F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is as follows.
NGJ won't be available till well after 2020, so I really don't know what your point is
It seems by statements made that the partners are happy with the EW and in the article there is no mention of escort jamming the f-35, it's just your imagination, Australia has purchased the Growler and will be the only other to have the NGJ at this stage...it wasn't bought to escort f-35's...there is a reason you don't send emitting 4th gen AC with stealth planes on deep strike
nonsense
there is no way the rafale will get a NGJ, the french has burnt that bridge to us tech years ago, IMO Israel and japan would be suspect too.
The future may include the NGJ on UAV's being used to escort jam with the f-35, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement
@susanlikescats, if china kicks off, it will be a coalition of forces
1. The USN has accepted that the JSF internal jammer will be incapable of meeting the Day 1 threat by 2020 (prior to IOC) and that the NGJ is required to provide EW cover to penetrate enemy defences.
2. The NGJ integration with the JSF has been deferred indefinitely - which will, therefore require an escort jammer - either F/A-18G, UCAV or other.
3. Any partner nation not buying/ being allowed to buy the NGJ loses the Day 1 capability rendering the stealth aspects of the JSF of little or nugatory value.
It would be interesting to compare the cost and capability of a mixed F/A-18G + F/A-18E fleet versus an 18G/JSF and, for other partners such as the Dutch, Turks etc a Rafale/Typhoon/F-15E force fitted with NGJ for self protection.
The future may include the NGJ on UAV's being used to escort jam with the f-35, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement
@susanlikescats, if china kicks off, it will be a coalition of forces
Last edited by JSFfan; 9th Feb 2013 at 23:43.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even so, the average procurement unit cost of the F-35B in 2018 (in BY12 dollars) is $138 million. RAND's 2010 calculation was that building 75 more F-22s over about six years (on top of the 187 already funded) would result in an APUC of $173 million, at a far lower production rate.
as you well know, the $~173 was the unit 2007/8 continue production and not the APUC and it would help if you put the rand link to confirm.
Last edited by JSFfan; 10th Feb 2013 at 00:44.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NGJ won't be available till well after 2020, so I really don't know what your point is
When will our aircrews be required to take this bird to war?? Are you saying post 2020 now
if china kicks off, it will be a coalition of forces
Last edited by glad rag; 10th Feb 2013 at 01:02.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
For 'JSFfan':
Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13 24 Sep 2012
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files...06%20OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)
"...As at June 2012, the JSF Program Office estimated the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost of a CTOL F‐35A aircraft for Fiscal Year 2012 to be US$131.4 million. That cost includes the baseline aircraft configuration, including airframe, engine and avionics. The URF cost is estimated to reduce to US$127.3 million in 2013, and to US$83.4 million in 2019. These expected price reductions take into account economies of scale resulting from increasing production volumes, as well as the effects of inflation. The estimates indicate that, after 2019, inflation will increase the URF cost of each F‐35A by about US$2 million per year. However, these estimates remain dependent upon expected orders from the United States and other nations, as well as the delivery of expected benefits of continuing Will‐Cost/Should‐Cost management by the US Department of Defense...."
Graph from PDF will follow when PhotoBucket decides to work again....
Click thumbnail for big pic:
Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13 24 Sep 2012
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files...06%20OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)
"...As at June 2012, the JSF Program Office estimated the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost of a CTOL F‐35A aircraft for Fiscal Year 2012 to be US$131.4 million. That cost includes the baseline aircraft configuration, including airframe, engine and avionics. The URF cost is estimated to reduce to US$127.3 million in 2013, and to US$83.4 million in 2019. These expected price reductions take into account economies of scale resulting from increasing production volumes, as well as the effects of inflation. The estimates indicate that, after 2019, inflation will increase the URF cost of each F‐35A by about US$2 million per year. However, these estimates remain dependent upon expected orders from the United States and other nations, as well as the delivery of expected benefits of continuing Will‐Cost/Should‐Cost management by the US Department of Defense...."
Graph from PDF will follow when PhotoBucket decides to work again....
