phoon, grippen or even the SH. But that hardly makes it an ideal first strike platform for the IAF in a post - PAKFA timeframe.

Last but not Spectra is being developed to cope with current and future threats. Not only those of yesterday. It is indeed continuously tested against modern threats

Thats what would be claimed. If the spectra is all that is required through upgrades why are the NG UCAV's utilizing stealth for penetrative attacks? Why not just develop advanced SPECTRA and not make the compromises that are associated with advanced materials, shaping and the investment in developing stealth? Again its threat specific. France does not have the reason to make investments into fighters that can penetrate CHINA. It isn't going to war with China anytime soon. For the future, they are investing in UCAV's because penetrating against S400 and S500 like systems would be an important mission set in the 2030+ timeframe. Yet for the IAF a first day of war strike platform in the 2020's would require penetrating integrated air defenses that use the entire EM spectrum both in the active and passive domain, elements of the IR spectrum, and systems like the S300, S300+, HQ9, HQ9+, S400 and S400 clones all tied together with modern advanced AESA radars in every conceivable frequency range (C, S, L , X , UHF, VHF etc) with fast computing and processing at the back end. Like I mentioned in the earlier thread, those nations that are also confronting similar threats are all unanimously devising multi-tier strategies that incorporate stealth, sensor fusion, advanced electronic warfare components and cyber.

[brar_w]

November Facts have been released for the JSF program (2014 total as of October 31)

Highlights

* F-35A Flight Science aircraft have flown 183 times (not the fleet just the FS aircraft which are 2 iirc)
* F-35B Flight Science aircraft have completed 288 flights
* F-35C Flight Science aircraft have flown 245 times
* The Mission Systems Test Aircraft have flown 427 times

** Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 23,000 cumulative flight hours.


* 115 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense as of Oct. 21 out of which are 95 LRIP aircraft and ITT aircraft. Out of the LRIP jets the ratio is 49:35:11 (A:B:C)

* Full funding for LRIP Block approved (posted by me and Austin earlier)
* Long lead funding for LRIP 9 ( 57 aircraft) released'

Source : www.f35.com

[arthuro]

I understand that. But the threat is different. Is France investing in penetrating the A2AD fence being developed by China? That is the threat the USAF, USN, ROKAF, JASDF and the IAF are looking to penetrate. I am a big supporter of the rafale and absolutely love the aircraft, but it would be highly unlikely that the IAF would use it as a First day strike platform when performing SEAD or DEAD against Chinese A2AD assets in the mid 2020's. That task would fall upon the stealthy T-50s and in the future would be shared between it and the AMCA.

Brar_w,

The answer is a clear yes. France nuclear deterrence force has China in mind but also Russia or middle East countries.
For instance France invested in new long range ballistic missiles (M51) to be in range of China from northern atlantic.

Trainings do oppose rafales to real modern double digit SAM like S300PMU1 or other very modern western systems France owns like Aster 30, ASER 15 or Crotale NG AA defense systems. It is a completetly wrong assumption that Spectra would only be efficient against yesterdays threats.

It trains against very potent threats as you can see below:






On the above article you can read that even Growlers took part in this exercise. Only the rafale survived to S300 when growlers, typhoon or gripen failed which is a good indicator of spectra's performance and the role of precision jamming vs brute force jamming. This result was reported in A&C weekly and discussed on russian forums:
http://www.russiadefence.net/t2447-mace ... s300#29136

*****

Now don't get me wrong : Spectra nor stealth are a shield of invincibility. Both can be defeated. Rafale pilots use SPECTRA + TACTICS + stand off AtG weapons like AASM. Spectra can locate and identify with high precision the radar envelop of a SAM system well before it can be detected.

So if Spectra detects a concentration of SAM systems it allows the pilot to find another route if required. Then it can strike 6 distinct ground targets simultaneously from more than 50km with AASM whereas the F35 will have to get much closer to drops its JDAM which will compromise its survivability. Take note: 50Km is a range achieve at realistic cruise speed (subsonic) and if supersonic this range would increase. Anyway a propelled AASM will always have far more range and off the shoulder firing abilities than JDAM.

For T50 it will have very limited strike capabilities is stealth mode due to its small size weapon bays - much smaller (less deep) than F35.
FGFA ? With all due respects I don't believe in this program. India is still very far to be able to develop such aircrafts considering Tejas experience and that even China has difficulties with its own programs (I know I take some risk saying this on an indian forum but please understand there is no aim to offense).

Finally stealth is not useless : it is part of the overall survivability and future program in France for Next gen fighter jets with UK will be stealth. But Spectra used with appropriate tactics do offer a real first day strike capability against sophisticated threats.

Personally I am convinced spectra was a strong point for IAF to make the rafale a credible nuclear platform.

*****

To finish this capability was demonstrated in Lybia :

Rafale pilots are also very complementary about their SPECTRA self-protection suite, which is of critical importance as France does not have any aircraft dedicated to the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) missions. “SPECTRA allowed us to begin operations over Libya the very same day the political decision was taken, and to fly deep into Libyan territory without an escort,” says one pilot, adding that “the Americans also flew in, but only after they had fired 119 Tomahawks to take out Libyan air defenses.”

