International Naval News & Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 18:36

GeorgeWelch wrote:Incorrect.

The F-35 replaces the original Hornet, the F-35 and SH are supposed to serve side-by-side for years to come.


The Super Hornet was born out of a strategic push by the USN to dedicate a very small share of its capital budget to tactical aviation after multiple failures to get something that resembles high end capability in air to air(advanced Tomcat, and N-ATF) and air to ground (A-12). Successive CNO's have driven the Naval aviation doctrine away from first attack to being strike platforms that come in once the USAF has sanitized the area for them to operate in through its Air Superiority figthers, allowing the service to invest heavily in areas that are exclusively its domain (under sea and Emerging Naval technologies). The F-35C is an attempt to get a first day strike capability that along with the EA-18G will provide them the ability to by themselves penetrate and get access without the USAF's support in many (not all) areas of concern.

The fact that the F-35C replaces the F-18 legacy and not the Rhino is largely immaterial and purely a function of timing and cost. The USN built an aircraft in the Super Hornet that works ONLY for them and their needs and would be a massive compromise to anyone that considers it for anything besides a stop gap solution or a political decision.

Fundamentally, there is no mission that the F-18E/F performs better than the F-35C..When stealth is not a concern, the F-35 carries more payload, and flied farther requiring less air to air refueling along the way. When in stealth mode, the F-35C can go farther on internal fuel, still go supersonic with nearly 20,000 pounds of fuel and 2 bombs and has all the self-escort protection to execute the mission without calling in a ton of support. If it were not for timing, and the fact that the price difference at least initially is going to be substantial there is no reason to fly Super Hornets. Therefore the fact that the USN will be a large SH operator has nothing to do with the F-35 being an F/A-18A-C replacement or its capability but everything to do with replacement cycles.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Sep 2015 18:49, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Sep 2015 18:46

brar_w wrote:Successive CNO's have driven the Naval aviation doctrine away from first attack to being strike platforms that come in once the USAF has sanitized the area for them to operate in through its Air Superiority figthers


incorrect

brar_w wrote:The USN built an aircraft in the Super Hornet that works ONLY for them and their needs and would be a massive compromise to anyone that considers it for anything besides a stop gap solution or a political decision.


If 20 years is 'stop gap', then sure.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 18:51

incorrect


I can debate this all day. The USN has failed to see plenty of Tactical aviation programs through for all sorts of capability. And when the dust settled all they got was the Super Hornet. The initial plans were N-ATF, and A-12, then just the N-ATF, then a Super Tomcat 21 and then finally the Super Hornet.

From that angle they made a very wise decision. Capability comes at a cost, and given their R&D and procurement spending plans from say the late 90's through 2025, the only program they could afford to develop and procure was the SH. Tactical aviation advancement is the USAF's primary concern, yet the current and future investment portfolio of the USN has a lot of stuff that is its own domain to such an extent that they have to go outside the DOD budget to fund it (OCRP) because they don't have money in their own budget to see it through. That's wise for the USN, but why would anyone else be stupid enough to purchase a platform that is heavily tailored for the US way of fighting has huge compromises that are OK for the USN but not for anyone else?

If 20 years is 'stop gap', then sure.


I am reffering to the non-USN customers buying something NOW. The RAAF bought the Super Hornet because they had no choice given the JSF delays. They needed airframes and they paid extra to have them hard wired for later possible conversions to the Growler profile. No one is going to buy the Rhino now unless they can't afford 5th generation capability or practically anything else that is better than it. The only sales may come from Middle East customers and everyone knows those sales are driven by National Security (Geo-politics) and political considerations.

I know you like the Super Hornet but reality is that it is a compromised platform (built around the F/A-18 and with a narrow budget to try out radical changes) that works quite well (carries a lot of ordinance, is cheap to by, is more reliable than the Tomcat or the Hornet etc etc) for the USN but it does not live up to the competition as far as capability is concerned. That is why it pretty much lost out in a lot of the campaigns, and it appears another one has been lost (at least an exlcusive thing)...

Kuwait To Purchase 28 Typhoons
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Sep 2015 20:22, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Sep 2015 20:21

brar_w wrote:
incorrect


I can debate this all day.


And yet you said nothing about the USN relying on the USAF, which is nonsense.

In fact, that's why they created the Growler program, so they could handle it by themselves.


brar_w wrote:No one is going to buy the Rhino now unless they can't afford 5th generation capability


Like India?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66256
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 11 Sep 2015 20:28

blue on blue :mrgreen:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 20:30

The USAF is the main go to for Air Dominance. The only squadrons that dedicate 100% of their time and training to air to air are the F-15C's and some F-22A squadrons under the ACC. The Growlers provide Joint Electronic Warfare support, not just to the USN but to the USAF, USMC and the US Army and they aren't really air-dominance assets but tactical platforms that provide EMS control when used in conjunction with other platforms. The Two services had an agreement way back in the Prowler days whereby the VAQ squadrons led the stand off EA/EW mission and drove tactics, and provided support for all three services. While the USAF balked at the idea of the Growler coming in to replace the Prowler they, in the absence of no other choice had to stick with a limited TOS platform in the Growler because it was and is the only platform that can carry the Next Generation Jammer. Going forward we have the USN coming in and picking up the MALD and recently demonstrating 3 EW payloads for a potential MALD-N (Reported a couple of days ago) and the USAF stating publicly that they would move towards the LRS-B and a potential support vehicle for EA/EW support.

And yet you said nothing about the USN relying on the USAF, which is nonsense.


The writing is on the wall. The USN has no kick down the door or first day attack platform until they get the Joint Strike Figther towards the end of this decade. Even then they don't have enough to cover a majority of their tactical fleets. The JSF would provide certain penetration power to the USN but it would be nothing like that provided by the F-22, F-35 combination. There is no significant CAP requirement from a USN fighter, if there were, they would not have invested in two rather subsonic (no supercruise) platforms and then dumped the advanced version of the Aim-54. If the USAF were to all of a sudden be a 100% F-16 force they would have essentially de-emphasized the air superiority mission by choosing a platform that is not the best at it. The USN has done the same..They picked a strike fighter that provides a lot of flexibility due to its modern systems etc but it also takes away a lot of capability that its predecessor had.

The USN does not have physical aircraft that can go in and maintain high tempo Air Superiority over a given area against a highly capable adversary. The N-ATF and super Tomcat 21 would have helped but one can see from the supersonic range of a draggy Rhino and the non-supercruise performance of the F-35C that they value something totally different and that is a bomb truck that can on the cheap carry and deliver a lot of ordinance. Simply put without more than 400 F-15's (C's and E's), 180+ F-22A's in the USAF the USN's fighter fleet would look a lot lot different. Air Dominance is a joint services task and here the USAF covers the largest portion since it has capable Air Dominance assets and because it still invests to develop, acquire and upgrade them

Regardless of all this the fact remains that the F-18E/F is poor performer in all but the bottom left side of the flight regime. Compared to the competition it has the lowest cruise speed, and cannot in its current form (without testing) pull 9G's..Some of the innards that it had going for it a decade back such as an AESA radar are now standard on new build rafales and Gripens and it seems the Kuwaitis will be getting AESA on the typhoon as well. Similarly the other platforms have an integrated IRST (which the rafale gets for export) while it would take boeing some time and money to do it on the Rhino. What it has going for it is cost and weapons availability but from a long term perpective (think of the time it will be in service) those things are not something that will make or break a deal. The IAF would want to get a lot of those weapons through indigenization anyhow. The F-18E/F works only for the USN because it requires that, a decent air to air platform that is a great bomb truck and has a higher availability and better operational cost compared to the F-14 it replaced. However others don't fly 700nm radius missions and need not to carry 2-3 tanks on every sortie. Those customers actually want performance in all regimes of air combat and actually want a self-escorting EW capability..

The only time the F-18E/F could have made some sense was when there was TOT involved and the order was larger. Boeing and GE could have perhaps sold technology for a lot cheaper given that the production of the F-18E/F was not going to last all that long. Under a G2G deal where the only clause is 50% offset (if that) it makes NO sense at all. Even the Rafale doesn't unless one's objective is to lower the reliance on Russia as a supplier. At the costs being thrown around for the Rafale the MKI would be a far better purchase, but in no case would the Super Hornet be anything but a disaster.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Sep 2015 21:06, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Sep 2015 20:55

brar_w wrote:
And yet you said nothing about the USN relying on the USAF, which is nonsense.


The writing is on the wall. The USN has no kick down the door or first day attack platform until they get the Joint Strike Figther towards the end of this decade.


Incorrect.

That is in fact what the SH + JSOW + Growler do.

brar_w wrote:but it would be nothing like that provided by the F-22, F-35 combination.


There is a difference between saying F-22 + F-35 would be better (which is true) vs saying that the current setup is completely incapable (which is false).

brar_w wrote:Compared to the competition it has the lowest cruise speed, and cannot in its current form (without testing) pull 9G's..


7G, 9G, neither are going to outmaneuver a missile.

brar_w wrote:The F-18E/F works only for the USN because it requires that, a decent air to air platform that is a great bomb truck and has a higher availability and better operational cost compared to the F-14 it replaced.


Sounds like a great fit for the IAF.

brar_w wrote:However others don't fly 700nm radius missions and need not to carry 2-3 tanks on every sortie. Those customers actually want performance in all regimes of air combat and actually want a self-escorting EW capability..


And which platform provides all of that at the same price or less than the SH?

That's the point you keep missing. Quantity has a quality all its own. Better 126 SH than 36 Rafale.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby member_23370 » 11 Sep 2015 21:02

SH is dead for IAF. People need to stop discussing these stupid topics. At the moment PAk-FA has better chances of being in IAF by 2020-22 than SH.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 21:18

Incorrect.

That is in fact what the SH + JSOW + Growler do


The SH and JSOW cannot get to a fight against a near peer especially when the engagement ranges of larger S300+ and S400 radars are in the 400 km region and the SAM ranges are pushing to the 200+ Km as well. The Growler will help but it is not the panacea to all EMS management challenges (hence the MALD-N and other future EWS investment). In the future the USN will use the F-35C for the penetrating missions but the numbers are not going to be as large and then there is also the issue of air-superiority in a heavily defended area.

7G, 9G, neither are going to outmaneuver a missile


There is plenty of maneuvering to do in air combat, from BVR through WVR before you try to maneuver a missile. And there have been plenty of instances where edge-of-envelope SAM launches have been successfully evaded through kinematics and maneuvering. In fact I had posted a video of an F-16 evading something like 5 SAM's during the Mission X scenario. The F-18E/F does not have a very capable self-escorting EW capability (like say the Phalcon Edge).

There is a difference between saying F-22 + F-35 would be better (which is true) vs saying that the current setup is completely incapable (which is false).