Click thumbnail for big pic:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Feb 2013 at 01:24. Reason: Add Graph + edit
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks SpazSinbad, it's a good doc. and puts the APA clown club and naysayers into perspective. That 83.4m is in ty2019$ too and not by2012$
my reference to the $173M was for the f-22, from the rand study and how LO is misrepresenting it
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG797.pdf
Note that AUC is for the next 75 units only. This should be clearly distinguished from
average procurement unit cost and program acquisition unit cost, both of which are calculations
of cost of all units procured since the start of a production run, which would in this case
include the 183 F-22As already procured (the program of record at the time of this analysis)
plus the next 75.
my reference to the $173M was for the f-22, from the rand study and how LO is misrepresenting it
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG797.pdf
Note that AUC is for the next 75 units only. This should be clearly distinguished from
average procurement unit cost and program acquisition unit cost, both of which are calculations
of cost of all units procured since the start of a production run, which would in this case
include the 183 F-22As already procured (the program of record at the time of this analysis)
plus the next 75.
Last edited by JSFfan; 10th Feb 2013 at 01:34.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
There has never been any mention of an active EW system on the F-35 aside from functions built into the radar (X-band and front sector only).
In fact, I'm surprised the technical media hasn't pressed the LM/JPO talking heads harder on this issue.
Originally Posted by LowObservable
...it's hard to see why an LO aircraft would need high-powered jamming of the kind needed by an escort or stand-off EW aircraft. Certainly not for self-protection.
For the rest of you speculating on EW/EA, for any high-end threat scenarios, NO US/allied/coalition combat aircraft (including F-22, B-2 & F-35) is likely to go anywhere near Indian country without some kind of stand-off EW/EA support.
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 10th Feb 2013 at 21:27.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is a difference between having it and needing it
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...112fighter.pdf
O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.
He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from these systems.
“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in.
In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.
He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from these systems.
“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in.
In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.
Last edited by JSFfan; 10th Feb 2013 at 08:40.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This weeks "Economist" says that defence will be hit hard due to sequestration and that most of the hit will be on programs - overseas commitments will be (mainly) funded for the short term but F-35 procurement will probably be cut in half (if not cancelled all together) and the Army can say goodbye to their new armoured vehicles
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just how stealthy will this new aircraft be when loaded with all of its external equipment?
Those very nice support aircraft are all well and good IF you have them and for the shore based items.... If they have the legs to be permanently stationed over the warship when it is in an area of high threat.
I guess without that support the F35B HAS TO rely on its own stealth abilities.
Those very nice support aircraft are all well and good IF you have them and for the shore based items.... If they have the legs to be permanently stationed over the warship when it is in an area of high threat.
I guess without that support the F35B HAS TO rely on its own stealth abilities.
Hi, Glojo. A good question there. As the external stores are today, they make a massive difference to stealth. It may be possible to design lower observable pylons, etc, but the radar cross section would still look very different to the clean aircraft. So you would effectively lose the LO characteristics and the aircraft would need to fall back on its amazing performance (acceleration and 9g capability). Or not, as it is in the case of the F-35.
The internal weapons bay is crucial to LO.
The internal weapons bay is crucial to LO.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35 TERMA Multi Mission Pod
Perhaps this multi mission external pod for the F-35 will be useful as indicated.
F-35 Multi Mission Pod on Display 2012-07-10:
http://www.terma.com/media/199994/img_8360_464.png
"...In 2004, Terma won the contract to design, develop, qualify, and produce F-35 Gun Pods for the F-35B and F-35C in partnership with General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics.
The F-35 Pod is a full monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber. It passed engineering test and qualification and has flown on the F-35 in February 2012 and is currently in the LRIP production phase.
The F-35 Pod Enclosure will provide real estate on the F-35, which can be used to expand the F-35 Special Mission functionality, by allowing the F-35 to fly Next Generation EW and ISR systems, such as Jammers and EO sensors...."
____________________
www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf
F-35 Multi Mission Pod on Display 2012-07-10:
http://www.terma.com/media/199994/img_8360_464.png
"...In 2004, Terma won the contract to design, develop, qualify, and produce F-35 Gun Pods for the F-35B and F-35C in partnership with General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics.