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... mies”.html

And the real cherry on the cake with SPECTRA is that it provides a build in SEAD capabilities which is provided by specialized aircrafts. Here rafales flying in formation were able to exchange EW intel and refine geo-location of SAM in real time to perform strikes on SAM sites in Lybia:

Relying on the AASM extended stand-off range, the French Rafales were tasked to suppress and destroy Libyan SA-3 air defense sites during the initial phases of the conflict. During these strikes, Rafales utilized on-board sensor fusion, to integrate data obtained from on-board sensors and external sources, delivered over Link-16. This capability enabled pilots to generate strike coordinates based on real-time data, and feed it to the weapon in flight. The French fighters succeeded to hit the active sites with AASM, launching the weapons from long distance, outside the SA-3 launch envelope. Since each individual weapon is programmed with specific target coordinates, multiple weapons can be employed from the attacking aircraft, against different targets. Each weapon can be reprogrammed before launch, enabling it to engage several targets simultaneously.

[brar_w]

The answer is a clear yes. France nuclear deterrence force has China in mind but also Russia or middle East countries.
For instance France invested in new long range ballistic missiles (M51) to be in range of China from northern atlantic

Good luck, since everyone else in the world that is facing that level of threat is designing fighters and other aircraft with totally different priorities. And S300 is not the pinnacle of the threats, especially an export system. It would be a tough sell to work with 4.5 generation for this very reason as everyone interested is coming to the conclusion that stealth is a major component. I fully expect Dassault, BaE and SAAB to claim that they can penetrate right into Beijing with their birds but don't expect a lot of customers to take this very seriously. India is investing her own resources on a acquiring stealth in the T-50 and developing a stealthy 5 to 5.5 generation aircraft in the AMCA. These aircraft would be your penetrative aircraft. Thats also how it is going to work out for Japan, South Korea, Turkey, and all of the other forces looking to go up against advanced Integrated air defenses. And this isn't about the F-35. Even for independent 5th generation programs each and every nation on the list that has the need and appetite for launching such a program (including China and russia btw) are emphasizing stealth heavily into their designs (given the maturity of their aerospace industry). They should all be buying rafales..NO? or just buy spectra, put it onto their non stealthy fighters and job done. I fully expect Dassault to endorse stealthy designs for the penetrating missions of the future, but only when they need funds to develop the son_of_neuron. Then stealth would all of a sudden be a primary design requirement for the future. The rest of the world has however decided that it is a major component in modern fighter design, and not at the expense of Electronic warfare suites.

As far as preparing for facing china. That may be a little tough to digest unless one is only interested in nuking them which I am sure the french can do without the rafale.

So if Spectra detects a concentration of SAM systems it allows the pilot to find another route if required. Then it can strike 6 distinct ground targets simultaneously from more than 50km with AASM whereas the F35 will have to get much closer to drops its JDAM which will compromise its survivability

Every modern fighter allows rerouting through the EW suite. The F-35 does as well. The F-22 did as well, so does the f-16blk60. It also has a shrinking affect on SAM rings. The F-35 can lob GBU-39 from 100+ Km, or GBU-53's from 70+ Km's. No one expects the JDAM to be the primary SEAD weapon of choice. Even for the F-22, the folks usually train for lobbing SDBs as a SEAD weapon and a JDAM for a general strike weapon. Furthermore, The F-22 can also geolocate threats using its EW suite. Falcon Edge also provides an F-16 customer to locate emitting threats and drop ordinance on them if required. It would be foolish to think that modern systems being sold now do not include the ability to geolocate threats .

On the above article you can read that even Growlers took part in this exercise. Only the rafale survived to S300 when growlers, typhoon or gripen failed which is a good indicator of spectra's performance and the role of precision jamming vs brute force jamming. This result was reported in A&C weekly and discussed on russian forums:

It confuses what load the growlers were carrying. Moreover, Like I mentioned in the earlier thread, no one that studies Electronic warfare will begin to pit brute jamming vs precise jamming. They are complementary in nature if you want to attack the EM spectrum comprehensively. That is the simple truth that people who do this for a living will testify to. Just because the F-22, or Rafale or the F-35 practice precision jamming, does not mean that blanket jamming is useless or not required. Because the rafale practices one type of jamming does not mean that everything else is not required. Electronic Warfare and jamming can be classified into Stand Off, Modified Escort, Penetrating Escort, or Stand In. Like I mentioned earlier, the type of pencil beam, precise jamming that is required for spoofing or for masking, and active cancellation comes into the penetrating stand in electronic attack category. Do keep in mind that the Next generation jammer can also accomplish precision jamming, and attack very precise targets. It need not use its brute power all the time. That is one advantage of switching over to a Gallium Nitride solution whereby they can do with 2 or 3 pods what would have required a lot more pods to accomplish with GaA AESA based solution as was presented in the CCJ (i think 6-9 pods for the B-52). The more power you have in your system the more freq.-range you can attack with precision in mind. Its simple physics. Hence, Like i mentioned the wide freq. spread will force even the existing precision jamming systems like the spectra, falcon edge, Barracuda/-81 to up the power and incorporate more powerful sensors into their next upgrade cycles. I believe the french are already planning to do that on the spectra (get more powerful jammers) around 2018-2020. So Power is important, and if you have lots of it, provided you have a highly agile solution and the algos and computing to back it up - the more you can accomplish and you also have the flexibility to concentrating that power on blanket jamming or generating a lot of precise beams for a lot of specific target ranges.