Of course if there is no option you will use what you have, but doctrinally the joint CONOPS won't be to use the USN to establish any sort of theater based air-superiority against a very capable opponent - that choice existed earlier but does not anymore.


Sounds like a great fit for the IAF.


Only to you!

And which platform provides all of that at the same price or less than the SH?


Why do you think that is ALL the IAF requires? The USN's concept of operation and threats require it too travel very long distances to fight..so they must carry a very heavy payload (almost always) as such platform kinematic or even turning performance matters little to them since it will almost always be loaded with energy and performance depleting bombs and bags. However even when you strip it down, the Rhino is hardly comparable in most of the regimes (except slow speed high AOA stuff) but that is not very important to the USN given its operational realities. The IAF however has to perform CAP, SEAD plenty of air to air at medium distances in addition to penetrating strike. Here the rafale has better kinematic performance and can actually self escort using the SPECTRA. Of coruse its not going to be as good as the F-35 or PAKFA with a combination of EW and stealth but its very good coming form an advanced 4+ generation platform. Is it worth the higher cost compared to the Su-30mKI? I doubt it but that is debatable.

That's the point you keep missing. Quantity has a quality all its own. Better 126 SH than 36 Rafale


If you want quantity you do no go to the SH but go to the LCA that is less than half the price of an F-18E/F.

What I said was -

Successive CNO's have driven the Naval aviation doctrine away from first attack to being strike platforms that come in once the USAF has sanitized the area for them to operate in through its Air Superiority figthers

This is fact based. They have gone in from a high end Air to Air platform in the F-14 and a multi role strike fighter in the F/A-18 plus a long range EW platform to a 2-multi-role strike fighter force. This is a deliberate attempt to rid itself of the sort of investments required to maintain high end global air superiority capability. That domain now only exists with the USAF. Of course the USN can and still will go in and do that mission if nothing else is available but the planning would shift from actually having USAF in the region to conduct such operations. The USN has morphed into a very potent permissive environment strike force and will get some high end penetration capability with the F-35C..but even a blind man can see that they are not gearing up to fight alongside the USAF in a highly contested environment. They would provide support but won't lead the way especially when there carriers get pushed back. The SH+JSOW is not a be all end all combination for non-permissive attack...many target sets want and need you to be there from a sensor-shooter perspective and that involves actually penetrating the air defenses to get a kill. They actually had an opportunity to develop the UCLASS to be the penetrating sensor to the non-penetrating shooter (F-18E/F) but even they want a low-cost loiter aircraft that is more similar to the Predator and Avenger than a highly stealthy UCAV.

I wouldn't call 50% cheaper 'marginally'.


That only applies to the F-35C, not the F-35A. The F-35A cost is already between 90 Million and 110 Million USD and would be falling closer to the 85 Million mark. The Super Hornet without CFT's, without a self-escorting broadband 360 degree Jammer (such as the phalcon edge), without a targeting pod and without an IRST would still cost between 60-65 Million. At Full rate of production the price difference between an F-18E/F and F-35A would be $20 Million - $25 Million. The International F-18E/F was promised to be within 20% of the cost of the F-18E/F so that eats up nearly half (if not more) of the cost difference between the two aircraft.
Last edited by brar_w on 11 Sep 2015 21:43, edited 3 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 21:27

Bheeshma wrote:SH is dead for IAF. People need to stop discussing these stupid topics. At the moment PAk-FA has better chances of being in IAF by 2020-22 than SH.


Of course that's true, hence I moved the discussion to the International thread.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Sep 2015 21:46

brar_w wrote:The SH and JSOW cannot get to a fight against a near peer especially when the engagement ranges of larger S300+ and S400 radars are in the 400 km region and the SAM ranges are pushing to the 200+ Km as well.


Incorrect.

Those ranges are idealized and nothing close to reality, especially with Growler support.

Also there is JASSM.

brar_w wrote:The Growler will help but it is not the panacea to all EMS management challenges (hence the MALD-N and other future EWS investment).


Nothing is a panacea.

Including stealth.

brar_w wrote:In the future the USN will use the F-35C for the penetrating missions


Again, that does not mean the SH is incapable in the here and now.

brar_w wrote: In fact I had posted a video of an F-16 evading something like 5 SAM's during the Mission X scenario. The F-18E/F does not have a very capable self-escorting EW capability (like say the Phalcon Edge).


That was an ancient SAM that can already be handled by jamming or flares/decoys.

Such maneuvers are pointless against modern SAMs or AAMs.


brar_w wrote: Of course if there is no option you will use what you have, but doctrinally the joint CONOPS won't be to use the USN to establish any sort of theater based air-superiority against a very capable opponent - that choice existed earlier but does not anymore.


That is utter nonsense. If the USAF has bases close enough to establish air-superiority, there is no need for the USN or their carriers.

Why does the USN spend so much on its fleet of carriers? Merely to supplement USAF bases? No. It's to knock down doors and go where the USAF cannot.

brar_w wrote:
Sounds like a great fit for the IAF.


Only to you!


Why wouldn't an affordable, reliable, capable plane be a great fit?


brar_w wrote: The IAF however has to perform CAP, SEAD plenty of air to air at medium distances in addition to penetrating strike.


All of which the SH is very capable of.

brar_w wrote:Here the rafale has better kinematic performance


So? How much of a difference does that make in the real world and does it justify its hugely more expensive price tag?

The Mirage had much better kinematic performance than the Harrier, yet guess who always won those engagements.

brar_w wrote:and can actually self escort using the SPECTRA.


You act like the SH doesn't have built-in jamming capability, which again is nonsense.

brar_w wrote:If you want quantity you do no go to the SH but go to the LCA that is less than half the price of an F-18E/F.


The plan was always for BOTH the LCA and the MRCA. Even with a full LCA run, the numbers are still not enough. Not to mention HAL has yet to demonstrate the ability to manufacture the LCA in anything like the numbers required.

To quickly build numbers, there is no better option than the SH.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2015 22:20

- the USN has only the JSOW for stand off land attack, they did not procure any JASSM after walking out of the program

- The Super Hornet does not have an integrated digital all aspect multi band active electronic attack system. There are only two products in the US projects that have it integrated, one is the f-16 blk 60 while the other is the f-15 sa..


More later....

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 11 Sep 2015 22:24

brar_w wrote:- the USN has only the JSOW for stand off land attack, they did not procure any JASSM after walking out of the program


I didn't say they did.

But it is an option that is available if they feel the need.

They don't feel the need.

Which should tell you something about their level of comfort with their current capabilities.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 02:02

Incorrect.

Those ranges are idealized and nothing close to reality, especially with Growler support.

Also there is JASSM.


And you base that (Bold portion) on what exactly? Also, do you realize the scope of Growler support in the entire spectrum of carrier operations. Do you know the growler strength of a carrier and the number of missions it must fulfill? There is a reason why the USN is looking at a MALD-N and tested one just a few days ago.

Nothing is a panacea.

Including stealth.


There are a few things that stealth fighter use to break the kill chains. One is the physicial RCS of the aircraft and the extremely embedded sensors and antennas that do not give away their position. Second is the massive amount of ESM capability both due to the sheer number of bands the internally embedded antennal farm contains and the fact that the stealth allows them to get a lot close to the emitting source than a large RWR carrying non-stealthy aircraft. Finally they have organic self-defense Electronic warfare which need not have such a large footprint because of simply physics (lower RCS means lower EW protection), and because they are a lot closer to the emitting source than a stand off platform (hence stand in). Anyhow, the concept of employment is to use the stealth (enabled by RCS and EMCON) to dramatically shrink SAM rings, use the ESM and the computing to calculate the emitting radars so as to get a threat track going and enabling through these measures the ability to stay on the fringes of these SAM rings (re-routing) or around the edges of the employed missile..i.e. I may be within the acquisition radar's range, but I am close enough to the SA seam that If I push myself I can break the kill changing by stepping out. Here both speed, and maneuverability is important. While you may not be physically able to outmaneuver a missile, if you can maneuver hard enough to break the kill chain i.e either get out of the sensor sweet spot of the missile or the acquisition system, or the radar seeker on the missile you have done your job. Plenty of ways are provided to the stealth fighters to be able to get the SA required to do such things.So yeah, stealth by itself is not a Panacea, and that is why stealth fighter have a very expensive ESM suite (called by the F-22's developer as its most sophisticated piece of kit), active protection, and both supersonic speed and the ability to maneuver.

The Super Hornet has no significant all aspect digital EW protection...It relies on Growlers for that so yeah there is no falcon edge like system or a SPECTRA on the F-18E/F..Even on the F-16's and F-15's its a pod based digital system (as opposed to analog systems of yesteryears)..Only the F-15E's and C's get the EPAWS system. The only active EW system the F-18E/F has is a post weapon launch (SAM or A2A) system as a counter measure..It does not actively seek out jamming for access and survivability like the SPECTRA. The USN would have wanted to do that because such systems have been exported but that would have been extra cost..I don't think the F-18E/F has an IR MAWS like the F-22 that got it what 15 or so years ago (sensor full rate production)?, F-35 has in the EODAS, Rafale has and even Israeli F-16's have? (So does the latest Gripen)..

That is utter nonsense. If the USAF has bases close enough to establish air-superiority, there is no need for the USN or their carriers.

Why does the USN spend so much on its fleet of carriers? Merely to supplement USAF bases? No. It's to knock down doors and go where the USAF cannot.


Because there are plenty of missions to fight in against non-peer states where the USN can establish air superiority without breaking a sweat. Those tactics won't be the same against a near peer. For near peer threats there is good synergy in capability where the USAF comes in and supports the larger force in air-dominance..heck the first platform to carry the USN's Long Range Anti Shipping missile is a USAF aircraft.

Not to mention HAL has yet to demonstrate the ability to manufacture the LCA in anything like the numbers required.


HAL is not going to produce LCA's and wait for an order. No one does it that way. You order, and then make it a fixed price contract for delivery. You don't do it the other way around.

But it is an option that is available if they feel the need.

They don't feel the need.

Which should tell you something about their level of comfort with their current capabilities


Are you going to use that line of reasoning? So the USN does not have a stealthy super cruising fighter so the F-18E/F must have been better than the N-ATF. The USN does not feel the need to acquire the F-22A to counter say a PAKFA..that means the F-18E/F must be better than the PAKFA..That line of reasoning is rather absurd. The point is that the uSN has taken the CHEAP route towards tactical aviation post the cold war..They didn't want to do it this way but they ran extremely messy program in the A-12 and had no acquisition confidence to pull anything substantially better than the F-18E/F to replace the F-14D's..There are missions the F-14D's could do the F-18E/F can't even now and would never be able to but thats water under the bridge..they chose to give that capability up because the Rhino was the best they could do. It does not mean that they can do all the missions better even with such a reduced capability..Heck why else did they seek the N-ATF and the A-12 if the F-18E/F can handle all air superiority and penetrating missions? Why did they force the USAF and USMC into a corner by asking a stealthier JSF that could carry more heavier payload than what the other two services wanted? Why did they want the JSF to have EOTS standard and not one in 3 as the USAF wanted?

