Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Oddly enough, I asked exactly the same question of the Commandant of the USMC a few months ago. I also pointed out that the F-35B-only force had no electronic attack or AEW support.
He closed to about three feet distance and, very firmly, gave me the standard pitch on the wonders of F-35B, but did not answer the question.
Sounds like M-I-D territory, that...!
However, since the bloke can't answer that question (sensibly, as there is no good answer) this is why I'm more than a little concerned that Dave-B is an easy and profitable chop in January, esp. if sequestration comes through. The USMC can always fly Dave-C off the CVN (as they do now with Hornet) and hey presto, you've saved a bazillion dollars with very little impact on the force package. I've often thought that the USMC decision to have some Dave-Cs earlier in the year was the harbinger of such a switch.
And if we have that, then I guess we'll have to convert the QEs to cats 'n' traps after all... they'd be rather silly LPHs...
Come on guys, you can't make-up your own facts, google f-35 EA
"Delivery of the first flight-representative electronic warfare system for F-35 maintains our track record of being on time, on cost, and under weight after 66 months of F-35 system design and development," said Dan Gobel, Joint Strike Fighter electronic warfare vice president for BAE Systems."
the USMC will also have an off-board jammer pod, there is talk of putting it on the f-35, but I question whether it's a good idea to have it emitting as an easily detected jammer
"...Another shift in communications jamming is taking place in the U.S. Marine Corps. Late last month the service was on the verge of deploying its ALQ-231(V)1 Intrepid Tiger II electronic attack pod, an in-house development to equip Harriers with a communications-jamming capability. The technology is supposed to be an even more effective communications jammer than the USQ-113 operational on the service's EA-6B. Further developments are already underway, and upgrades to the current system will incorporate an electronic surveillance capability. Furthermore, Intrepid Tiger II Version 2 will be a two-pod configuration that will be carried on the RQ-9 Shadow UAV. The system will have 100% of the same software and 85% of the same hardware as the Harrier model, to reduce cost.
So far, the price tag for eight pods has been around $8 million. The Marines also have adopted an unusual development approach, acting as an integrator and working on an open-systems design where hardware components can easily be replaced when more capable or reliable ones become available. The work has been done at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Div., Point Mugu, Calif.
Integration on the F-35 is also being considered. Intrepid Tiger II and its follow-ons should give the Marines long-term electronic attack capabilities even after the EA-6B is retired in 2019...."
The pod has several modes. In one, the pilot can operate a set program but—more critical—in networked mode, troops on the ground can selectively jam particular bands. Unlike some of the broadband jamming now taking place, Intrepid Tiger II is to provide a precision electronic strike capability, says Lt. Col. Jason Schuette, head of the EW branch at the Marine Corps' Combat Development and Integration Command.
Sorry I don't understand...someone has a weapon that'll sink a carrier. So what? There have been submarine launched torpedos around for a while that are probably up to the job.
There are also systems called SAMs. But we buy aeroplanes.
There are rifles and knives, but we train infantrymen.
There are far more weapons capable of knocking out airfields...but we're fine with that idea.
Anyway, you get the gist.
If your point is that against that adversary or that technology one had better have a cunning anti-satellite plan up your sleeve, then I concur. But that could be as simple as TLAM-ing the control shack...or sailing under a cloud. If your point is 'someone has found a way to sink a carrier so let's hang up our boots'...we disagree.
when you only have multi-billion dollar carriers you start to worry about putting them in harms way - eventually they become so valuable they are so far back they can't do what they were designed for
The original purpose (way back in the late 50's) of the modern US carrier group was to be able to launch N-bomb equipped strikes against the evil empire - since then they have morphed into general force enhancement, showing the flag etc
The danger is of course that when they are involved in a hot war we discover that anyone can sink one - then we're in the position the USN & RN were in in 1941-42 when aircraft made battleships redundant - up s*** creek
Of course the PLAN are so concerned about this game changing capability that they have spent decades desperately attempting to buy, build, deploy a carrier.
Is someone in the MoD department that allocates airframe serial numbers being a bit nostalgic about a previous aircraft called Lightning? Wasn't XM135 one of the first production EE Lightnings and also a bit famous for some other exploit?
Neither a passive ESM system nor a tactical comms jammer meet any reasonable definition of "electronic attack".
As far as is known (and I am pretty sure that this is the case) the only active RF jamming/attack capability on the F-35 is inherent in the radar. This is X-band only and effective only against targets in the 120 degree forward sector.
LO
Ok, so you accept that the f-35B has electronic attack, although it's not up to your standard.
You must have a good source because I can't find out much on the net about the f-35's multiple RF sensor arrays and how it all works
@Squirrel 41 the interviews with USMC pilots at www.sldinfo.com will give you the USMC CONOPS
this seems to be the USMC EW CONOPS
Sorry, not sure I understand. Under what circumstances do you Need supersonic STOVL stealth strike fighter? It's not clear to me that the USMC needs anything more than an updated AV-8B II+, because any time a MEU will go in somewhere that has the odd SA-20/SA-17/SA-22/SA-24 IADS with evolved FLANKER / J-20s, controlled by KJ-200 AWACS, then I think it's pretty likely that the USN will send a CVN (or three).
And if you don't face something as complex as that, then a Harrier would be fine.
JSFFan - You'll find a lot of funny stuff on SLDInfo, but not an answer to S41's question.