Those that are spending the big bucks to control the Electromagnetic spectrum in the post 2020 environment are investing in this capability through the EW packages on the F-22, F-35, and other tactical fighter as well as through what many claim are classified programs that have left a trail of evidence of their existence that has been picked up by reputable aerospace publications. The other end of there spectrum i.e. the sort of brute jamming that is required to achieve things such as jamming en masse the radars, data links, communications and be adaptable to multiple and rapidly changing frequencies (hence the power requirement) is coming from the research into the CCJ that was cancelled and money transferred onto the NGJ which leapfrogs the CCJ by going to a much more comprehensive, multi band solution that uses Gallium Nitride and uses a heck of a lot of power to tacked a very wide spread of threat. The main driver of upping the POWER requirement for the HiRAT from around 15 KW to a wopping 60KW per system was not to ' stand further back' or extend the jamming deeper into enemy territory. This was done because the threat level is different from when the prowler was conceived. At the moment you have a rapidly proliferating electronics industry and nations like china are producing multiple radars, covering multiple frequencies. From highly agile and advanced search, surveillance AESA's that operate in VHF and UHF domain to the AESA's that operate in the traditional C and X band. Moreover they are covering pretty much everything in between. This does not extend just to radars. This trend has and will continue to proliferate into other waveforms such as weapons and the all important data links and communications. SO your jammer needs to have the adaptability to attack a wide range of waveforms and frequency ranges that cover the entire EM spectrum and are highly sophisticated AESA's backed with fast computing. This requires power, as you need to tackle multiple waveforms, precisely and simultaneously.

To add to this there is other EW goals that are not accomplished by either of these programs and are more for your insurgent type threats where a lot of persistence is required and the jamming needs to be concentrated on a few things ( Pandora Electronic Warfare). For that the EW community has developed pods for UAV's that are in testing at the moment. Electronic warfare is not about trends : "Brute jamming has been superseded by precision jamming" as the sort of solution one developers from an OEM perspective depends upon what sort of threat one has to encounter and develop strategies to defeat.

As far as the growler is concerned, The AN/ALQ-99 pods have been known to be increasingly useless for current and future threats. They were designed in the 60's and began to be used in the 70's. The CCJ was cancelled as a result they leapfrogged to the NGJ. Until the NGJ goes online this is a capability shortcoming that would have to be ' lived with'. The USN is known to do some very stupid things so that they can save money for "ships". One of the stupid things was to develop an EW varient of the Super Hornet and not develop a brand new clean sheet EW package for it in the active domain. They would develop it starting 2019, with the introduction of the NGJ_Mid around the end of 2019 or early 2020 but its entirely their making. Another brilliant thing they have done is to put an IRST onto the freaking fuel tank on the Super Hornet in stead of sending the jets to Boeing and getting a proper retrofit that would have cost more money. In the meantime the USAF is hedging itself nicely with the stealth fleet and MALD-J's, and I am sure laughing at some of USN's decision vis-a-vis fleet procurement and timelines.

A fallacy has been perpetuated in the US media that the US has shifted from Electronic Warfare to Stealth. This is not the case. Every stealth aircraft post the F-117 has had a comprehensive attention paid to incorporating a right mix of stealth, EW, Situational awareness into the design. Moreover, investments did fall off immediately post the cold war (for fielded systems i.e.) but they have since been brought back up through both classified and non-classified programs. No one will talk about this openly but there are plenty of AIAA articles, AOC publications and the USAF/USN material in general to go out and draw a fairly accurate conclusion of how the Electromagnetic spectrum is being tackled. And if one does make that effort, and goes through all the material that is "open source" one would realize that stealth has in no way diminished the importance of controlling the EM spectrum, or in fact, how one form of jamming (either blanket/brute or precise) is not trumping other forms of jamming either for funds, or as a concept. Sophisticated Electronic warfare suites are being designed for the stealth fleet, and the non stealth fleet, while the Next generation jammer is being designed to keep the ' growler' relevant.

Then there are other programs that are classified but have been widely reported to concentrate on the P-AEA mission set.

[arthuro]

The F35 do feature an advanced EW capability but it is meant to be offensive rather than defensive. Being limited to the radar, F35 jamming abilities as advanced are they, are still limited to the forward arc of the aircraft. This say a lot in terms of "philosophy of use".

F35 EW capabilities also received fierce critics from the israelis which required special adaptations for their own F35.

Still, US having stealth platforms, the requirement for embedded EW is less predominant than for the rafale. Yes F35 has a performant EW system but for the active part, it does not fulfill the same operational requirements than the rafale which has 360° EW countermeasure abilities to ensure its survivability.

As for China, nor the rafale nor the F35 nor the T50 would survive in a dense SAM environment. Anti stealth radars are already operational and even more classic ground based X band AESA radars with thousands of active modules would definitely be able to engage so-called "stealth aircrafts" from very respectful ranges.

Rafale or F35, they would need to rely on tactics to survive like avoiding to go head on to a strong concentration of SAM assets.