The F-35 Pod is a full monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber. It passed engineering test and qualification and has flown on the F-35 in February 2012 and is currently in the LRIP production phase.
The F-35 Pod Enclosure will provide real estate on the F-35, which can be used to expand the F-35 Special Mission functionality, by allowing the F-35 to fly Next Generation EW and ISR systems, such as Jammers and EO sensors...."
____________________
www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th Feb 2013 at 11:05. Reason: Add Photo
FA-18 - Can you explain how the fact that the ASQ-239 has an active jamming function is deadly secret, but it is OK to disclose it here? Thx.
Also, maybe I was not clear enough: If a stealthy aircraft has jamming for self-protection, it doesn't (at least it shouldn't) need a lot of watts on target. It is therefore unlikely to be very useful for standoff or escort jamming.
Spaz - Using the Terma pod is certainly an option. However, I doubt that the pod has no impact for RCS since (1) it would be difficult and expensive and (2) if you're doing strafing, which I submit is >95 per cent of the reason for the pod, stealth is not as important as in some other missions.
PS - I have no idea what JSFfan is saying since he is on my Ignore list. However, from the replies I gather that he is continuing to dig his own grave at a rate that should see him emerging on Wimbledon Common in a couple of weeks.
Also, maybe I was not clear enough: If a stealthy aircraft has jamming for self-protection, it doesn't (at least it shouldn't) need a lot of watts on target. It is therefore unlikely to be very useful for standoff or escort jamming.
Spaz - Using the Terma pod is certainly an option. However, I doubt that the pod has no impact for RCS since (1) it would be difficult and expensive and (2) if you're doing strafing, which I submit is >95 per cent of the reason for the pod, stealth is not as important as in some other missions.
PS - I have no idea what JSFfan is saying since he is on my Ignore list. However, from the replies I gather that he is continuing to dig his own grave at a rate that should see him emerging on Wimbledon Common in a couple of weeks.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re LO, for the others..the ASQ-239 isn't transmit sensors by what is public and feeds what it collects into the EW system, it builds upon the AN/ALR-94 and the ASQ-239 has been called a passive radar
Last edited by JSFfan; 10th Feb 2013 at 17:45.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..the ASQ-239 isn't transmit sensors by what is public and feeds what it collects into the EW system, it builds upon the AN/ALR-94 and the ASQ-239 has been called a passive radar
..
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the day before Sweetman had a dummy spit, he wrote
THE NEXT GENERATION
The fourth Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, aircraft 4004. Is due to make its first flight from Marietta. GA, in late July. As the first F-22 to carry offensive avionics. Its task is to demonstrate that a stealthy aircraft can be a fighter. Under a deal struck with Congress last year, the F-22 has to prove this key technology by the end of this year if the next ten aircraft are to be authorized.
The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target. The active radar, while still a primary sensor, is used sparingly for specific tasks. Active jamming in the traditional sense has disappeared. The F-22 approach is echoed to some extent in most of today's advanced fighter programs, including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter typhoon and Saab JAS Gripen. It is also fundamental to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The F-22's EW philosophy is rooted in some of the earliest work on stealth. As the US Air Force (USAF) defined requirements and operational doctrine for the F-117 stealth strike aircraft and B-2 bomber, in 1980-81, A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics.
In the case of the F-117 the Red Team's recommendation resulted in the development of one of the first automated mission-planning systems, but this left the aircraft dependent on a pre-programmed flight plan. The B-2 was designed to feature a sophisticated defensive management system (DMS) which would allow the crew to respond to threat radars not anticipated by the mission plan. The initial DMS was abandoned in the late 1980s. Its successor is the APR-50, developed by IBM Federal Systems (later acquired by Loral and now part of Lockheed Martin).
The USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter project, which led to the F-22, presented greater challenges. In the air-to-air regime, the primary threats are airborne and move rapidly, making identification, location and tracking more complex. The F-22's sustained speed also shortens engagement timelines by as much as 40 percent.
At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.
CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.
Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.
A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."
The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is "closed-loop tracking," in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.
High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.