Its like saying the USAF has to extend the lives of the 200 F-15C's because they only got 180 odd F-22A's so the F-15C must be good to handle the Su-35 and PAKFA threats. Thats not how that works...

You act like the SH doesn't have built-in jamming capability, which again is nonsense.


It does not. The Super Hornet has Electronic warfare protection as a countermeasure against a launched weapon. The Spectra like the F-16's Falcon Edge can go after the acquisition systems and since it is digital (much like the Falcon Edge) can use the computing to conduct a lot of false return stuff that modern EW jammers can do.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 02:35

Raytheon, US Navy demonstrate new electronic attack architecture using MALD-J aerial jammer

OINT PACIFIC ALASKA RANGE COMPLEX, Alaska, Sept. 9, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Naval Research Lab and Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) have demonstrated successful captive flights of a modular, rapid replacement architecture for electronic warfare (EW) payloads on the Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer (MALD-J). The testing occurred during the biannual Northern Edge exercise in Alaska.

Called CERBERUS, four separately developed EW payloads were used in 12 operationally relevant missions. The interchangeable payloads, each customized for a specific mission and threat, were swapped onto the captive carry vehicle in less than one minute. The payloads were designed to be used on a MALD® vehicle.

"The CERBERUS design is cost-effective and expands MALD capabilities to address new missions and target sets. It's a sensible approach for mitigating payload obsolescence," said Dr. Jeff Heyer, head of Electronic Warfare Strategic Planning Organization at Naval Research Laboratory. "The design embodies the CNO's 'Payloads over Platforms' vision."

This four-year program, in collaboration with U.S. Pacific Command and Naval Air Systems Command (PMA-234), developed a payload system architecture integrated with a quick interchange structural connection. Together, they provide a match for the rapidly evolving electronic attack battle space.

The critical technology for the quick-attachment technique was borrowed from IndyCar racing technology. CERBERUS adapted the half-turn quick lock developed by Dallara, which has 40 years of expertise in producing some of the safest and fastest racing cars in the world. This design was altered to meet aerospace form factors and environmental requirements.

"The successful Military Utility Assessment during Northern Edge 15 demonstrated the CERBERUS design's capacity to expand MALD capabilities to address new missions and target sets," Heyer said. "There is a high-demand signal from the operational forces to deliver this capability to the warfighter now."

During Northern Edge, new tactics, techniques and capabilities are demonstrated for possible use in combat. A MALD vehicle was carried below a Sabreliner, with the payload controlled from within the aircraft cabin. This is an effective tool for evaluating payload performance, and allows for real-time control and data analysis during a flight test.

MALD-J is in full rate production for the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Navy is evaluating development of MALD-N in the near future to conduct stand-in-jamming for their unique missions.

About MALD and MALD-J
MALD is a state-of-the-art, low-cost flight vehicle that is modular, air-launched and programmable. It weighs less than 300 pounds and has a range of approximately 500 nautical miles. MALD protects aircraft and their crews by duplicating the combat flight profiles and signatures of U.S. and allied aircraft. MALD-J adds radar-jamming capability to the basic MALD platform.

MALD confuses enemy air defenses by duplicating friendly aircraft flight profiles and radar signatures.
MALD-J maintains all capabilities of MALD and adds jamming capabilities.
Raytheon began delivery of MALD-Js in the fall of 2012.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 04:37

brar_w wrote:
Incorrect.

Those ranges are idealized and nothing close to reality, especially with Growler support.

Also there is JASSM.


And you base that (Bold portion) on what exactly?


Reality. Ranges are always given in idealized conditions and the real world is never ideal. It also makes certain assumptions like an aircraft coming straight at the SAM which again isn't going to happen.

brar_w wrote:
Nothing is a panacea.

Including stealth.


There are a few things that stealth fighter use to break the kill chains.


That all's great, but that's just one way to break kill chains. It's not the only way.


brar_w wrote:The Super Hornet has no significant all aspect digital EW protection...It relies on Growlers for that so yeah there is no falcon edge like system or a SPECTRA on the F-18E/F..Even on the F-16's and F-15's its a pod based digital system (as opposed to analog systems of yesteryears)..Only the F-15E's and C's get the EPAWS system. The only active EW system the F-18E/F has is a post weapon launch (SAM or A2A) system as a counter measure..


brar_w wrote:
You act like the SH doesn't have built-in jamming capability, which again is nonsense.


It does not. The Super Hornet has Electronic warfare protection as a countermeasure against a launched weapon. The Spectra like the F-16's Falcon Edge can go after the acquisition systems and since it is digital (much like the Falcon Edge) can use the computing to conduct a lot of false return stuff that modern EW jammers can do.


Incorrect.

ALE-55


brar_w wrote:
That is utter nonsense. If the USAF has bases close enough to establish air-superiority, there is no need for the USN or their carriers.

Why does the USN spend so much on its fleet of carriers? Merely to supplement USAF bases? No. It's to knock down doors and go where the USAF cannot.


Because there are plenty of missions to fight in against non-peer states where the USN can establish air superiority without breaking a sweat.


You think the carrier fleet exists solely for non-peer states?

brar_w wrote:
Not to mention HAL has yet to demonstrate the ability to manufacture the LCA in anything like the numbers required.


HAL is not going to produce LCA's and wait for an order. No one does it that way. You order, and then make it a fixed price contract for delivery. You don't do it the other way around.


I'm talking about manufacturing the LCAs they already have orders for. It hasn't exactly been speedy.

brar_w wrote:
But it is an option that is available if they feel the need.

They don't feel the need.

Which should tell you something about their level of comfort with their current capabilities


Are you going to use that line of reasoning? So the USN does not have a stealthy super cruising fighter so the F-18E/F must have been better than the N-ATF. The USN does not feel the need to acquire the F-22A to counter say a PAKFA..that means the F-18E/F must be better than the PAKFA..That line of reasoning is rather absurd.


You're comparing a $700k missile to a multi-billion dollar project?

The JASSM easily fits within the current budget and infrastructure. The only reason they don't have it is that they don't feel there's a need for it.

brar_w wrote:The point is that the uSN has taken the CHEAP route towards tactical aviation post the cold war..


Given the current state of IAF's finances, that is a positive. The most bang-for-the-buck is what's needed. Get something that can accomplish all the missions while not breaking the bank. You keep talking about specs, but you're missing the big picture. Missions can be accomplished in many ways, and that is all that matters.

brar_w wrote:Heck why else did they seek the N-ATF and the A-12 if the F-18E/F can handle all air superiority and penetrating missions?


Why do you ever want a better plane? To accomplish the mission better. What precisely does 'better' mean? Typically in this instance, a lower loss rate. Maybe a SH can do a particularly risky mission at a 2% loss rate while something else can do it at a 1% loss rate. That does not mean the SH can't do the mission, it just means you may have to accept higher losses.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 05:06

Incorrect.

ALE-55


There's a difference between an acquisition radar jammer and a towed decoy. The Towed decoy is a matter of last resort against an incoming SAM, while the Spectra and the Falcon Edge like systems are designed to confuse the larger acquisition radars on the ground so as to cut off the SA available to them prior to launch. A big difference. A full spectrum jammer will fend off far greater number of threats than a towed decoy hence the reason why the higher end 4+ generation aircraft all carry it, why the UAE paid a ton of money to get it, and why the USAF is getting it for its highest rated legacy strike fighter (F-15E).

Reality. Ranges are always given in idealized conditions and the real world is never ideal. It also makes certain assumptions like an aircraft coming straight at the SAM which again isn't going to happen


Neither is going to change the basic facts that the engagement radars, and the SAM's are getting longer ranged every decade with the current ones in an IAD multiple wavebands and much longer ranged, far more than a stand off weapon option even though a stand off weapon will take out very few target sets that may be part of a strike sortie.

That all's great, but that's just one way to break kill chains. It's not the only way


There is noting that can completely break the kill chain by itself unless you are talking about extremely old radar and SAM systems. Your decade old EA-18 pods aren't going to either specially when HOJ ARM's are part of Chinese SAM's as of NOW. EMS Spectrum management is very complicated and the USN knows for a fact that you can't defeat it through EW alone hence they wanted both the N-ATF and the A-12 all the time until they were forced to drop the latter after spending a ton of money. Just because they could not get the A-12, does not mean that stealth+ESM+EW is useless and all that is required is an EW pod that is all a be all end all of all strike...Everyone else that is designing for complicated air-defenses be it the Russians, Chinese and the europeans are doing it the same way and so was the USN all the way unto the point they got their programs cancelled due to cost and technical reasons.

Despite of how much you may like an aircraft, you aren't going to walk into an IAD system setup with a non-stealthy aircraft, without any active Electronic warfare protection, without an IR MAWS even, and claim you can penetrate at will with a 2% loss rate just because you have a towed decoy and a legacy EW end state countermeasure. This is ridiculous !!



Unfortunately, the Rhino has absolutely no offensive self escort soft kill capability against a wideband emitting threat. It doesn't have stealth, and it does not have broadband jamming so it must rely on Growler protection that at the moment (until the NGJ arrives) lacks a lot of the capability that modern digital jammers can get you such as narrow precise beamstearing for starters. The NGJ will change that in a big way but it will be only one aspect of a broader ESM problem, more EW payloads and solutions will be required and the F-35C will give them a very capable stealth platform.

I'm talking about manufacturing the LCAs they already have orders for. It hasn't exactly been speedy


Total orders dictate annual production volumes..If you have only 40 orders on the book you aren't going to produce at 20 a year. If you have 200 on the order book you will ramp up from 8 to 10, from 10 to 15 and from 15-30 over a 4-6 year period.

You're comparing a $700k missile to a multi-billion dollar project?