[brar_w]

The F35 do feature an advanced EW capability but it is meant to be offensive rather than defensive

That arises due to two things, 1) EMCON, a stealth aircraft by definition is limited in the amount of emissions it can actively produce and 2 ) The RCS. The Electronic warfare footprint on the F-35 need not be as large as on a non-stealthy aircraft to carry a tactical advantage. Like I said, from the late 80's the designers working on the ATF have been constantly juggling between stealth, Electronic warfare and sensor fusion. In fact since the F-117, the designers have let go of the idea that any one component (either stealth or EA) would be enough to carry the day. The mix that exists on the stealth aircraft is therefore a balance of advantage of each component that went into the design. This has been balanced careful over the last 2 decades to get to a state where they are now with the Barracuda being an extension of the -94, and the 81 being more advanced then the 77.

The overall capabilities of the Barracuda are largely classified. I am quite sure that the EW footprint on the F-35 would be constantly revisited and upgraded and balanced with what the threat brings to the table as other advantages diminish over time. They are hashing out block 4's left-over capability this year following which block 5 would be defined. A comprehensive 360 degrees active suite was delivered nearly 13 years ago by Northrop grumman and they have continued to offer solutions if required.

F35 EW capabilities also received fierce critics from the israelis which required special adaptations for their own F35

They have their own threat libraries and interoperability requirements for the EW. The EW and CNI suites have been designed from the start to be open ended systems where any new system can be added to grow the overall capability. The IDF does the same on the F-16's and would do the same if they bought either the Gripen or the Rafale. They have their own research on their own emitting threats and have an integrated way of dealing with EW and the EM spectrum, and hence have rightly demanded that their specific component be added to the F-35 just as they have been added to the F-16 and the F-15.

Still, US having stealth platforms, the requirement for embedded EW is less predominant than for the rafale.

Its relying on EW is less because they have an overall design goal to tackle EM and RF through a combination for better survivability (not just the US, every other OEM designing 5th gen is coming to the same solution for the same problem). Having said that, the F-35 opens up a new chapter in EW as was discussed in the 50 page PDF i posted on the International military discussion thread. EW will be a major component in the F-35's CONOPS, as tacticians and strategists are beginning to discuss now from a CONOPS perspective. Even so, the majority of the Barracuda's capabilities especially when it comes to spoofing and other "trickery" is classified and not openly discussed other than in extremely broad terms.

Yes F35 has a performant EW system but for the active part, it does not fulfill the same operational requirements than the rafale which has 360° EW countermeasure abilities to ensure its survivability.

Because it need not. Horses for courses, The F-16 block 60 has an active EW component that is 360 degrees. It needs it, the F-35 however has a different EW solution that better blends with its other design features. Those of stealth and high degree of integration with other F-35's (CNI) and eventually with other stealthy and no stealthy assets. Electronic warfare packages are designed around a platform based on what it needs to get the job done both from an offensive and a defensive prospective. Because one OEM (or the same OEM as a matter of fact) presents a different solution to a different problem does not make it superior to another OEM's solution.

Raytheon is not WRONG for presenting a 180 KW Next generation jammer to operate in the 3 freq. ranges, nor is USN wrong for asking for something like that. Similarly Dassault, Thales or Northrop/BaE are not wrong in designing precision jamming solutions for stealth fighter, 360 degree active and passive solutions for non-stealth fighters nor are the operators wrong in asking for it. Electronic warfare is something that encompasses a very very large domain and no one solution can perfectly cover the entire EM spectrum.

Merging EA and EW (includes passive) with stealth is an art. You don't want to be emitting any more than you absolutely have to but then you also want to be able to deal with the threat that can come from 360 degrees. The solutions that the F-22 adopted and that the F-35 advanced/refined is to have a very sophisticated passive system of double digit antennas (10 for the F-35, 30 for the F-22) that pick up emissions and geolocate threats both independently and through the CNI suite working with other f-35's , f-22's (soon with the L band comms) and using shorter wavebands that are inherently more LPD to tackle the threat. The threat itself (emitting RF threat) would be more helpless against an F-35 than an F-16 or rafale because of the shrinking effect so you have more room to team up and deal with it in a fashion where you do not expose yourself by emitting all over the place in trying to spoof it. You can also not realistically spoof every possible threat in every possible frequency range and at every possible level of frequency. The sheer amount of data on advancements in the dozen or so radar projects going in china would be to overwhelming for any one system to put together and keep up to date. These systems are also coupled with PASSIVE systems in the RF domain, so any dare_devil trickery one may wish to do actively around the aircraft to try to spoof, jam or confuse the radar would have to deal with he passive element and especially with multiple passive elements those themselves become strong search and surveillance assets just as multiple passive elements airborne become strong geolocating elements on a rafale, F35 or F-22.

As for China, nor the rafale nor the F35 nor the T50 would survive in a dense SAM environment.

It would be one component of a chain of components designed to penetrate that. Overall fleet RCS (the RCS of your strike package) can play havoc with your enemies planning and A2AD spread. If you have a silver bullet force of 50 stealth assets your enemy will have a different strategy compared to if you have a force of VLO aircraft that is 2000+, a force of ELO aircraft that is in the hundreds, have a comprehensive jamming package that caters to different needs and have a cyber element. That is where the aircrafts like the F-35 shine. They being the BULK portion of your fleet (USAF) reduce the fleet RCS by a huge amount thereby complicating the enemy's A2AD strategies. Will the F-35 by itself penetrate and destroy the Chinese A2AD threat? No way, but it would be major component in dealing with it. An overall plan that utilizes VLO, ELO, control over the EM spectrum and cyber domains to achieve Anti-A2AD.