Of course, there are some targets that do not emit signals. "We prefer it that way, because he's dumb," remarked one Boeing engineer. In this case, the F-22 can use its LPI features to track the target -- which is not a threat unless another radar is tracking the F-22 and datalinking information to the "quiet" aircraft -- and can, if necessary, identify it.
NCTR is a highly classified area. One of the few known techniques is jet-engine modulation, which involves analyzing the raw radar return for the characteristic beat produced by a combination of the radar-pulse frequency and the rotating blades of the engine. This technique is already used on operational radars (including the APG-70 in the F-15) but is vulnerable to countermeasures and dependent on target aspect.
Other NCTR techniques involve very precise range measurements. If the target's orientation is known, the distribution of the signature over very small range bins can yield a range profile which is characteristic of a certain aircraft type. It is possible that the F-22, which has a great deal of onboard processing power -- as well as a flexible, frequency-agile radar -- is designed to use an NCTR technique of this kind.
Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.
The ALR-94 drives the F-22's defensive displays. The system determines the bearing, range and type of the threat, and then computes the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22. The pilot is the decision-maker and is provided with timely, graphic information to guide defensive maneuvers. On the main defense display, usually shown on the left-hand screen in the cockpit, threat surface-to-air missile (SAM) and airborne early warning (AEW) radars are surrounded by circles that show their computed effective range. On the right-hand attack display, fighter radars are shown as blue beams extending towards the F-22's position.
The F-22 has no dedicated jamming systems. However, the APG-77 array can be used to generate powerful jamming beams over a certain frequency range.
Developing such a system has been a tremendous challenge. The F-22 avionics-development program is methodical and has learned from the experiences of other projects. From the outset, all of the software was designed on the same hardware with the same compilers and operating systems. "It was a tremendous advance," comments Boeing F-22 avionics deputy manager Gherry Bender. "We got beyond the hardware integration problems."
The complete system is being tested in three stages, starting with the ground-based avionics integration laboratory (AIL), then moving to the Boeing 757 flying test bed (FTB) and completing its tests on the F-22 prototypes. The AIL, located at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, includes a tower-mounted sensor suite. The FTB is fitted with a sensor wing above and behind the cockpit, which accommodates the F-22's full-size wing-mounted antennas in their proper orientation. Internally, it features a complete CIP bank, an F-22 cockpit -- both the AIL and FTB support pilot-in-the-loop tests -- and multiple engineering workstations. The FTB has worked with Navy aircraft out of NAS Whidbey Island, WA, and with Air National Guard F-16s based at Albuquerque, NM.
The goal is to make the testing as realistic and repeatable as possible at each stage and, thereby, to minimize surprises at each succeeding stage. "The problem with integration is fault isolation," says Bender. "To do that, we need repeatability, combined with data gathering and reduction to get answers rapidly. If we can isolate faults on the FTB, it's a lot cheaper than doing the same on the F-22."
The first elements of the engineering-and-manufacturing-development (EMD) sensor suite for the F-22 were installed on the 757 in 1998, and powered up for the first time in December of that year. These first tests used Block-i software, which comprised the basic operating system, navigation and some radar modes. Its primary goal was to unearth any basic problems "so that we wouldn't have to rewrite a lot of software later," says Bender. The Block-2 software, which integrates some EW and communication, navigation and identification (CNI) functions, has been operating on the FTB since October 1999, and will be loaded on to the fourth F-22 for its first flight.
Block 3.0 is the most crucial step forward, because it introduces sensor fusion among the radar, EW and CNI subsystems. A development version of Block 3.0, called Block 3S, has been flying on the FTB since April. Block 3S was added to the development program in early 1999, and includes sensor functions but not sensor fusion. "It is a risk-reduction tool," says Bender. "With the software controlling the sensors and fusion in the feedback loop, it's sometimes hard to unravel what happened. Did the sensor fail, or did it do what it did because we commanded it to do it?"
The real Block 3.0 is due to fly on the FTB in August before being loaded on Raptor 4004 in October or November. "It will be a challenge," says David Anderson of the F-22 Plans and Programs Division at Wright-Patterson AFB. "There is some risk there, depending on the availability of the aircraft and the software. The degree of risk depends on who you talk to." One area which is receiving some special attention, though, is throughput in the main computer. "We can't afford too much delay between the collection of the signal and the point where it is displayed to the pilot. We're overcoming that," says Anderson. But, he says, the team is confident that they will pass the milestone on schedule.