Yes I am...The USN got out of the JASSM program because they did not want to invest in a system that was costly because making a stealthy missile was a challenge. Budgets get upset when you have to develop cutting edge weapons and if you don't want to do that you will wash your hands from them. Its like saying that the Harpoon is a very capable anti-ship missile 10 years ago when it was outclassed, just because the USN had put anti-surface warfare way down on the priority list. The USN does not have a very long range SO missile, and even if they did a SO missile does not take out a large portion of the target sets..You have to FIND, FIX and Attack a target, while a SO missile requires the F2 portion to be taken care off remotely which is largely reliant on GPS coordinates in an era when everything from SAM radars, to C2C complexes are going mobile. The sensor-shooter problem is very real and the USN is playing a part in solving it and there tactics involve the F-35C penetrating and staying there feeding target information to stand off Growlers (SEAD) and F-18E/F's using the JSOW's...The Shornet by itself cannot penetrate deeply protected targets for very long without a significant loss simply because it does not have stealth, and it does not have EW protection to try to jam acquisition radars or target data links in an effort to be survivable. If it goes low and terrain masks, it has abysmal range as most aircraft do. All in all a capable bomb truck in a permissive environment, a decent Stand Off weapons shooter when alongside an F-35C but as a stand alone fighter it is not COMPLETE because that was the design. The USN did not want modern avionics systems developed over the last 15-20 years. They wanted and got an AESA, but nothing interns of an all aspect digital EW suite, no 1st generation IR MAWS even..They didn't even bother incorporating an IRST into the frame as the aircraft it replaces in the fleet had standard. All the effort was placed to get a cheap system after the acquisition disaster in the A-12. But for that low price, a basic fighter is what they get, something that needs the F-35C and Growler to exist in the very highly defended airspace unlike the Rafale that for example has some modern self defense and EW components and full spectrum IR coverage for SA.


Given the current state of IAF's finances, that is a positive. The most bang-for-the-buck is what's needed. Get something that can accomplish all the missions while not breaking the bank. You keep talking about specs, but you're missing the big picture. Missions can be accomplished in many ways, and that is all that matters


And the CHEAP route is either the MKI which India has already acquired in large numbers, has the infrastructure for and the LCA which is an in house design at roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the cheapest MRCA.

Why do you ever want a better plane? To accomplish the mission better. What precisely does 'better' mean? Typically in this instance, a lower loss rate. Maybe a SH can do a particularly risky mission at a 2% loss rate while something else can do it at a 1% loss rate. That does not mean the SH can't do the mission, it just means you may have to accept higher losses


:!: :!:
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2015 05:34, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 05:32

brar_w wrote:
Incorrect.

ALE-55


Go back and read up on it and the difference between an acquisition radar jammer and a towed decoy. The Towed decoy is a matter of last resort against an incoming SAM, while the Spectra and the Falcon Edge like systems are designed to confuse the larger acquisition radars on the ground so as to cut off the SA available to them prior to launch. A big difference.


Incorrect.

I suggest you read up on it. It does precisely what you say it doesn't.


brar_w wrote:
Reality. Ranges are always given in idealized conditions and the real world is never ideal. It also makes certain assumptions like an aircraft coming straight at the SAM which again isn't going to happen


Neither is going to change the basic facts that the engagement radars, and the SAM's are getting longer ranged every decade


As SAMs get better, so do jammers. It's a cat-and-mouse game.

brar_w wrote: and much longer ranged, far more than a stand off weapon option


Incorrect.

JASSM-ER is already 1000+ km


brar_w wrote:Just because they could not get the A-12, does not mean that stealth+ESM+EW is useless and all that is required is an EW pod that is all a be all end all of all strike...


Strawman argument, I never said that. Stealth is better, but stealth is not the only path to accomplishing a mission. And with various OTH, bi-static and longer-wavelength radars becoming available, stealth has very real limitations.


brar_w wrote:
I'm talking about manufacturing the LCAs they already have orders for. It hasn't exactly been speedy


Total orders dictate annual production volumes..If you have only 40 orders on the book you aren't going to produce at 20 a year. If you have 200 on the order book you will ramp up from 8 to 10, from 10 to 15 and from 15-30 over a 4-6 year period.


We'll see, but I have very strong doubts.

brar_w wrote:
You're comparing a $700k missile to a multi-billion dollar project?


Yes I am...The USN got out of the JASSM program because they did not want to invest in a system that was costly because making a stealthy missile was a challenge.


The missile is developed now. It is available for $700k a pop, which is dirty cheap relatively speaking. Yet they still haven't bought it.

brar_w wrote:And the CHEAP route is either the MKI which India has already acquired in large numbers, has the infrastructure for and the LCA which is an in house design at roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the cheapest MRCA.


The MKI is no longer cheap to buy, with acquisition costs rising towards $100 million a pop, and it has never been cheap to run.

And as already mentioned, even a full run of LCA still leaves you short on numbers. Plus who knows how long it will take HAL to ramp-up production. The SH has a hot line available now that can crank out numbers more rapidly than any other option.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 05:57

Incorrect.

I suggest you read up on it. It does precisely what you say it doesn't.


From the developers website

Critical end-game countermeasure proven to defeat enemy missile attacks.

A towed decoy's job (doesnt matter which towed decoy it is, or made by who) is to stear the missile seeker towards it instead of the aircraft it is protecting. That is a post-weapon launch, and a very late (HENCE - END-GAME -) response. An active wide-band jammer payload looks to provide active electronic attack in order to disrupt and degrade the radars that are feeding multiple SAM systems. Furthermore digital active systems are highly agile and adaptive and there digital nature and solid state electronics allow them to form very narrow precise beams thereby optimizing power for maximum long range EW effects..I am not even getting into some of the crazy stuff when you have a highly agile jammers and have the computing to generate false signals. If you can pick up (RWR) very precise frequencies, and have a modern digital systems you can concentrate a lot if not all energy into a narrow beam jamming precisely the small range of the incoming threat. Modern high end (AESA) jammers do this, and so will the upcoming NGJ that will greatly expand its range on top of the nearly 90KW of power availability per pod. This is a difference between an extensive all aspect wide band active electronic warfare/attack suite and just carrying around a towed decoy countermeasures. The spectra employs a digital AESA based jammer that is linked to a capable computer processor. The Gripen E takes this one step further by adding gallium nitride elements allowing even higher powered (GaN can take more power compared to GaA) for the precise beam forming and GaN allows them to package a high capability in a small package given the Gripen's size. The Next Generation Jammer piles on a very large volume of Gallium Nitride based package along with a RAT solution that delivers a 90KW of power per pod at its operational altitude (to put this into some context the current -99's will do well to sustain 20-22 KW of power generation for sustained periods mostly because the jamming payloads can't handle all that much power so they didn't bother upgrading the RAT)...The F-18E/F however doesn't carry anything like that because it costs money and adds to cost when you try to integrate something like this into an airframe especially when have a large stand off jammer capability working simultaneously. Perhaps in the future the F-18E/F will get it, but high RCS fighters need higher EW protection compared to stealth so I am not sure they can integrate something inside without resorting to a pod solution.

Calling a towed decoy carriage capability as being highly survivable against modern IAD's is like claiming that a B-1 bomber (that carries the same towed decoy) is going to be as survivable as a B-2 or F-22, F-35 etc. Simple point is that to have a chance of surviving you need to have stealth, or EW, or a stupid enemy. For high end threats you need a combination of stealth, EW and strong ESM capabilities..A lot of emphases on EW can be countered because equally agile nodes are available to air-defense makers and you cannot not be agile as a jammer because that leaves you vulnerable to HOJ seekers...

As SAMs get better, so do jammers. It's a cat-and-mouse game.


And those Jammers are carried by a seperate iteration of the F-18 i.e. the EA-18G.

Incorrect.

JASSM-ER is already 1000+ km


I was referring to the missiles in the inventory not something that isn't.

Strawman argument, I never said that. Stealth is better, but stealth is not the only path to accomplishing a mission. And with various OTH, bi-static and longer-wavelength radars becoming available, stealth has very real limitations


No one is designing fighters, bombers, UAV's, UCAV's etc etc without incorporating stealth features. Heck the USN did that on three programs around the turn of the century (N-ATF, A-12, and UCAS-N/J-UCAS/NUCAS). No one is designing stealth aircraft that rely solely on stealth..heck that hasn't happened since the F-117 that was a first generation stealth design.

No one however is dumb enough to pitch a fighter for the 2020's that has NO stealth, has NO active EW protection, does not have an IR MAWS system, and refers to a towed decoy as an EW package. I am sorry but that is not what is happening. Just because it works for the USN doesn't not make it right and the best approach because the USN has plenty of support to actually make those design compromises. Not all have that sort of infrastructure to fight in an integrated manner (F-35, F-18, EA-18, UCLASS and E-2D all linked under the NIFC-CA construct or a joint BACN)

The missile is developed now. It is available for $700k a pop, which is dirty cheap relatively speaking. Yet they still haven't bought it.


They haven't bought it because they do not want to do a new start and add to their munitions program at a time when those same munitions programs are getting CHOPPED. They already lost the Aim-9X Block III that would have been very helpful for the F-18E/F given its FUEL TANK mounted IRST. They are getting the LRASM which is essentially a JASSMER (from an integration perspective) but very small quantities of it. The USAF did not back them on the aim-9x blk III. The USN has two new munition (relevant to the mission) acquisition programs in the powered category in the LRASM and the AARGM-ER. The former would be followed by the OSUW later early next decade and I doubt they'll venture into another acquisition program anytime soon in their munitions portfolio at a time when it along with everything getting a cut especially when they go to the Congress and tell them that if they design and purchase the Ohio Class Replacement Sub they won't have any money in their annual shipbuilding budget left to buy any other ship. The answer is that the USN has different priorities now, and those are to buy a lot of ships to recapitalize the surface fleet, to launch a ginormous development and acquisition program in the Ohio Class replacement submarine and design the next generation DDG for the early 2030's. That along with cutting edge offset technologies such as the EMRG, and lasers will eat a lot into their funds for higher end stuff. Tactical aviation is not getting a priority for quite a while and their F-35C acquisition (pushing stuff back to the early 2020's) and the UCLASS scale down is a good example. However, call it for what it is i.e. a rebaselining of funding priorities..not some magic bullet where they have a fighter that isn't an all out performer in most regimes, lacks stealth, lacks a comprehensive integrated active digital EW suite, lacks Integrated IR situational awareness aids yet still can outclass the best fighters and penetrate the most well defended areas

The MKI is no longer cheap to buy, with acquisition costs rising towards $100 million a pop, and it has never been cheap to run


Even $100 Million is cheap compared to what the overall acquisition cost of a brand new system is likely to be. Where are the figures for the operational cost? It should be significantly cheaper given that many of the parts are being produced in INR as opposed to being bought in Euro or USD.

And as already mentioned, even a full run of LCA still leaves you short on numbers. Plus who knows how long it will take HAL to ramp-up production. The SH has a hot line available now that can crank out numbers more rapidly than any other option


There is plenty of incentive to fund HAL...They money saved from both acquiring 100+ western fighters can easily deliver a viable production line.

The SH has a hot line available now that can crank out numbers more rapidly than any other option.