Folks have researched A2AD, C2C and the strategies that a potential adversary could employ given a relatively small fleet. Lets say the US has a VLO B-2 fleet of 50. Even with the ability to carry a lot more smaller weapons with the intro of the SDBI and SDBII, a potential adversary knows the limit of the USAF's stealth attack fleet and has to decentralize the C2C structure to a point where the sheer number of targets overwhelm the token stealth attack fleet. Similarly, the Adversary also has to have a relatively small investment in some very highly capable A2AD elements strategically placed around the constraints of the small stealth attacking fleet. This goes totally out of the window when you are presented with a VLO fleet that exists in the thousands. How do you de-centralize your C2C and spread your A2AD, when you know that your FDOW attacking force has exponentially increased. This is the genesis of having a fleet wide F-35 presence and why Gen Hostage was so adamant on 1770 odd F-35A's for the USAF. Now couple that with other ELO elements that tackle the specific threats such as very high end surveillance and search radars that are not as mobile, some even stationary and are huge consumers of the A2AD elements (comms, integration, C2C etc) and therefore not as spread out as your standard (yet very capable) S, C, X band radars that make up the bulk of the SAM backends - and to which your bulk force is relatively well protected. Doing these calculations, one can come up with optimum fleet requirements depending upon the budget, hence you currently have a force of around 1700 F35A's, B-2's and around a 100-150 LRS-B's for the ELO mission. There is some sense to all this planning, and no one, not even those designing and promoting the F-35's are claiming as confidently that it can penetrate Beijing in its sleep - yet it would play a very crucial role in penetrating Chinese A2AD as a force due to the factors listed above. So as an extrapolation, no one is going to say, the USAF is tackling china and regards it as a near peer threat, and the F-35 is stealthy so it will go into china and be un-detected due to its stealth and EA (like the rafale argument)...Its just one element of a chain of elements required to break the back of IADS. No one element by itself can accomplish this, hence the system of systems approach.

Anti stealth radars are already operational and even more classic ground based X band AESA radars with thousands of active modules would definitely be able to engage so-called "stealth aircrafts" from very respectful ranges

Depends upon the RCS and what you have as a program goal. You have optimized RCS's around the X, C band with some work in the UHF and VHF bands as well. So the point is to shrink the SAM rings, to find gaps because your highest RCS jet (highest) is the F-22 or the F-35 with the ELO fleet currently being designed. This creates a huge headache as far as A2AD density is concerned. Now add elements of EW, and on top of that cyber and you have a strategy to tackle A2AD. Of course, your success depends upon a host of other factors..but i am just laying down the strategy not predicting how successful it would be. It appears that almost all designing to penetrate this A2AD net, whether that is NATO's net, or whether it is the chinese net are employing a similar strategy with their pockets and technical abilities dictating the mix.

Rafale or F35, they would need to rely on tactics to survive like avoiding to go head on to a strong concentration of SAM assets

That goes without saying. Thats why you train pilots and hold red flags especially 1 and 2 where only the US assets are usually involved (sometimes with close allies) and in which COAC opens up the gates to the space and cyber domains which are not seen in the regular red flags where other nations are invited to participate.

[brar_w]

Some Nice high resolution pictures of the Marines with the F-35B's at NASJR fort worth..


http://airwingspotter.com/jrb-11-13-2014/

[SaiK]

Would the new envoy to India push towards more of the JSF discussions back on topic? we have to see how things shape on the Rafale/PAK-FA front and should any one of those fail to keep their promise sure would embolden Verma with his USAF background to push us into the 'right corner' for jassoosf!

?

[NRao]

I think the JSF is the best air craft out there, but I just do not see it in IAF colors.

The chances, IMHO, are far better with the IN - IF AT ALL it comes to India.

As far as him pushing, that should be part of his job as would be of any other ambassador.

[brar_w]

Would the new envoy to India push towards more of the JSF discussions back on topic? we have to see how things shape on the Rafale/PAK-FA front and should any one of those fail to keep their promise sure would embolden Verma with his USAF background to push us into the 'right corner' for jassoosf!

?

I don't doubt that he would push for greater cooperation and M2M ties which involves selling hardware..but I do not think that the JSF would be "pushed" other then something like " we have something that you should look at". Other than that I feel that things like the Triton are far better given what they offer. The JSF is great if you are going to use it as something that works when you have a need for such an aircraft. If the rafale timelines would have been different, the JSF would have been a perfect MRCA candidate for an induction around 2022 or so (by the time there would have been a fully mature block 3F and they would be close to Block 4i where India could have pushed a lot of her own weapons). But as a direct replacement that a complete 180 from the PAKFA would do, I am not sure. Clearly the IAF has something in mind (from a CONOPS pov) when going in for the PAKFA, if that is not met then they could consider but the F-35 from a capability perspective and from a maturity point of view is more of a 5th generation Rafale replacement then it is a PAKFA substitute. Not to say it won't be a competent Air to Air fighter, but if you want something to operate at mach 1.5 to mach 2 at 50,000 feet then the T-50 is a better bet. Where I am still holding my opinion is to see the amount of Stealth that the ultimate PAKFA would eventually have. From the dates they seem to be throwing out there, it seems that the next couple of years may reveal the final "solid" configuration for the PAKFA. Without an adequate level of stealth, and maintainable, sustainable stealth it aint going to penetrate deep into chinese territory to carry out the sort of SEAD/DEAD missions required to mount a counter attack. The real advantage of the F-35, where it starts to look good is that its getting to 4.5 generation prices even at LRIP, and as such it offers 5th generation capabilities for western operators. Add to that a stealth design that is refined through the F-117, B-2 and F-22 experiences (among others) and you would/should get a stealth jet that really lasts as far as maintain of the RAM and how to go about it (they have been refining these sort of things for decades), and has been claimed by those that are very high up (ACC commander no less) that it is stealthier than the F-22.