The schedule appears to be tight, with two to three months between the first flight of Block 3.0 on the FTB and its first flight aboard the F-22. "The current avionics schedule," notes a disapproving General Accounting Office (GAO) in its latest F-22 report, "shows Block 3...being completed five months before the completion dates the Air Force considered realistic in 1997." The first flight of 4004 slipped from February to May 2000 in the course of 1999, further delaying the flight testing of Block 2 aboard the fighter, and that date has since slipped to July. So far, however, the program has avoided disasters, and key changes (such as the implementation of Block 3S) have been implemented in time to avert problems.
UP NEXT: THE JSF
Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are closely involved with the integration of the F-22 avionics, so it is not surprising that the proposed offensive avionics system for both JSF candidates takes the F-22 as a baseline. Sensor fusion, including the ability to detect, identify and locate pop-up threats quickly and accurately enough to attack them, is basic to the JSF. Both teams plan to fuse data on large-format displays and to use AESA radars in an LPI mode.
In many ways, JSF's goals are more advanced than those of the F-22. They include the fusion of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical systems in both the offensive and defensive modes. The JSF system is also intended to cost and weigh less than the F-22 hardware and to make extensive use of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) technology.
The JSF is planned to have five basic sets of sensors which, as on the F-22, will be entirely integrated into the central processor. Two of these form the Multi-Function Integrated Radio-Frequency System (MIRFS). The MIRFS/Multifunction Forward Looking Array (MFA) is the functional equivalent of the APG-77 radar and is being developed, under a separate competition, by Raytheon and Northrop Grumman; neither company is specifically teamed with either of the prime contractors on this part of the JSF program.
The MIRFS/Electronic Warfare System (EWS) is the all-around passive element of the RE system. The MIRFS/EWS will use its own dedicated antennas and the MFA. Sanders is the MIRFS/EWS supplier to both teams, basing its work on its experience with low-observable (LO) apertures for the F-22.
Two sensor packages make up the EO system. The forward-looking BO targeting system (EOTS) is an infrared (IR) system to locate and help identify targets. The objective is to fuse JR and SAR imagery to detect and identify targets automatically with the minimum emission level. The EOTS will also function as a long-range IR search-and-track (IRST) system to detect airborne targets and as an EO system for airborne target identification.
The Distributed Aperture Infrared System (DAIRS) comprises a set of staring focal-plane-array (FPA) sensors covering a complete sphere around the aircraft and will combine three functions: it will feed a video signal to the pilot's binocular, day-night helmet-mounted display (HMD); will act as a missile-warning system, and will serve as an IRST to detect airborne threats.
The DAIRS and EOTS are the subject of a parallel competition, like the MIRFS/MFA. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control form one team, with Northrop Grumman being responsible for the DAIRS and Lockheed Martin taking the lead on the EOTS. Boeing is presumably working with Raytheon.
Both teams are using FTBs in the current demonstration and validation stage of the JSF program. Boeing began testing the JSF's integrated avionics on its 737-based Avionics Flying Laboratory (AEL) in December 1999 and plans a total of 50 missions. Lockheed Martin is using the BAG One-Eleven, which has served as an FTB for many Westinghouse and Northrop Grumman radars.
Although the teams have common suppliers in some areas (e.g., Sanders is the contractor for the MIRFS/EWS in both cases), there are detail differences. For example, Lockheed Martin has chosen Litton Advanced Systems to team with Sanders on the EWS, providing its unique expertise in electronic-support-measures (ESM) technology. In particular, Litton is applying its long-baseline interferometry processing to the Lockheed Martin JSF, providing the aircraft with twice the receiver capability of the ICAP-III Prowler to the Lockheed Martin JSF at half the size, weight and cost. BAB Systems is also a member of the team.