That may be the only thing it has in its favor. But there are hot lines for the Rafale that is much more capable, the Typhoon which is also much more capable in the long run given its performance, and the F-35 which is a much better for the long term viability if buying a US fighter is not an issue.

There is good reason why Boeing has been selling the F-18E/F, F-18 Advanced, international , silent eagle etc over the last few years without any success. These fighters are much inferior from a quality perspective to what is coming in the pipeline. Procurement of fighters is a decision a nation has to live with for 3-4 decades.

The only reason the USN likes the F-18E/F is because it is cheap. Anything more expensive would have given them even more acquisition headaches, so they quietly bought a cheap aircraft that could get enhanced ability through support. The Growler makes up for some of its shortcomings but the platforms that would really add synergistic capability to it would be the EA-18G with the NGJ (provided it gets the CFT) and the F-35C along with the network backing it and allowing for that linkage. As a stand-alone aircraft without all that the F-18E/F is the least kinematically capable platform in the MRCA, was along with the Typhoon the only aircraft that did not have a broadband jamming capability integrated, and was along the F-16, Mig-29 and Typhoon to lack an IR MAWS (The typhoon bid may have offered that) something that has become an industry standard in the post 2015 world (F-22 has it, F-35 has it, Rafale has it, PAKFA is going to have it, IDF F-16's are getting it and the Gripen is getting it). Add to that it was the only non 9-G fighter in the competition with a full 9-G capability requiring testing funding (as Finland did for their classic hornets). You've got to be absolutely lunatic to buy something like that in 2015-16 timeframe. The USN is doing it because their acquisition program began in the 90's and because they have plenty of higher end capability coming quite soon..The IAF want a much better multi-role fighter heck they demanded a lot of capability. If there is nothing to get in terms of cutting edge capability, then its best to continue buying more MKI's until the LCA's come in large numbers, no need to acquire a new aircraft.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 07:11

brar_w wrote:
Incorrect.

I suggest you read up on it. It does precisely what you say it doesn't.


From the developers website


That is the ALE-50. I said the ALE-55.

Completely different product from a different company despite the similar name.

Try again.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 07:21

That is the ALE-50. I said the ALE-55.

Completely different product from a different company despite the similar name.

Try again.


That does not fundamentally all of a sudden convert a TOWED DECOY into an all aspect jammer even though it tries its best to act as one. You will be limited by the size of the radiating elements inside the decoy, as apposed to an all aspect suite that includes much higher power units providing significantly higher jamming against threats operating in different ranges. That point is still valid. You can't mount an ALE-55 on a B-52 and claim it is a penetrating aircraft simply because there is a limited amount of scope of threat that it can counter. An integrated jammer however has the resources (elements) and the power to do a lot more than a towed decoy hence its the preferred means when there is a full on integrated active solution designed such as the SPECTRA, FALCON EDGE, or the GRIPEN E/F's system. You will see a very highly capable electronic warfare solution on the upcoming long range strike bomber (because the USAF has announced publicly its plans of using it as a long loiter jammer) something much different from a towed decoy, and that is going to be a survivable stealth platform.

Expect both the Typhoon and the Super Hornet to move over to a more capable integrated EW solution in the future if funding is available, that capability will also most likely come into the F-35 as follow on development. At the moment the only aircraft getting a larger broadband internal active EA capability as an upgrade in the US inventory is the F-15C and E fleet. There is a reason why the F-18E/F's will always fly under threats using the EA-18G cover..the sheer amount of protection a non stealthy aircraft requires from a wide range of EMS threats is staggering even from onboard jammers to process and counters (let alone towed decoys)..This was learnt by those trying to defeat high end threats years ago hence they took a two-pronged approach to doing so, first they shrank the threat index i.e. closed the SAM rings and acquisition and track radars detection ranges and performances at angles, secondly they gave the aircraft an opportunity to be smart enough to tell the pilot which profiles to fly to present the best aspect to the threats (this comes due to the ESM suites), then they provided both pre-launch EA and post launch protection. The stealth allows them to get by with a much smaller EA footprint without having to need dedicated jammers...because the first rule is to stay LPI and there is no such thing as LPI jamming...

Your argument is basically flawed because you fail to see the USN's rationale for their fighter and larger tactical aviation decisions. They wanted high end capability, they along with the USAF were quick to realize the value of Stealth, Speed, Performance, EA/EW in both air-superiority and strike missions. As a result they invented heavily in developing this capability in joining the N-ATF program, investing in a dedicated penetrating strike aircraft in the A-12 and co-developing a stealthy UCAV before their partner dropped out because the USN's size requirement was not appealing to its requirements. However poor program management and a change in the direction of their investment priorities resulted them in transforming Naval Aviation from a fleet of mixed aircraft that did air to air (F-14), long range strike (F14D), multi role strike (F/A-18), to EW (EA-6) etc to a two-strike fighter fleet. The Air to Air CAP capability lost with the F-14 was never recovered with the F-18E/F, its a mission where the USN absorbed risk for the sake of cost. Same goes to penetrating strike....They have absorbed the risk and will continue to do so until they get the F-35C in decent numbers. Its rather absurd to spin that into something that says that the USN has somehow managed to find a penetrating mission ability without investing in acquiring that capability just because they must have since they didn't invest in some of the stuff that NAVAIR was working on. Its a capability shortcoming, a deliberate one at that following the turn of the century. There are other technologies areas where the USN has fallen behind on..Electronic Warfare is one. They wanted a mix of tactical and strategic platforms to replace the Prowler but what they got was a delayed NGJ start, and just a tactical platform in the EA-18G growler. They are addressing the urgent capability shortfall by now putting nearly $10 Billion into the Next Generation Jammer, a program critical to the Growler's long term viability. Another area where they have lost capability has been anti-surface warfare where the Harpoon missile has long been outclassed. There are areas where they have done much better and improved since the cold war. Littoral and under-sea warfare are two such areas. Networks is another one and the Standard missile development is also noteworthy. The USAF has also fallen behind some areas compared to the years in the past and that is also due to a re-shaping of investment priorities. The bomber age and the age of the fighter fleet is one. The F-22A numbers would ensure a lack of high end Air dominance squadrons (that spend all their time training for air to air) that would have to be made up through a collection of capabilities..However no one in their right minds would claim that the F-15C can hold its own against an Su-35 because the USAF has upgraded it, or that an F-16 can penetrate a complex IAD at will now that it has a new shiny towed decoy or even a self protection jammer let alone come with ridiculous un-realistic stats such as 1 - 2 % survivability.

Anyhow the market has spoken on the F-18E/F, it got squeezed out of the Brazilian deal because of both politics and the lower operational cost of the Gripen, and at the higher end it is getting squeezed by the F-35. Its chance of securing a large Kuwaiti order (a natural market since Kuwait already owns the F/A-18) just got dampened since Kuwait at best will buy a split Typhoon fleet and at worst (for boeing) an all typhoon fleet. If cost is not a concern and the F-35 is not an option and the political matters point to US stuff the F-15E is a much better platform hence the very large order from Saudi Arabia. This leaves no real niche for the Super Hornet to exploit other than the largely political decisions in the Middle East. For a Nation that has equal access to the Rafale and Typhoon spending extra gets you better capability both kinematically and systems wise. For India however the more affordable option is not to go for an inferior performing Super Hornet but to buy the Su-30MKI (say 50) that is better at air to a ir than all MRCA competitors and invest substantially into the LCA MKI 1/1.5 and 2 production process to increase production rates and sustain them for 10+ years.

Hence there would be no SH in the IAF colors and its chances look pretty bad for most nations barring perhaps 1 or maybe 2 small orders from the ME countries.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2015 07:49, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 07:47

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... 019923.pdf

brar_w wrote:
You act like the SH doesn't have built-in jamming capability, which again is nonsense.


It does not. The Super Hornet has Electronic warfare protection as a countermeasure against a launched weapon. The Spectra like the F-16's Falcon Edge can go after the acquisition systems and since it is digital (much like the Falcon Edge) can use the computing to conduct a lot of false return stuff that modern EW jammers can do.


To be clear, your earlier statement was completely false.

Image

The ALE-55 is digital, it can connect with a computer onboard to generate any signal desired, it is full spectrum and it is high powered. It is a fully capable active jamming system.

If you want to argue that other systems are slightly more capable, feel free to try, but to repeatedly pretend it does not have the capability at all, even after the exact model has been pointed out is just dishonest.

So again we come back to: what missions can the SH not do that the something like the Rafale can do? And the answer is: nothing.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 07:57

The ALE-55 is digital, it can connect with a computer onboard to generate any signal desired, it is full spectrum and it is high powered. It is a fully capable active jamming system.


Your jammer capability depends upon the amount of elements you carry, size, weight and power of your systems. Connecting a towed decoy to a computing system of the aircraft does not make it a broadband all aspect jammer. Its like claiming a MALD-J is an all aspect broadband jammer which it is not. If it were this simply your Next Generation jammer would not be carrying humongous pods but just 10 of these lugged around using a cable.A towed decoy no matter how advanced it is is still limited in terms of what it can do by the sheer size of its emitter and the range it is designed to counter.

If you want to argue that other systems are slightly more capable, feel free to try, but to repeatedly pretend it does not have the capability at all, even after the exact model has been pointed out is just dishonest


It isn't dishonest because you have to realize the fact that a towed decoy is limited in its scope. It will never perform like an integrated jammer that has a much wider footprint especially when you can spread the elements around to counter different threats as SAAB is doing with the Gripen E. That is the future of Jamming and rest assured if money is not an option both Boeing and Eurofigther GmBH will be presenting similar solutions. The Rafale and the Gripen along with the UAE F-16's have the lead with the first two systems probably better given the volume and emphasis paid into this. To claim the F-18E/F is a capable penetrating aircraft because it has the JSOW and the ALE_55 is like saying that the B-1 with the same two is as capable as the B-2 at those missions. You design a fleet with that mentality only if you have the risk appetite to loose a lot of it to SAM's. The uSAF knows this, their analysis has shown it consistently and they have seen the damage in Vietnam. The USN knows it and their analysis pointed to the same things with the current focus being driven by cost, controlling it because investments in other areas are prioritized and for good reason.

So again we come back to: what missions can the SH not do that the something like the Rafale can do? And the answer is: nothing.


If you look at it that way there is nothing that a Rafale or SH can do that a 10 year old or even a 15 year old F-16 can't do or a Mig-21 for that matter provided you are willing to accept the attrition that would accompany such platforms due to much less capability.