---------------------------

"Check 6" courtesy Harvey B...

[brar_w]

Turkish SOM missile (would be cleared onto the internal bays post UAI adoption on the F35)



-----

F-22/F-35

[brar_w]

Air International's report on the F-35C DT1 trials from aboard the nimitz Cats Traps and Rooster Trail

http://www.filedropper.com/f-35ctestnim ... naldec2014

[brar_w]

Here is an interesting piece of information from a British instructor on the F-22 (that lacks an IRST or anything similar to a EOTS or DAS even a podded solution)..

His credentials : Group Captain Paul Godfrey, OBE , has extensive experience of a range of combat aircraft through Harrier, F-16 and Typhoon.A Harrier weapons instructor, he was the first non-US national to fly the F-16 CJ operationally in the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) role whilst on exchange with the USAF and has spent the last 10 years in the Typhoon program with two flying tours including 4th/5th generation fighter training with the F-22.


This is what he has to say:

Godfrey has been involved with Typhoon training with the F-22.

Based on that experience, Godfrey commented

The F-22 has unprecedented situational awareness.

And working with Typhoon, the F-22 enhanced our survivability and augmented our lethality.

The F-22 functions is a significant Situational Awareness (SA) gap filler for the operation of a fourth generation aircraft.”

He underscored that, as good as the F-22 is, the enhanced fusion engine and advanced combat systems of the F-35 are a significant force for overall defence transformation.

“Indeed, the impact of the F-35 will be felt on the total UK defence force; not just on the RAF. It is a force multiplier, and can be used to help transform our combat forces, to do what you have called force insertion.”

Godfrey emphasized that managing the force mix was an essential part of introducing the F-35 into the UK service.

We will be using 4th and 5th generation aircraft for a long time in what we believe will be an incredibly potent force mix;

And on the Queen Elizabeth carriers will be mixing rotorcraft with fast jets and other combat capabilities as well to further enhance our power projection capabilities.

Question: How will F-35 work with Typhoon?

Group Captain Paul Godfrey: The F-35 has unprecedented situational awareness and ability to provide information dominance.

It can handle the 360-degree battlespace and manage the gaps which the Typhoon may not see.

It is also a question of the ability to manage information, which the F-35 excels in doing.

The F-35 is designed to be able to show the pilot situational awareness in a large single display, which is essentially the single version of the truth, if you like.

Clearly, other aircraft have different displays that show you what’s out there, and a certain level of fusion, but there are always gaps; I think it’s key that we use the F-35 to fill those gaps.

As demonstrated with the Typhoon/F-22 synergies, we will be able to get closer to the threat with the F-35 and to enhance the probability of kill for the entire combat air fleet.

The last point drives home the difference between what a Typhoon may call "sensor fusion" to what a F-22 may call "sensor fusion" to what an F-35 may call sensor fusion and integrated avionics. Much like Low observability, computing power, material advancement, and propulsion, sensor fusion can change a heck of a lot when put on a fighter a decade apart given the access to the same level of technology. There is a reason why the F-35 has more than 4 times the software compared to the F-22 and why the Next gen fighter will likely have multiples of the F-35's software footprint. Its the age of big data and information, and this is not the first time we have heard this.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-royal-navy-a ... h-carrier/

For the Bold Portion refer to this:

http://vimeo.com/89836612

http://vimeo.com/89836885 and

http://vimeo.com/88810233

------------------

Crew Interviews aboard the Nimitz

[youtube]d7VuysNHFIY&list=UUJWcF0ex7_doPdIQGbVpDsQ[/youtube]

[NRao]

Lockheed Develops Portable F-35 Trainer

The F-35 joint strike fighter is a highly advanced, stealthy fighter that requires significant amounts of training to master. If program officials have their way, it will also be used by US forces and international allies around the globe.

If that international dream becomes reality, keeping current on training becomes a problem. After all, there are only a few major training centers scheduled for the plane, and bringing pilots back from the field costs time and money.

Enter Lockheed Martin’s new Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainer (DMRT), which the company says will help keep pilots current as well as provide high-fidelity mission planning.

The DMRT is a simple concept: two simulators in what is essentially a shipping container. A second container is attached to provide HVAC and power for the system. The system can also link with a second DMRT, giving four pilots a chance to train together.

Mike Luntz, Lockheed’s director for F-35 training systems, said his team is focused on getting the DMRT ready for use on a carrier, but envisions it will also be used in the field.

Which isn’t to say the DMRT will replace the high-end simulator used at training bases such as Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. The system inside the DMRT comes with a smaller visual display, about the size of a large whiteboard instead of a full dome. The cockpit is also static. However, the system uses the same software as the more robust trainer.