The EW and sensor systems proposed for the JSF would not be affordable using today's technology. One of the most costly aspects of the F-22 system is the need to provide separate antennas for all wavebands and aspects and to make those apertures compatible with stealth. F-22 antennas are installed in cavities lined with radar-absorbent material and covered with specially formulated materials which allow the signals of interest to pass through, while absorbing hostile signals. On the JSF, the goal is to reduce the cost and complexity of the antenna systems by making the antennas simpler and using a single antenna or aperture for many tasks.
Although Boeing and Lockheed Martin have demonstrated some key JSF functions on their test-bed aircraft, it is worth remembering that the F-22's avionics functions were demonstrated on the same level during the demonstration and validation phase of the ATF program in 1989-90. The GAO has said that several unspecified aspects of the JSF program are still not ready for EMD, and it is more than likely that the very sophisticated, yet low-cost technology proposed for the aircraft is among them.
The fourth Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, aircraft 4004. Is due to make its first flight from Marietta. GA, in late July. As the first F-22 to carry offensive avionics. Its task is to demonstrate that a stealthy aircraft can be a fighter. Under a deal struck with Congress last year, the F-22 has to prove this key technology by the end of this year if the next ten aircraft are to be authorized.
The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target. The active radar, while still a primary sensor, is used sparingly for specific tasks. Active jamming in the traditional sense has disappeared. The F-22 approach is echoed to some extent in most of today's advanced fighter programs, including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter typhoon and Saab JAS Gripen. It is also fundamental to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
The F-22's EW philosophy is rooted in some of the earliest work on stealth. As the US Air Force (USAF) defined requirements and operational doctrine for the F-117 stealth strike aircraft and B-2 bomber, in 1980-81, A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics.
In the case of the F-117 the Red Team's recommendation resulted in the development of one of the first automated mission-planning systems, but this left the aircraft dependent on a pre-programmed flight plan. The B-2 was designed to feature a sophisticated defensive management system (DMS) which would allow the crew to respond to threat radars not anticipated by the mission plan. The initial DMS was abandoned in the late 1980s. Its successor is the APR-50, developed by IBM Federal Systems (later acquired by Loral and now part of Lockheed Martin).
The USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter project, which led to the F-22, presented greater challenges. In the air-to-air regime, the primary threats are airborne and move rapidly, making identification, location and tracking more complex. The F-22's sustained speed also shortens engagement timelines by as much as 40 percent.
At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.
The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.
CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.
Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."
The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.
A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."
The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is "closed-loop tracking," in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.
High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.
Of course, there are some targets that do not emit signals. "We prefer it that way, because he's dumb," remarked one Boeing engineer. In this case, the F-22 can use its LPI features to track the target -- which is not a threat unless another radar is tracking the F-22 and datalinking information to the "quiet" aircraft -- and can, if necessary, identify it.
NCTR is a highly classified area. One of the few known techniques is jet-engine modulation, which involves analyzing the raw radar return for the characteristic beat produced by a combination of the radar-pulse frequency and the rotating blades of the engine. This technique is already used on operational radars (including the APG-70 in the F-15) but is vulnerable to countermeasures and dependent on target aspect.
Other NCTR techniques involve very precise range measurements. If the target's orientation is known, the distribution of the signature over very small range bins can yield a range profile which is characteristic of a certain aircraft type. It is possible that the F-22, which has a great deal of onboard processing power -- as well as a flexible, frequency-agile radar -- is designed to use an NCTR technique of this kind.
Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.
The ALR-94 drives the F-22's defensive displays. The system determines the bearing, range and type of the threat, and then computes the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22. The pilot is the decision-maker and is provided with timely, graphic information to guide defensive maneuvers. On the main defense display, usually shown on the left-hand screen in the cockpit, threat surface-to-air missile (SAM) and airborne early warning (AEW) radars are surrounded by circles that show their computed effective range. On the right-hand attack display, fighter radars are shown as blue beams extending towards the F-22's position.
The F-22 has no dedicated jamming systems. However, the APG-77 array can be used to generate powerful jamming beams over a certain frequency range.
Developing such a system has been a tremendous challenge. The F-22 avionics-development program is methodical and has learned from the experiences of other projects. From the outset, all of the software was designed on the same hardware with the same compilers and operating systems. "It was a tremendous advance," comments Boeing F-22 avionics deputy manager Gherry Bender. "We got beyond the hardware integration problems."