There are plenty of things the Rafale can do BETTER than the SH. First and foremost its about passing the technical trials of the IAF. The Rafale managed to do that while the F-18 cannot. Second of all no matter which capability you take the Rafale is better accept the bomb the jehadi mud hauling capability where they are about equal (the rafale may be able to carry a larger payload) with an edge going to the Rhino primarily because of its weapons and their cost. If you want to fight a sensor-shooter war against a capable enemy you have to be absolutely ludracris to prefer the F-18 over the Rafale because the latter has organic capability and a very capable active/passive suite onboard while the latter has to rely / count on a towed decoy for EW protection, carry a centerline tank that it cannot jettison because it sports an IRST, has to fly along side an F-35C to get Passive IR Situational Awareness etc.The Rafale will still find it challenging but it can do the job a lot better because it has that organic capability. A lot of that organic capability has been left out of the Super Hornet by its developers and promoters (The USN) because it would have been redundant given their plans on how to fight i.e. a more capable jammer would have meant duplication of investment given its Growler investments, a more capable sensor suite would have driven cost closer to the F-35C and away from the Hi-Low mix they plan, similarly better kinematic performance (even compared to the legacy F/A-18 let alone something like the F-14) would have meant greater deviation form the F/A-18 design resulting in higher costs and greater risk. Ultimately the USN made a wise decision for its needs however that decision means its probably the most customer-centric aircraft currently in production (Besides specialized aircraft like say the growler or A-10) and that is reflected in its performance in international competitions with the only order for it being that as a stop gap with possible conversion to growlers later on. It sucks kinematically and has poor and stands out only in the low speed high AOA profile, lacks stealth, has a much less elegant and extensive EW solution compared to say the Rafale or Gripen E, lacks the F-35's stealth and is a naval fighter that cannot pull 9G's..All of those collectively are the reasons why it has had no significant success (in fact none at all) in the international fighter market I am sure Boeing knows it (its not their fault, I am sure there are highly capable designers itching to make some great fighters in St. Louis), they were paid to design a fighter based on the USN's needs and unfortunately the LOW (in the future F-18E/F and F-35 mix) nature of the F-18E/F in the fleet mix and the fact that the USN lacked a lot of acquisition credibility post the A-12 debacle meant that they were always going to be challenged in the International domains where in the medium sized multi-role fighter market the customers are spoiled for choice

The only thing the F18E/F has going for it is the Aim-120D clearance (they carry them now in the Pacific) because I believe that missile has a completely new front end (although classified it has been hinted by People I would generally trust with such information (Such as the guy in charge of missiles for JANES) ) that makes it fairly immune to DRFM Jamming but that is not an export cleared missile and won't be for a long time if what I suspect is indeed true.
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2015 08:28, edited 1 time in total.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 08:28

brar_w wrote:A lot of emphases on EW can be countered because equally agile nodes are available to air-defense makers and you cannot not be agile as a jammer because that leaves you vulnerable to HOJ seekers...


That is a very curious argument you make. Basically you're saying that all those integrated jammers you keep hyping up are no good because of HOJ. It's as if you need some sort of stand-off jamming capability, like say the Growler . . .

brar_w wrote:
As SAMs get better, so do jammers. It's a cat-and-mouse game.


And those Jammers are carried by a seperate iteration of the F-18 i.e. the EA-18G.


Besides the fact that you are factually incorrect about the SH not having jammers, you keep talking about the Growler as if it's a bad thing. Having stand-off jamming capability is a smart capability.

brar_w wrote:
Incorrect.

JASSM-ER is already 1000+ km


I was referring to the missiles in the inventory not something that isn't.


So you were comparing future SAMs against current inventory? Even you can't believe that's an honest argument.

And as this is about India, India could include them in its order if desired.

brar_w wrote:No one is designing fighters, bombers, UAV's, UCAV's etc etc without incorporating stealth features.


The Rafale isn't stealth either. In fact the only stealth plane available for sale right now is the F-35, which isn't affordable in large enough numbers to fill India's falling squadron numbers.

brar_w wrote:
The MKI is no longer cheap to buy, with acquisition costs rising towards $100 million a pop, and it has never been cheap to run


Even $100 Million is cheap compared to what the overall acquisition cost of a brand new system is likely to be.


Airlines have the same issue and they found that for sufficiently large fleets, there was no advantage to sticking with just one model of airliner. Thus you can run a mixed fleet of 737s and A320s cost effectively.

brar_w wrote:Where are the figures for the operational cost? It should be significantly cheaper given that many of the parts are being produced in INR as opposed to being bought in Euro or USD.


Fuel is the major driver of operational cost, and the MKI is thirsty.

brar_w wrote:
The SH has a hot line available now that can crank out numbers more rapidly than any other option.


That may be the only thing it has in its favor. But there are hot lines for the Rafale


The Rafale line is currently running at 11 planes a year. It can increase to 22 year, but that will take a few years, plus they also have orders from Egypt and Qatar.

The SH line is running at 48 per year and has immediate openings.

brar_w wrote:that is much more capable, the Typhoon which is also much more capable in the long run given its performance, and the F-35 which is a much better for the long term viability if buying a US fighter is not an issue.


But again, all are much more expensive, unaffordably so.


brar_w wrote:The only reason the USN likes the F-18E/F is because it is cheap. Anything more expensive would have given them even more acquisition headaches


Like India and the Rafale?

brar_w wrote:The USN is doing it because their acquisition program began in the 90's and because they have plenty of higher end capability coming quite soon..


Like India and the PAK-FA?

brar_w wrote:The IAF want a much better multi-role fighter heck they demanded a lot of capability. If there is nothing to get in terms of cutting edge capability, then its best to continue buying more MKI's until the LCA's come in large numbers, no need to acquire a new aircraft.


An all MKI air force is unaffordable both to acquire and run. If you want numbers but you also want something more capable than the LCA, the SH is the logical choice.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 08:42

brar_w wrote:If it were this simply your Next Generation jammer would not be carrying humongous pods but just 10 of these lugged around using a cable.


The ALE-55 is a self-protection jammer, the NGJ is a stand-off jammer, they serve very different roles.

brar_w wrote:A towed decoy no matter how advanced it is is still limited in terms of what it can do by the sheer size of its emitter and the range it is designed to counter.


It is sufficient for the protecting the plane towing it, and that's all that matters. It isn't trying to cover an entire strike package.

brar_w wrote:
If you want to argue that other systems are slightly more capable, feel free to try, but to repeatedly pretend it does not have the capability at all, even after the exact model has been pointed out is just dishonest


It isn't dishonest because you have to realize the fact that a towed decoy is limited in its scope.


It is dishonest because it is wrong.

You said it didn't have those capabilities when in fact it does have those capabilities.

As I said, you can try to argue that those capabilities aren't as great as other methods, but to say it doesn't have them at all is factually wrong and dishonest.


brar_w wrote:First and foremost its about passing the technical trials of the IAF. The Rafale managed to do that while the F-18 cannot.


If you care about that, neither the MKI nor the LCA could have passed those trials either.

brar_w wrote:a more capable jammer would have meant duplication of investment given its Growler investments


Considering an India SH purchase would undoubtedly include the Growler (err, Grizzly now), I don't see that as a bad thing.

brar_w wrote:All of those collectively are the reasons why it has had no significant success (in fact none at all) in the international fighter market


I'm sure Australia will be surprised to hear that.

As a reminder, the Rafale had zero international success until this year. Situations change.

Most notably those countries were looking for the Rafale to be their topline fighter for years to come (a silly move if you ask me).

On the other hand, Australia and the USN were looking for a stopgap. India is looking for a stopgap. Whose situations are more similar?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 08:51

That is a very curious argument you make. Basically you're saying that all those integrated jammers you keep hyping up are no good because of HOJ. It's as if you need some sort of stand-off jamming capability, like say the Growler . . .


Yes if you want to execute true offensive EA/EW missions you need the Growler like platforms because they have that agility that is backed by massive power and the sheer number of elements that can cover much broader frequency ranges. However a self-protection jammer is not a stand off jammer so the aircraft is significantly more closer to the emitter when one uses it for self-defense. Same thing as a MALD-J..Its a poor stand off jammer but a good stand in jammer but it is not going to cover a wide bandwidth and multi-spectral threats because of its tiny size, and power requirements hence the USN tried 4 different swappable payloads just recently.

However when you mount EA and EW protection on a stealth platform you use it differently. You only emit when your ESM and computers shows you vulnerable and when you do need to emit the power required to do so is small because the radar return from a stealth platform is faint anyhow so you do not need to cover for a barn sized RCS.


The ALE-55 is a self-protection jammer, the NGJ is a stand-off jammer, they serve very different roles.


I very much know the difference between the two but my point was not about radiating energy but the fact that a tiny Towed decoy is not going to have the tactical flexibility to cover a wide threat as an integrated jammer which won't cover as well the wider threat as a SOJ. In fact none of the integrated jammers target data links or comms all that well if at all. If someone can design a tiny radiating towed jammer that covers all the frequencies than all you need is multiples of those (to make up distributed capability) and spread them around. You don't. A towed solution is a self-protection solution that is very much a compromise when compared to a much heavier integrated system in the self-escort role. Any radar expert will tell you that.



jammers you keep hyping up are no good because of HOJ.


HOJ is overcome by tactics. There are many ways to do so such as having agility in your emissions i.e. being able to change rapidly, and deploying distributed Electronic warfare techniques (hence the growlers always work in multiples and never by themselves). From a technological perspective the most important thing is to establish feedback on your threat i.e. have high end information on the nature of the threat, and what impact you are having on that threat through your emission. If it is an agile threat that is backed by ranges you do not or cannot jam you are basically creating a nice hot target for a HOJ missile like an FT-2000. A growler is a significantly more complicated platform than just a fighter carrying a self protection jammer or a towed decoy. A growler has the ability, power and precision to go after everything from communications, to radar sites to multiple levels of data links and nodes employed by an adversary. At the moment the pods it carries are not the state of the art, but that will change with the NGJ. Standard prowler (and I assume Growler) tactics are to wait for a threat clearance to go out and Jam i.e. you do not in the ideal setting begin jamming a threat until you can quantify the affect you are having i.e. measure it. There are multiple ways to do so with significant investments being poured into the silent-growler concept. The USAF does it using the F-22's etc where it has a very high and precise bearing on the emitting threat from extremely long ranges (The -94 has been credited with 250 nm range in the past) and multiple aircraft can geolocate and tag a threat in near real time (The falcon edge does so as well)..The NGJ introduces a much needed agility in communications and radar frequency jamming especially when theoretically the system can concentrate all its energy onto a very narrow range specific to the threat and change it rapidly based on speed of light communication form F-35C's and silent-Growlers operating in the FEBA. In fact the majority of the EW setup of the Growler (not all) is a generation old technology, but thankfully the NGJ is a two generational leap, having basically skipped the GaA AESA electronics and gone in for GaN without which the requirements would not have been achievable.

ou keep talking about the Growler as if it's a bad thing. Having stand-off jamming capability is a smart capability.