“The idea is it could go on an aircraft carrier or be forward deployed in an austere environment,” Luntz said. “So instead of pilots having to continuously fly the jets to stay current while on the ship or out in the field, they can just hop inside the DMRT and keep their pilot hours current.”

Currently, the company is under contract for two systems. The first DMRT is undergoing tests at Edwards Air Force Base with pilots from the UK, which is purchasing the F-35B jump-jet variant of the fighter. Luntz said the Australian military, which plans to buy 100 F-35A conventional models, is also looking into the system.

The DMRT can also be used for mission planning purposes. If an air strike in Iraq is being plotted, four pilots could climb into their linked DMRT and simulate the attack with high-fidelity, all in the field.

The “pretty novel concept,” as Luntz called it, could eventually spread to other Lockheed Martin products.

“If the demand was there,” he said, “that is something that would be possible.”

[brar_w]

Virtual Live construct, and the broader initiative to add a lot of technology to training has forced Lockheed to acquire quite a few Sim related companies in the US and in Europe. The F-35's simulators all have actual flight certified software rather than an emulator.

On a more tactical level, an interesting Interview with the point man of the USAF who is developing CAS tactics for the F-35..

A Look at F-35 Close Air Support Tactics Developmen

[member_20292]

Brar_w,

Not that it's a bad thing, but you do work / have worked at Lockheed? It's a good place to work?

[brar_w]

Brar_w,

Not that it's a bad thing, but you do work / have worked at Lockheed? It's a good place to work?

No, have you? If you'd bother to read some of the references I have posted for majority of my arguments, you'd find that I have tried to avoid posting "OEM origin" material as much as possible. I have stuck to posting things that the operators, tacticians and strategists working on the operator side are claiming. Only time one is forced to source from OEM material is when one is looking at OEM timelines such as annual milestones etc. Other than that, for more than 90% of the technical characteristics of the jet one can find it through sources that do not market or have a financial stake in the program.

[mody]

Latest problem to hit the JSF program.
The fuel for the plane, needs to be below a certain temperature threshold.
The fuel is used a coolant for some of the sub-systems in the plane, before being fed to the engine.
Hence if the fuel temperature is too high, it cannot act as a coolant.

http://news.yahoo.com/usaf-paint-trucks ... 18678.html

[brar_w]

Latest problem to hit the JSF program.
The fuel for the plane, needs to be below a certain temperature threshold.
The fuel is used a coolant for some of the sub-systems in the plane, before being fed to the engine.
Hence if the fuel temperature is too high, it cannot act as a coolant

That is by design, as they have had the same "logistical" problems with the F-22. This isn't as much a problem with the F-35 as it is with the sort of electronics, avionics and computing requirement you may wish to incorporate. The fix is quite easy. Stop asking for advanced electronics in combat aircraft, or wait a decade or so before newer cooling and heat transfer systems are available before asking for the sort of computing. Another solution is to paint the trucks ( it won't break the bank) or develop better insulating paints for them as the Marines are planning to do - because they value the sort of tactical advantage sensor fusion, having a whole lot of electronics and systems onboard provides them. One has to make certain changes in then back end to support advanced combat aircraft, be it fighters, bombers or even tactical missiles. The AMRAAM introduction brought a lot of changes into how tactical missiles are handled say on a carrier. What also has to be kept in mind that the fuel based cooling isn't just for the avionics and electronics. Both the F-22 and the F-35 are designed around a specification for an IR signature. For both the aircraft they had to develop special sensors so that the IR signature could be properly tested while in the air (I have posted pictures of the hardware and the actually testing actually happening previously).

There was a journalist like this who asked a similarly pointed question about stealth on a carrier, hoping to get a favorable response at the San Diego session with the USN/MC pilots. The Pilot quite quickly shut him down saying that the maintainers onboard treat stealth just as they would treat another capability such as a radar, IRST or FLIR etc. If they think it is important they would address it to retain that tactical advantage that comes with it. Every time a new capability presents itself, it comes with changes you have to make to support that. You make those changes because you feel that the systems forcing you to make the changes are worth it. The F-35B is not a harrier class replacement, it is much better, bigger, more capable and for the first time provides the same overall performance (mostly) as your CTOL based fighters but with the added benefit of STOVL.

Thermal management is an interesting topic. On the International aviation section, I have posted a video of Alton Remig the head of Skunk Works discussing the challenges and future capabilities in aerospace. One of the points even he brings up is that the current thermal management techniques are pretty much maxed out and this is the biggest challenge when designing the next generation of systems. The software footprint does not grow linearly with time like other systems. For example the amount of sensors, sensor fusion and the physical line of code required to hold together has grown substantially, the software build alone being 4 times as large when shifting from a 2005 IOC 5th generation fighter to a 2015 IOC 5th generation fighter (F-22 vs F-35). The thermal management systems onboard are largely what were developed for the ATF and patents are out there for all to see. There isn't any breakthrough over and above that I have seen, especially one that is retrofittable but one such breakthrough would certainly be required for next generation systems.