The complete system is being tested in three stages, starting with the ground-based avionics integration laboratory (AIL), then moving to the Boeing 757 flying test bed (FTB) and completing its tests on the F-22 prototypes. The AIL, located at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, includes a tower-mounted sensor suite. The FTB is fitted with a sensor wing above and behind the cockpit, which accommodates the F-22's full-size wing-mounted antennas in their proper orientation. Internally, it features a complete CIP bank, an F-22 cockpit -- both the AIL and FTB support pilot-in-the-loop tests -- and multiple engineering workstations. The FTB has worked with Navy aircraft out of NAS Whidbey Island, WA, and with Air National Guard F-16s based at Albuquerque, NM.
The goal is to make the testing as realistic and repeatable as possible at each stage and, thereby, to minimize surprises at each succeeding stage. "The problem with integration is fault isolation," says Bender. "To do that, we need repeatability, combined with data gathering and reduction to get answers rapidly. If we can isolate faults on the FTB, it's a lot cheaper than doing the same on the F-22."
The first elements of the engineering-and-manufacturing-development (EMD) sensor suite for the F-22 were installed on the 757 in 1998, and powered up for the first time in December of that year. These first tests used Block-i software, which comprised the basic operating system, navigation and some radar modes. Its primary goal was to unearth any basic problems "so that we wouldn't have to rewrite a lot of software later," says Bender. The Block-2 software, which integrates some EW and communication, navigation and identification (CNI) functions, has been operating on the FTB since October 1999, and will be loaded on to the fourth F-22 for its first flight.
Block 3.0 is the most crucial step forward, because it introduces sensor fusion among the radar, EW and CNI subsystems. A development version of Block 3.0, called Block 3S, has been flying on the FTB since April. Block 3S was added to the development program in early 1999, and includes sensor functions but not sensor fusion. "It is a risk-reduction tool," says Bender. "With the software controlling the sensors and fusion in the feedback loop, it's sometimes hard to unravel what happened. Did the sensor fail, or did it do what it did because we commanded it to do it?"
The real Block 3.0 is due to fly on the FTB in August before being loaded on Raptor 4004 in October or November. "It will be a challenge," says David Anderson of the F-22 Plans and Programs Division at Wright-Patterson AFB. "There is some risk there, depending on the availability of the aircraft and the software. The degree of risk depends on who you talk to." One area which is receiving some special attention, though, is throughput in the main computer. "We can't afford too much delay between the collection of the signal and the point where it is displayed to the pilot. We're overcoming that," says Anderson. But, he says, the team is confident that they will pass the milestone on schedule.
The schedule appears to be tight, with two to three months between the first flight of Block 3.0 on the FTB and its first flight aboard the F-22. "The current avionics schedule," notes a disapproving General Accounting Office (GAO) in its latest F-22 report, "shows Block 3...being completed five months before the completion dates the Air Force considered realistic in 1997." The first flight of 4004 slipped from February to May 2000 in the course of 1999, further delaying the flight testing of Block 2 aboard the fighter, and that date has since slipped to July. So far, however, the program has avoided disasters, and key changes (such as the implementation of Block 3S) have been implemented in time to avert problems.
UP NEXT: THE JSF
Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are closely involved with the integration of the F-22 avionics, so it is not surprising that the proposed offensive avionics system for both JSF candidates takes the F-22 as a baseline. Sensor fusion, including the ability to detect, identify and locate pop-up threats quickly and accurately enough to attack them, is basic to the JSF. Both teams plan to fuse data on large-format displays and to use AESA radars in an LPI mode.
In many ways, JSF's goals are more advanced than those of the F-22. They include the fusion of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical systems in both the offensive and defensive modes. The JSF system is also intended to cost and weigh less than the F-22 hardware and to make extensive use of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) technology.