Growlers are a good thing. Please, I am the biggest support of the Prowler and a reluctant supporter of the Growler (only because of the platform not the mission). The current and mainly the future payload of the Growler is going to be world class and the benchmark for all EW SOJ payloads to be compared to for many years. But as a platform the Growler has poor time-on-station, and abysmal range thanks to the drag. The USN's decision to go in for the Growler has affectively ruled out the USAF's commitment to using USN's assets in the stand off EW mission leaving them to go in for a different platform. Aviation Week reported that this platform is an Unmanned system, but the USAF has publicly acknowledged that the Long Range Strike Bomber would be its EW platform. Can't blame them, the common consensus was greater reach and TOS compared to the Prowler and the Growler would do best to match the Prowler let alone better it.

However the EMS maneuver and control is a complicated topic...We can discuss it in a lot more detail but in a nutshell the Growler is one small aspect of how to fight and win in it. It has created much trouble in the EMS domain in the past (in actual combat) that would be largely rectified when the NGJ comes onboard but there are a lot many challenges the Growler does not solve. It has been long established that you cannot fight and win the EMS challenge by simply out jamming your opponent..hence even the most die hard fans of jamming have adopted Low Observability in addition to robust EA and EW capability. The Chinese have done the same. Besides stealth, there are other EMS challenges that the Growler is ill suited to perform given its tactical nature and the sort of effects it delivers. Simply put the future of jamming has a large component where the opponent does not know the source of the jamming and that comes from cooperating swarms of expendable and reusable EW payloads that can be quickly configured.

http://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-08-28

Fuel is the major driver of operational cost, and the MKI is thirsty


I would love numbers as in what is the actual physical cost of operation for the MKI compared to the F-18E/F. I know all about the cost of fuel but there are costs associated in acquiring a brand new platform that uses many weapons that are not compatible with the rest of the fighter force especially when that particular aircraft does not outperform your existing fighters in majority of the missions.

The Rafale line is currently running at 11 planes a year. It can increase to 22 year, but that will take a few years, plus they also have orders from Egypt and Qatar


For 36 that is not a major concern. No one is placing a 126 aircraft order or even a follow on order anytime soon

The SH line is running at 48 per year and has immediate openings


The [url=http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20150413-super-hornet.html]current rate has been reduced to 3 a month with 2 a month a likely scenario soon.

Like India and the PAK-FA?


The PAKFA has a lot of development left and the timelines and overall capability is uncertain. The numbers for the PAKFA may not be sufficient depending on the cost. Essentially too many variables to basically lay all out hedges on the pAKFA especially when the looming decisions to replace the capability is tied to the current aircraft replacement cycle. If the confidence on PAKFA is high and all is well then by all means ditch the rafale, just build more MKI's and help them hold the fort until the FGFA comes online.

An all MKI air force is unaffordable both to acquire and run.


No one is suggesting an ALL MKI air force. Adding 2-4 more squadrons of MKI's and boosting LCA production does not equate to an ALL MKI fighter force.

I'm sure Australia will be surprised to hear that.


If you want to attribute the Australian Purchase of the Super Hornet to Boeing's success than that is fine. Most of the world sees this as a failure of Lockheed and the JPO to deliver the F-35 on time and a rather poor planning on the part of the RAAF to not run a dedicated modernization or long term transition acquisition program as a stepping stone to the F-35A and being forced to quickly acquire a couple of dozen F-18's with the intention to turn them into Growlers at a later stage (and paying extra for that capability upfront).

The Rafale may not have had a lot of success but by many accounts it was technically superior in multiple races include India and Brazil. It just so happens that the IAF is taking a ton of time to decide while smaller ME nations have made largely political decisions. In fact this is a role reversal, the french should have bought large numbers of Super Hornets because they produced an excellent aircraft at a high cost that made it unaffordable to them. The USN should have taken greater risk and produced something like the Rafale because they had the production volume to justify greater RDT&E capability.

GeorgeWelch
BRFite
Posts: 1393
Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby GeorgeWelch » 12 Sep 2015 10:10

brar_w wrote:For 36 that is not a major concern. No one is placing a 126 aircraft order or even a follow on order anytime soon


Exactly why the Rafale is unsuitable for the IAF and the SH is the right choice.

brar_w wrote:If you want to attribute the Australian Indian Purchase of the Super Hornet Rafale to Boeing's Dassault's success than that is fine. Most of the world sees this as a failure of Lockheed and the JPO India and HAL to deliver the F-35 LCA Mk2 on time and a rather poor planning on the part of the RAAF IAF to not run a dedicated modernization or long term transition acquisition program as a stepping stone to the F-35A PAK-FA and being forced to quickly acquire a couple of three dozen F-18's Rafales.


The similarities are eery . . .

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 10:30

Considering an India SH purchase would undoubtedly include the Growler (err, Grizzly now), I don't see that as a bad thing


Good luck getting the Growler cleared for export. Australia tried very hard and they secured NGJ commitment even prior to embarking down that road. Outside case by case clearance for aa handful of nations (honestly outside of the RAAF I can think of only the UK) the NGJ would not be made export compliant making the Growler practically useless in the export market. It would be one of the most closely held systems of all the combat systems operational with the USAF or USN simply because of its strategic importance. The so called 4.5 generation aircraft in the west borrow some capability form 5th generation. These capabilities are performance particularly the supersonic envelope, integrated sensors, active and passive mix, AESA radars etc. Out of these the Super Hornet gets only an AESA radar and whatever fusion you could get with carrying extra pods. IRST is fuel tank mounted, there is no DAS or something similar and the kinematic performance is much inferior compared to the competition. Even in the EW department it along with the typhoon uses a smaller solution compared to dedicated systems (AESA based on the Rafale (and soon GaN AESA based) and GaN AESA based on the Gripen E) onboard the rafale and Gripen E...That reflects in both its cost and lack of enthusiasm despite of US political support. As I said, its great for the USN but only for them..

As a reminder, the Rafale had zero international success until this year. Situations change


The reasons are different. The Rafale was and is a great fighter against its competitors and is a top end performer in its class. Its lack of sale has been political (the sort of competitions it competed in particularly in Asia) and based on cost. The F-18E/F has technical shortcomings vis-a-vis its competitors, something that the International Hornet tried to rectify to no avail. Boeing tried a similar stunt with the silent eagle and have now rolled that back and stopped offering it to customers. I see the International Hornet going a similar route. They've tried all the marketing tricks int he world, from claiming that they have EW protection to just glide through radar sites to designing a stealth pod and adding CFT's and calling it " RELEVANT stealth" or something like that as opposed to too much stealth on the F-35 and claiming all sorts of signature advantages for the silent eagle to basically ditching the silent eagle in favor of a 16 AMRAAM carrying version of the F-15E. They simply have inferior aircraft because what they got money to develop was a highly customer-specific aircraft that works only for that customer. Unfortunate for them from an international program point of view but they have done well domestically and will continue to get some table scraps handed over to them thanks to the political clout they enjoy.

The similarities are eery . . .


They aren't similar at all. If all things go to plan the PAKFA complements and ultimately replaces the MKI. The LCA the lower tier of the light fighter force and the MRCA and AMCA the medium sized category. Of course things don't always pan out for various reasons but no where was a multi role medium sized fighter delayed in development due to which the IAF has to now rush in and procure Rafales. The MKI and LCA plan does away with this and is not ideal but the pros far outweigh the cons..It doesn't add to the diversity of fighters, keeps forex inside india, avoids an integration nightmare and provides fleet replacement until the MK2 and AMCA are developed. The SH does neither, i.e. still requires a costly purchase (RAAF Cost can be seen for total program acquisition) provides an inferior capability (to the rafale) in many if not most areas, adds to the fleet diversity, requires weapons that only it can carry (such as the AMRAAM, Aim-9X, and virtually all A2G munitions) and brings with it a political angle that the IAF and the GOI may not be comfortable with at this point. And it still gets the IAF a platform that it rejected !
Last edited by brar_w on 12 Sep 2015 11:01, edited 1 time in total.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 12 Sep 2015 10:59

brar_w wrote:Good luck getting the Growler cleared for export. Australia tried very hard and they secured NGJ commitment even prior to embarking down that road.


Did they? AFAIK they're buying refurbished ALQ-99 pods with the decision on NGJ export clearance deferred until low rate production begins (2018 or so).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 11:05

AFAIK they're buying refurbished ALQ-99 pods with the decision on NGJ export clearance deferred until low rate production begins (2018 or so).


Everyone buys refurbished pods since there are no new ones to produce iirc. They will be getting the NGJ and will also be integrating into the NIFC-CA node, the only Pacific nation I know that is doing so. There is also extensive waveform information sharing (a pre-requisite to an agile jammer since you need ELINT and SIGNIT data on your threats to be able to build libraries and modify systems) between the two most likely a result from the NSA's collaboration (NSA controls all waveform information irrespective of which branch of military fields a system) with its counterparts in Australia.

There are explicit conditions that must be satisfied to get export clearance. Those things have to do with documentation and engineering changes in the system. Those are procedural matters that will happen in due course. The NGJ is not an export - ready system and won't be like say the F-35 that has a blanked export clearance form a technical stand-point because they baked that into the design phase (getting each and every waveform, hardware and software export cleared and building security nets to protect the sensitive stuff) the NGJ would be a case by case thing but its not going to get exported significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if no one apart from the USN and RAAF ever operates the system, it would be the single most valuable thing mounted on any USAF or USN tactical platform.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5304
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Viv S » 12 Sep 2015 12:01

Do you have any sources confirming that the NGJ system has been cleared for export to Australia?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Sep 2015 16:57

Russia's new gambit in Syria has caught many by surprise.It appears that Putin wants to support the Assad regime to the hiltto preserve Russia's interests in the Meditt. even to the extent of squaring off with ISIS.The deployment of a Typhoon SSBN/SSGN is a stunning new development.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/russia-sends ... -to-syria/
RFS Dmitry Donskoy TK-208 Russian Submarine Ship 1
Russia sends world’s largest submarine, with 200 nukes, to Syria

Editor’s Note…

Looks like Putin has just raised the stakes in the global game of chicken he’s playing with NATO, especially in light of the latest attempts by certain NATO leaders to use the artificial EU migration crisis as a pretext to intervene militarily in Syria. Things are beginning to remind of the previous major crisis in 2013 following the chemical false flag which nearly triggered a major conflict between the super powers.