In sum, this is not the first or the last "Change" the marines would have to make (would affect them the most since they have the most complicated forward deployment requirements) compared to the Harrier. The F-35 has a bigger engine and requires the matting to be upgraded (have provided the links to the entire matter way back on this thread) which they were going to be doing anyways since most of their stock was used up over the wars in the last decade. Furthermore, the Marines cannot take the F-35's out using the same logistical footprint of the Harrier, because the aircraft is physically larger and more capable etc. They knew this early on because this is precisely what they wanted. They wanted greater range (compared to the Harrier), greater payload, greater bring back, stealth and the ability to go supersonic. They also wanted advanced 5th generation capability that builds on the F-22's and allows them to do exactly the same stuff the frontline USAF or USN pilots could so that they can take over both the F-18 Hornet and the Harrier mission set with the F-35B and not develop or procure two different systems.

Here is the article showing the exact changes to their regular fuel trucks that they have made for hot temperatures:

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... downs.aspx

The article goes on to mention that this is a short term fix and a logical long term fix would follow as usually does with logistical issues every time a new system is brought into service (this is true for all hardware, for all services around the world). F-35 drivers, maintainers and logisticians at Nellis, Luke or Yuma would run different scenarios and come up with the best long term solution on deployments. These places get pretty hot themselves. I seriously doubt that the USMC would treat this as anything other then something they have to do with new systems, be it land based systems, the V-22, new LHD's or even developing protocols for new weapons. Thats what logisticians do day in and day out and it was the same set of folks that managed to provide 100's of gallons of water for the Harrier even during forward deployments (Harrier requires around 150 gallons of water so that it can hover)...

The Long term fix could be something like this (already developed)



A lot of this equipment is already carried by the Marines on their deployment btw.

[Philip]

Beijing bombast. Should we call the Chinese bird "Beijing Duck"?

Beijing Duck vs Yanqui Turkey ,read on!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/ ... =worldNews

China's stealth fighter could "take down" foreign rival: industry exec
BEIJING Tue Dec 9, 2014

(Reuters) - China's new stealth fighter could certainly "take down" its opponent in the sky, the president of China's top aircraft maker said on Tuesday, referring to its U.S.-made counterpart.

Lin Zuoming, president of Aviation Industry Corp of China (Avic), which developed the J-31 stealth fighter, made the remarks in an interview on state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV).

"When it takes to the sky, it can definitely take it down," he said, in a reference to the U.S.-made F-35. "That's a certainty."

Lin also emphasized the company's desire to compete with the United States in new markets, particularly countries the U.S. will not sell military equipment to as well as countries that cannot afford the pricier F-35.

“The next-generation air forces that are unable to buy the F-35 have no way to build themselves up. We don't believe the situation should be that way," he said.

"This world should be balanced," Lin added. "Good things shouldn't all be pushed to one party."

China unveiled the highly anticipated twin-engine fighter jet at an air show last month, a show of muscle during a visit to the country by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Stealth aircraft are key to China developing the ability to carry out both offensive and defensive operations, the Pentagon said in a report about developments in China's military.

The J-31 is China's second domestically produced stealth fighter jet.

President Xi Jinping has pushed to toughen the country's 2.3 million-strong armed forces as China takes a more assertive stance in the region, particularly in the South China and East China seas.

(Reporting by Megha Rajagopalan; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

The "Duck" is supposedly based upon JSF tech stolen wholesale. That might explain the Beijing bombast.

[brar_w]

Lets see them field a fighter first. I don't see anything on the J-31 that would stand out as anything that is at par or ahead but let them at least field a version worthy enough to be inducted. At the moment it is an internal project and seems to have less support compared to the J-20. The only real threat that these birds pose is that of penetrating IAD's and A2AD elements the USN and the allies in the region have in place. Those elements would need to be re-looked once China has Hundreds of stealth fighters in operation. Probably in the late 2020's anyways.

[brar_w]

First F-35 Assembled In Italy To Roll Out Early Next Year

Officials in Italy are preparing for the rollout of their first F-35A from the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility at Cameri Air Base in northern Italy early next year.

That first aircraft is slated to roll off the line by March 2015.

Italy invested about $1 billion in building the facility amid political infighting about the status of purchases for the fighter; it began operations last year. Cameri is the site of Italy’s hub for long-running Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado work.

The military leadership there had hoped to assemble at least 250 fighters at the FACO, including Italy’s original plan for 131 fighters in addition to the Netherlands’ original plan for 85.

Though the final numbers are up in the air, Italy designed the FACO with significant work growth in mind. Rome is likely a top contender as the Pentagon assesses options for a heavy airframe repair in Europe; an announcement on the final selection is expected early next year.

Italy opted to forgo the “moving” production line originally envisioned for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility. Rome has, however, installed 11 workstations suited for final assembly work, including four for the electronic mating and assembly system (EMAS) customized for F-35 work. These are the same EMASs used in Fort Worth. But at least five workstations were designed for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) tasks there, and some can be reconfigured should more MRO work be needed.

Italy’s design was aggressive by nature. Defense officials estimate there is $18.6 billion in economic opportunity for local business associated with MRO work, Lt. Gen. Domenico Esposito, who heads the Italian air force’s procurements, told Aviation Week last year.

Meanwhile, work on constructing Japan’s FACO in Nagoya continues; construction began in May. The first major subcomponents are slated to be loaded into Japan’s electronic mate and assembly tooling – the same tooling used for assembly at Lockheed Martin’s final assembly plant in Fort Worth – in December 2015.

The first four of Japan’s 42 F-35s will come from the Forth Worth plant. The first Japanese assembled F-35A is slated to roll off the line in Nagoya in fall 2017, with delivery for operations in 2018.