The JSF is planned to have five basic sets of sensors which, as on the F-22, will be entirely integrated into the central processor. Two of these form the Multi-Function Integrated Radio-Frequency System (MIRFS). The MIRFS/Multifunction Forward Looking Array (MFA) is the functional equivalent of the APG-77 radar and is being developed, under a separate competition, by Raytheon and Northrop Grumman; neither company is specifically teamed with either of the prime contractors on this part of the JSF program.
The MIRFS/Electronic Warfare System (EWS) is the all-around passive element of the RE system. The MIRFS/EWS will use its own dedicated antennas and the MFA. Sanders is the MIRFS/EWS supplier to both teams, basing its work on its experience with low-observable (LO) apertures for the F-22.
Two sensor packages make up the EO system. The forward-looking BO targeting system (EOTS) is an infrared (IR) system to locate and help identify targets. The objective is to fuse JR and SAR imagery to detect and identify targets automatically with the minimum emission level. The EOTS will also function as a long-range IR search-and-track (IRST) system to detect airborne targets and as an EO system for airborne target identification.
The Distributed Aperture Infrared System (DAIRS) comprises a set of staring focal-plane-array (FPA) sensors covering a complete sphere around the aircraft and will combine three functions: it will feed a video signal to the pilot's binocular, day-night helmet-mounted display (HMD); will act as a missile-warning system, and will serve as an IRST to detect airborne threats.
The DAIRS and EOTS are the subject of a parallel competition, like the MIRFS/MFA. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control form one team, with Northrop Grumman being responsible for the DAIRS and Lockheed Martin taking the lead on the EOTS. Boeing is presumably working with Raytheon.
Both teams are using FTBs in the current demonstration and validation stage of the JSF program. Boeing began testing the JSF's integrated avionics on its 737-based Avionics Flying Laboratory (AEL) in December 1999 and plans a total of 50 missions. Lockheed Martin is using the BAG One-Eleven, which has served as an FTB for many Westinghouse and Northrop Grumman radars.
Although the teams have common suppliers in some areas (e.g., Sanders is the contractor for the MIRFS/EWS in both cases), there are detail differences. For example, Lockheed Martin has chosen Litton Advanced Systems to team with Sanders on the EWS, providing its unique expertise in electronic-support-measures (ESM) technology. In particular, Litton is applying its long-baseline interferometry processing to the Lockheed Martin JSF, providing the aircraft with twice the receiver capability of the ICAP-III Prowler to the Lockheed Martin JSF at half the size, weight and cost. BAB Systems is also a member of the team.
The EW and sensor systems proposed for the JSF would not be affordable using today's technology. One of the most costly aspects of the F-22 system is the need to provide separate antennas for all wavebands and aspects and to make those apertures compatible with stealth. F-22 antennas are installed in cavities lined with radar-absorbent material and covered with specially formulated materials which allow the signals of interest to pass through, while absorbing hostile signals. On the JSF, the goal is to reduce the cost and complexity of the antenna systems by making the antennas simpler and using a single antenna or aperture for many tasks.
Although Boeing and Lockheed Martin have demonstrated some key JSF functions on their test-bed aircraft, it is worth remembering that the F-22's avionics functions were demonstrated on the same level during the demonstration and validation phase of the ATF program in 1989-90. The GAO has said that several unspecified aspects of the JSF program are still not ready for EMD, and it is more than likely that the very sophisticated, yet low-cost technology proposed for the aircraft is among them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all well and good but its late, it always seems to get later, no-one knows what it will cost and they are cutting the performance specs
Just put the programme out of its misery
Just put the programme out of its misery
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations. The NGJ is designed to defend the F-35 against heavily protected surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and suppress integrated enemy air defenses such as the SA-20.
Advanced SAM systems might be used by Iran, for example, to defend nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and key command-and-control sites. U.S. analysts say only a stealthy, high-flying, supercruise aircraft can avoid destruction in the heart of such defenses.
Advanced SAM systems might be used by Iran, for example, to defend nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and key command-and-control sites. U.S. analysts say only a stealthy, high-flying, supercruise aircraft can avoid destruction in the heart of such defenses.
Also, I seriously doubt F-35 is how you go after nuke sites. There are other ways to peel that onion.
The future may include the NGJ on UAV's being used to escort jam with the f-35, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement
But you did read my mind.