And no, I don't rate highly an EA capability that works only in one band and only if you're flying towards the hostile emitter. Eventually you are going to lose the burn-through-range race and get shot.
This is a tremendous accomplishment in flight control... or possibly a recipe for deep-fried electrohydraulic actuator... or maybe both. "Flaps" have never been so aptly named.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has reached an agreement with Lockheed Martin Corp on a $450 million (286.7 million pounds) program to enhance electronic warfare equipment on the F-35 fighter jet, and integrate Israeli-unique systems beginning in 2016, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.
The deal, to be finalized in coming weeks, marks a big step forward for Israel's $2.75 billion agreement to buy 19 F-35 jets, which was signed in October 2010 and includes options for up to 75 of the radar-evading fighters....
...Agreement on development of the new Israeli version of the F-35 will allow Israel to install its own radio and datalink systems, as well as other equipment, on the jets it is buying.
But the deal also covers enhancements to the airplane's electronic warfare capabilities that will benefit the United States, Israel and the other nine countries that either have already ordered fighter planes, or plan to in coming years...."
What's wrong with SLDinfo? Personally I think it has some excellent and highly interesting reports and interviews regarding the F-35 on there. Unlike for example the so-called reporting from the likes of Bill Sweetman who I notice tends to take a snide and somewhat childish tone toward anything F-35. ( I seem to remember him writing an angry email to SLDinfo once that ended rather embarrassingly for him..)
I understand your point that a carrier is at risk, just fundementally disagree that it is a game changer.
The reason people develop weapons to counter capabilities is because they view them as potent and threatening...that's why no SAM was ever designed with the F3 in mind.. (Calm down chaps.) My point? The Chinese know how useful a CVN can be...even if some within the RAf and UK press don't.
What we (may) (supposedly) have is a country with a (potential) (unproven) chance at constructing a kill chain that results in you being denied a capability. Does that mean that from the get go your capability is null and void? No, absolutely not.
The Typhoon (as far as I am aware) has no great LO or EW string to it's bow. Are we saying it can't fight anyone with access to SA2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20? Are we extrapolating and saying that because everyone's got SAMs and we can deploy less than twenty Typhoons we shouldn't even bother pitching up? No. And rightly so.
This has happened since the dawn of time. Since one side showed up with Goliath and the other brought David to the fight. Weapons and weapon systems have strengths and weakness. There's always a counter, and usually a counter to the counter. (Oh and weapons hardly ever work as advertised these days...only today I saw another advert claiming the Typhoon was multi role and 'nothing comes close'!)
Carriers have had their dawn, and will have their dusk. But not yet. For now they are a flexible and potent piece of sovereign territory. That can be found by few, targeted by fewer, and that answer to no one.
"An overview of the F-35 program from the standpoint of the pilots in the program is provided in the videotape of the session at the Air Show on July 10, 2011
As readers of Second Line of Defense know, we have spent considerable time with F-35 test pilots and F-22 pilots.
We have as well interviewed Colonel Arthur Tomassetti who was one of the panelists.
He is the vice commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing, Air Education and Training Command, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. The 33rd Fighter Wing serves as the home to the Joint Strike Fighter Integrated Training Center, providing pilot and maintenance training for nine international partners.
In the video, the pilots discuss the aircraft and its performance. It is fifth generation in more ways than its stealth characteristics; as we observed aboard the USS Wasp a F-18 pilot in landing the B stated that “this is the easiest aircraft to fly I have ever been in.”" ____________________
Sound not available on computer in use but I believe these are good 'quotes from the video'. YMMV.
"A couple of things from the Q&A section: 1. Ship trials included a few VL --> takeoff --> go around --> VL w/o refuel. 2. Hehe... first question from China News Agency was... Do you have a comment on the J-20? I kid you not. 3. Blk 2A more stable than 1B which was more stable than 1A. 4. SRVL and Ski Jump takeoffs this year. SRVL let's them recover about 2-3k lb more and approach 35kts faster. Ski Jump allows for larger loads and saves 150ft of deck run."
Evidently it's been reported in Janes Defence Weekly that "M.O.D. sources" have revealed details of long term planning for UK operational Fighter/Attack squadrons. While no set figure has been agreed regarding F35s, it would seem that with the F35B entry into service, the R.A.F. will get an additional two Typhoon squadrons. From 2030, the expectation is that a number of F35As, or whatever development there of, which is available at the time, will over the following decade replace the Typhoon. By 2040, the R.A.F. will be flying F35B and F35A.
However, nothing will be agreed in terms of the eventual number of F35s of either version until SDSR 2015.
"UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has signalled a major revision to the UK's plan for procuring the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), with a sizeable cut in the expected number of F-35B short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft purchased and the possible acquisition of a second variant: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A.
In remarks on 19 July in the United States, Hammond said the UK would order 48 F-35Bs to equip the UK's future carrier strike force. He added that a follow-on F-35 buy would be set out in a future Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), with the aim of replacing the Eurofighter Typhoon in UK service.
Hammond was in the US to attend the handover of the UK's first F-35B (BK-1) at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed his comments, telling IHS Jane's : "The defence secretary said that initially the UK would buy 48 jets for the aircraft carriers and announce at a later date what the final numbers would be. We will not finalise our decisions on the F-35 programme until SDSR in 2015."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 27th Jul 2012 at 19:12.