Debka File

The world’s largest submarine, the Dmitri Donskoy (TK-208), Nato-coded Typhoon, has set sail for the Mediterranean and is destined for the Syrian coast, debkafile reports exclusively from its military and intelligence sources. Aboard the sub are 20 Bulava (NATO-code SS-N-30) intercontinental ballistic missiles with an estimated up to 200 nuclear warheads. Each missile, with a reported range of 10,000km, carries 6-10 MIRV nuclear warheads.

The Russian sub set sail from its North Sea base on Sept. 4, escorted by two anti-sub warfare ships. Their arrival at destination in 10 days time will top up the new Russian military deployment in Syria.

President Vladimir Putin’s introduction of a nuclear force opposite Syrian shores builds up what first looked like an operation to fortify Assad’s regime in Damascus into a military expedition capable of an air and sea confrontation with US forces in the Middle East.

US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested as much Saturday, Sept. 5, when he expressed concern over reports of Russia’s “increasing military build-up in Syria” in a phone call to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The State Department reported: “The Secretary made clear that if such reports were accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation with the anti-ISIL coalition operation in Syria.”

Kerry was referring to potential Russian interference with US-led coalition air strikes against the Islamic State in Syria.

debkafile’s sources in Washington and Moscow report that the dispatch of a nuclear sub to Syrian waters is taken as a strong message that the Kremlin will not let the US impede its military intervention in the Syrian conflict and will go to extreme lengths to keep the way open for the flow of Russian troops to the war-torn country.

This situation has gone a long way beyond Obama administration intentions when US-Russian talks were initially held for US forces posted in Turkey and Iraq, together with the Russian troops arriving in Syria, to launch a combined effort against the Islamic State. Those talks came to naught.

In its coming issue out Friday, Sept. 11, DEBKA Weekly 678 will reveal for the first time how Putin intends to array the Russian forces he is consigning to Syria, their operational planning, their military coordination with Iran and, above all, how the new Russian intervention in Syria may impact US Middle East policy and Israel.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Sep 2015 18:05

Viv S wrote:Do you have any sources confirming that the NGJ system has been cleared for export to Australia?


There was some news report I had come across during australis reveal of project jericho, I'll look around if I can find it.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Sep 2015 03:19

Long F-35C Carrier Variant testing update from one of the test pilots -

http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos/98909598

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23295
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Sep 2015 10:28


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 17 Sep 2015 18:13

Indonesia is getting 12 Panther ASW helos,plus 6 subs,3 each of German U-boats from SoKo and 3 Russian Kilos.They seem to be following the IN's example. Best of east and west. The Japanese are also helping the Vietnamese navy like India from the foll. report.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1858647/china-bids-sell-two-submarines-egypt-it-tries-expand

Japan Boosts Vietnam Naval Might Amid China Jitters
AFP Wednesday, 16 September 2015
TOKYO (AFP) – Japan has promised Vietnam ships to strengthen its forces in the South China Sea, with the two nations describing large-scale land reclamation there as a threat to peace -- a veiled reference to China.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also pledged some 100 billion yen ($835 million) in infrastructure loans after talks with Nguyen Phu Trong, in his first visit to Japan as general secretary of Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party.

Both countries are locked in separate maritime territorial disputes with an increasingly assertive China in the South China and East China seas and are strengthening cooperation as a result.

Along with other regional countries that have claims in conflict with China, Japan and Vietnam have “serious concerns” over recent and ongoing developments in the South China Sea.

China has embarked on large-scale land reclamation and building outposts and military airfields, stoking tensions.

Conflicting Claims

China claims the right to almost all of the South China Sea, parts of which are also claimed by the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam.

Japan and China are locked in conflict over disputed islands in the East China Sea.

Mr. Abe pledged to give more second-hand vessels to Vietnam but did not specify how many.

Japan’s foreign minister last year said his country would give Hanoi 6 used ships for patrols in the South China Sea.

“Japan decided to give Vietnam additional second-hand vessels at its request,” the Japanese premier told a news conference.

“This decision will benefit Vietnam to improve its maritime law enforcement capability.”

Hanoi Builds Alliances

Vietnam has been trying to strengthen ties with other nations to counter China’s growing assertiveness.

In July Mr. Trong was received by US President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, where he said they discussed activities in the South China Sea “that are not in accordance with international law.”

Vietnam and the Philippines – the two Southeast Asian nations most vocal in their criticism of China – this month pledged to sign a “strategic partnership” agreement to bolster defense, political and economic ties.

Japan has been trying to increase its influence in the region, and in July pledged $6.1 billion in financial aid to the “Mekong Five” countries of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.


http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomac ... ies-expand
China 'bids to sell two submarines to Egypt' as it tries to expand its markets for weaponry

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66256
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Sep 2015 19:06

i wonder if boeing supporters are behind the constant leaks of any reports critical of the JSF.

perhaps they are trying to cap JSF numbers less than projected and instead sell more F18+F15 in the interim while working on post-JSF unmanned and manned designs.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7344
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 17 Sep 2015 21:29

Singha wrote:i wonder if boeing supporters are behind the constant leaks of any reports critical of the JSF.

perhaps they are trying to cap JSF numbers less than projected and instead sell more F18+F15 in the interim while working on post-JSF unmanned and manned designs.


In the long run Boeing benefits as well since the program will possibly compete future enhancements but it is not about Boeing backed supporters (Boeing's PR is mostly targeted at the short term USN orders and some international sales such as Canada and Denmark) but the reformists in the US whose entire job is to attack modernization programs. At the time of the F-22 they lobbied hard (and had billionaire's backing them) to get the F-22 cancelled citing JSF program and now are busy against the JSF. They'll simply move on to the next program that will soon be the LRS-B citing some other obscure (perhaps nuclear deterrence) efforts in the future. Some of the PM criticism is well deserved but high technology and advanced capability comes at a risk just as the F-16 came with a risk when it hard hundreds of aircraft parked on the tarmac while engine and FBW issues were sorted out Similarly the F-35's Concurrency is a third of what the F-16's was and look how well that program has turned out. But these are legitimate areas to differ on. But the trend has been to attack something and then move on. When acquisition cost was HIGH (First 2-3 LRIP blocks) they attacked acquisition cost, when it began falling by 3-5% every block (went from 250+ Million in block 1 to 108 million in block 8) they switched tactics and began attacking O&S cost. When the O&S estimates were revised every two year (when they update targets) they pointed to lack of actual hard factual data to a reason to slow production knowing full well that data gets better when you have more aircraft flying more sorties and consuming more O&S money (like commercial aircrafts). Its so predictable that if one follows this stuff one can practically predict what an organization like POGO, or bloggers like WAR is BORING, FOXTAlpha etc are going to say about a topic X. They don't bat for boeing but they are essentially bloggers with no backgrounds in either the military, acquisition, finance or engineering. Heck one of them does this as something on the side with the primary profession being running a hot dog business !!

The Phantom Works (an offshoot of the McD legacy) is a great outfit that was left out of the aircraft design business much like general dynamics thanks to early stealth. In fact the ATF caused a lot of this when the two incumbants (McD that made the F-15 and GD that made the F-16) weren't even in the top 2 downselected due to a lack of stealth design and production expertise. However since then Boeing and Phantom works have invested a ton of money to get to a capability in stealth that is perhaps second to none. So much so that Lockeheed is more than willing to be a second tier partner to them in the Long range bomber. So, boeing probably feels it can do a lot in the fighter jet business but unfortunately the USN came to them and wanted an F/A-18 with modern avionics and larger payload with more range. They did not want performance and they did not want kick a$$ avionics solutions for the fear of not being able to afford the 600+ aircraft they required. They got that, and the end result was great business for boeing because they know how to affordably manage large industrial projects (unlike the currnet Lockheed that had to learn a lot of tough things with the F-35) and do affordable volume production. This is bad for boeing from a long term market perspective but they are a very rich and well funded company, the worlds largest aerospace corporation and they'll have plenty of capability for when the next series of figthers begin development possibly closer to the end of this decade. But pushing the F-18E/F will not get them much. So I don't think Boeing is going to be behind these attacks. These are precision attacks (one needs to look at timing and frequency, major milestone announcements are usually preempted by a bombardment of articles and half baked assessment of leaked reports etc) that will go away once the atackers get something else to pick upon. A lot of this will also go away when the F-35 achieves rate production towards the end of the decade much like the F-16 criticism died down when a block 30 configuration had been established and the program started delivering massive volumes at a very low price.

If the JSF numbers are reduced significantly the USAF goes with it. The USN can still sustain squadron strength by buying more F18's and extending the lives of the current Rhino's but the USAFs F-16's don't have much umph left in them even with a second SLEP. the current SLEP barely gets them to a point where the delayed F-35 comes in and replaces those squadrons in the late 2020's (so adds at best a decade)..Planning for future uber capability is all well and good but modernization of the fleet is tough to put on hold when you have run your current fleet to the ground through sustained international deployments. The current F-15E's in production cost as much or more to operate (and even buy) than the F-35A's and offer little in added capability apart from some brute payload carriage (for which you 200+ existing aircraft along with bombers). The USAF isn't going to introduce the Super Hornet and there is little point in investing in a survivable F-16 at this point (diminishing returns) so high volume F-35 production is the only reasonable option especially when with 70+% of the development having been complete (and 2 years left to complete the remaining) all that is left is an ever reducing production cost as production rates rise. That is why when the Air-Force Secretary, or Obama's appointees talk about the F-35 little if anything coming out of these reports is referenced because there is absolutely no doubting that the F-35 is a giant leap in combat capability compared to the F16 and that the USAF is rapidly eating up its combat aircraft's airframe lives leaving the only option of buying high rate of production F-35A's starting as early as 2019 and sustained for 10-15 years if not more. That's the only way you can affordably replace the outgoing fleets of A-10's and F-16's without physically shrinking the size of the USAF that already shrunk significantly post cold war (from 188 combat squadrons to around 50)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Sep 2015 18:04

Interesting design of the multi-role Russian corvette class,which appears to have two missile types,both quad launchers and VLS systems.The corvette is only 2200t,much smaller than our dedicated ASW P-28s which are larger,but underarmed. The Russian corvette lacks an ASW mortar system though,seems more heavily armed against surface platforms and will be probably used in the smaller waters/seas of the Baltic,Black Sea,Meditt,etc.,rather than the larger oceans where a P-28 will be used in the IN context.

Eye-Catching Photos of State-of-the-Art Russian Corvette Boggle the Mindsurface platforms.

A spate of eye-catching photos of the most advanced Russian corvette, Boykiy, has been obtained by a correspondent from the Russian website defendingrussia.com.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150904/ ... z3m631O1P3

Aditya G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3389
Joined: 19 Feb 2002 12:31
Contact:

Re: International Naval News and Discussion

Postby Aditya G » 18 Sep 2015 22:21

At 105m it's length is exactly same as Saryu class OPV


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests