Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018 F-35 News and Discussion

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    AGM-114 also has a blast frag warhead which has been quite handy in Southwest Asia.

    Comment


      The Hellfire is a HEAT round
      My point was that by adding a frag sleeve, they were able to give the Hellfire good blast/frag performance without having to do major redesign. I am not saying that this is what IMI did, just one posability to solving the need.
      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

      Comment


        Lockheed Martin Selects Raytheon To Deliver Next Generation F-35 Sensor System



        The Raytheon-built DAS will be integrated into F-35 aircraft starting with Lot 15 aircraft, expected to begin deliveries in 2023. The next generation DAS system is estimated to generate the following results compared to the current system:

        More than $3 billion in life cycle cost savings
        Approximately 45 percent reduction in unit recurring cost
        Greater than 50 percent reduction in operations and sustainment cost
        5 times more reliability
        2 times performance capability improvement
        The new system will also indirectly benefit aircraft readiness and service manpower requirements
        More at the jump

        https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lock...00000002750882
        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

        Comment


          Originally posted by moon_light View Post
          Remove the gun is understandable because stealth aircraft aren't expected to have many WVR dogfight.
          But what is the benefit of not having fuselage jammer while still have towed decoys and use APG-81 as jammer?. The airplane has towed decoys so they clearly see jamming as necessary. No way they fear the airplane a few kg heavier.
          I don't know, EMCON maybe? The F-35 being a stealth fighter, active ECM was considered useless or counter-productive. Towed decoys are no substitute for full jammers, their main task is anti-missile.
          Besides, F-16, A-10 and AV-8 don't have internal jammers either (US ones).

          Originally posted by moon_light View Post
          Comparison with ALQ-131 is a rather disingenuous, the first model of ALQ-131 came into production in 1970s that almost, 50 years ago, electronics parts such as processors, memory cards are much more bucky than what we have now. Self-protection jammer can be made much smaller nowadays, EL/M-8222 is only 100 kg, ALE-50 is only 1-2 kg, and that with receiver, TwT, transmitter, signal generator, CPU. ASQ-239 already has necessary components such as antenna, memory cards, CPU to analyze incoming radar wave and generate optimum jamming pulse to be used by APG-81 and ALE-70. So adding transmitter and TWT is a couple of kg at the most. Keep in mind they can fit everything inside a package as small as GEN-X/ALE-50/ALE-55/Brite cloud.
          That must be the reason why avionics become lighter everyday... are the newer versions of that pod lighter? No.
          Not all jammers are equal, some cover more and and are more powerful than others. ALE-50 is merely a decoy.
          So you think transmitters and TWT adds a couple of kgs at most. That's why every jammer, internal or external, weighs a couple of kg at most...

          Originally posted by moon_light View Post
          Furthermore, jamming output required is proportional to radar cross section. F-35 RCS is between 0.1-0.2% of F-16. We know ALE-50 is enough for F-16, so a transmitter that 800-1000 times weaker than ALE-50 would been enough for F-35. A couple of kg is redundancy.
          Nice graphic, I wonder though why it's being posted all over the web only by the same few people. I don't pretend to know much about ECM. But that definitely sounds too good to be true. It would also render radar missiles useless against any LO/VLO adversary equipped with MAWS and applying a tiny bit of jamming.
          How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
          Yngwie Malmsteen

          Comment


            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            Of course it will look "marketing-y" that the point of advertising video.
            Logically, if they wanted to illustrate radar jamming then they would just make the animation the ray from the nose (like in Northrup APG-81 video), no need to super accurate angle
            It's not from the wing antennas either...

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            They don't have to specifically mentioned "APG-81" but logicallyif they intended to show ASQ-239 using APG-81/ALE-70 to transmit jamming signal then they would have atleast said that ASQ-239 can perform electronic attack through radar aperture/towed decoy..etc. No such information was mentioned in the video. Animation of ASQ-239 perform jamming is the same as in EPAWSS and DEWS vid, so why the assumption and excuse that it must means something different?
            Why the assumptions? Because its not clear. Why don't they just say jamming thru ASQ-239 transmitters then if it's so damn obvious? Maybe because it isn't?

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            No, i assume that an electronic warfare system that has a threat library and can computing/create jamming waveform for radar/towed decoys to transmit, will also be able to transmit RF waves by its own antenna.
            Do you think an F-16 has no threat libraries? Even Austrian Typhoons have threat libraries, yet they don't have ECM.
            Also you assume. That's my main point. You assume because it's unclear.

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            To sum up, i consider ASQ-239 to be an active system because:
            1- BAE themselves said it can perform jamming and digital electronic attack.
            2- BAE videos shows F-35 perform jamming in the same fashion they did with DEWS and EPAWSS videos
            3- ASQ-239 have cognitive jamming technology, which is more advanced than most jamming systems.
            4- ASQ-239 is able to computing/create jamming waveform for radar/towed decoys.
            5- ASQ-239 has more antennas than many active ECM systems.
            6- i haven't heard of any internal electronic warfare system that can computing/create jamming waveform but at the sametime can't transmit with their own antenna. ( Falcon edge/IDECM/Spectra/DASS/DEWS/EWPASS.. etc, none have that behavior)
            None of that is clear, doesn't give a definite answer.
            5. is because it covers lots of bands and is an integrated ELS.
            6. Do those systems transmitt thru their RWR antennas or do they have seperate transmitters? So what if the ASQ-239 itself is passive and others aren't. Don't forget it's an evolution of the F-22s ALR-94, which is an RWR.

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            And? Do you consider a fuel probe on F-35B an internal or external system?
            What matters is it's not ASQ-239. So it's not internal to Barracuda if you will.

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            1. The same period when people thought F-35 didn't have a fiber optic towed decoy
            2.That pod will affect RCS. It called a multi mission pod because you can put many things inside such as 25 mm cannon, dedicated EO sensor similar to DB-110, GaN SUPPORT jammer similar to NGJ. We are talking about self-defense jamming systems.
            So maybe in the future we will learn more. My point.
            Of course the pod will affect RCS but not like any bolt on pod. The multi mission pod is not the same as the gun pod. It's based on the outer mold line of the gun pod.
            The F-35 Multi Mission Pod is partly based on the OML of
            the F-35 Gun Pod and 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.
            No need to duplicate NGJ, no need to duplicate internal self defense jammer, if you have it.

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            No they don't, they didn't list antennas and transmitters in DEWS brochure and video.
            How do you know they don't, legacy systems wouldn't be part of any new kit and not from BAE, so it's unlikely they would include it in their brochure.
            https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sile...doc-15-728.jpg

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            The illustration is the same between ASQ-239, EPAWSS and DEWS. So where is the evidence/indication that they refer to towed decoy and radar in ASQ-239 video but airframe aperture in EWPASS and DEWS video?
            There is no evidence for nothing, my point.

            Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
            Actually, how is that relevant?. If i understand correctly, you quote the original article to shows that because F-35 may not have aft jamming => ASQ-239 is a passive system. But that argument doesn't hold ground because ALE-70 itself can operate as aft jammer.
            If ALE-70 covers 360, you have 360 coverage afterall, without using ASQ-239.
            How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
            Yngwie Malmsteen

            Comment


              Originally posted by eagle
              I don't know, EMCON maybe? The F-35 being a stealth fighter, active ECM was considered useless or counter-productive. Towed decoys are no substitute for full jammers, their main task is anti-missile.
              Besides, F-16, A-10 and AV-8 don't have internal jammers either (US ones).
              That isn't reasonable, if EMCON is the reason then they won't give APG-81 electronic attack ability. Beside, you are compare apple to orange, US F-16, A-10, AV-8B don't have internal jammer because they don't have to pay a lot of attention to RCS unlike stealth aircraft, and external pods are more flexible, you will also noitice that A-10, F-16, AV-8B don't have internal forward looking infrared or missile warning system and as we know they carry missiles/bombs externally as well.
              While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.

              Originally posted by eagle
              That must be the reason why avionics become lighter everyday... are the newer versions of that pod lighter? No.
              Not all jammers are equal, some cover more and and are more powerful than others. ALE-50 is merely a decoy.
              So you think transmitters and TWT adds a couple of kgs at most. That's why every jammer, internal or external, weighs a couple of kg at most...
              Every jammers contain not only TWT and transmitter but also processor, memory cards, receiver, RF converter and they are designed to protect target with RCS 1000 times bigger than F-35. We know ASQ-239 has processor, techniques generator , receivers, because it can analyze signal and generate optimum jamming pulse to be used by APG-81 and ALE-70. The difference between a hypothetical passive ASQ-239 and an active ASQ-239 is only the TWT, which add a couple of kgs at most given F-35 very low radar signature.

              Originally posted by eagle
              Nice graphic, I wonder though why it's being posted all over the web only by the same few people. I don't pretend to know much about ECM. But that definitely sounds too good to be true. It would also render radar missiles useless against any LO/VLO adversary equipped with MAWS and applying a tiny bit of jamming.
              Physics doesn't care what you think "too good to be true".



              Click image for larger version

Name:	Jamming and RCS.PNG
Views:	2
Size:	162.4 KB
ID:	3680798




              Radar Cross Section
              By Eugene F. Knott, John F. Schaeffer, Michael T. Tulley

              https://books.google.com.vn/books?id...page&q&f=false

              http://www.rfcafe.com/references/ele...ss-section.htm
              Last edited by moon_light; 14th June 2018, 05:30.

              Comment


                Here's a really old article all the way back from 2006 about the AN/ASQ-239:
                http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/04...lf-protection/

                As for the distinction between what the AN/ASQ-239 and APG-81 - in the F-35 it's blurred as things like antennas have been reduced and become multi-purpose by design:
                https://www.afcea.org/content/?q=pro...et-new-heights

                Comment


                  Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                  That isn't reasonable, if EMCON is the reason then they won't give APG-81 electronic attack ability. Beside, you are compare apple to orange, US F-16, A-10, AV-8B don't have internal jammer because they don't have to pay a lot of attention to RCS unlike stealth aircraft, and external pods are more flexible, you will also noitice that A-10, F-16, AV-8B don't have internal forward looking infrared or missile warning system and as we know they carry missiles/bombs externally as well.
                  APG-81 is already there, so why not use it. For example for SEAD, to clear a path or to clear the way for attacking air defence sites.
                  For the rest, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that back in the day, it was assumed passive reactions if picked up by air defence gives better chance of survival than trying to battle it out with jamming. Passive reactions include manoeuvring to present lowest RCS towards hostile radars. Or simply running away. Specs were defined some 2 plus decades ago, things change during that timeframe. Hell that's basically the normal lifespan of a fighter. Not to forget cost was always an issue.
                  Another reason why legacy jets don't have internal jammers is they weren't required to have one, internal or external. Requirements change.

                  Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                  Every jammers contain not only TWT and transmitter but also processor, memory cards, receiver, RF converter and they are designed to protect target with RCS 1000 times bigger than F-35. We know ASQ-239 has processor, techniques generator , receivers, because it can analyze signal and generate optimum jamming pulse to be used by APG-81 and ALE-70. The difference between a hypothetical passive ASQ-239 and an active ASQ-239 is only the TWT, which add a couple of kgs at most given F-35 very low radar signature.
                  Wiring alone probably adds a couple of kgs.
                  But sure, if ASQ-239 has active elements or will get them in the future, I'm sure they weigh only a couple of kgs and have very low power output. Seriously though, it doesn't matter. As mentioned, the issue is requirements not technical challenges.

                  Originally posted by moon_light View Post
                  Physics doesn't care what you think "too good to be true".
                  See that's a perfect reason why active jamming would be unnecessary. Something like BriteCloud is all you need then.
                  How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
                  Yngwie Malmsteen

                  Comment


                    From what I can tell, the ASQ-239 relies pretty heavily on the APG-81 as a transmitter. Sure, there are other antennas in the wings which are also used for transmission (as linked previously MADL uses them), but the APG-81 is where the 'ten times more powerful than the EA-6B Prowler' for EW seems to come from.

                    Here's a quote that seems to indicate that:

                    "For starters, the F-35’s APG 81 radar is no longer just a radar - It’s a multi-functional array”, O’Bryan explains. And rather than the familiar sweeping cone, the F-35’s beam is more like a laser, able to focus on a specific target or on multiple targets (the exact number is classified) with ten times the power of an EA 6B Prowler, he says.

                    Furthermore, a formation of four F-35s can alternate transmission of the jamming signal among themselves, again automatically. And with stealth capability, one or all four of the aircraft can operate from inside the target’s firing range. You start with 10 times more power, and if you are much closer and you are alternating signals between four airplanes with a stealth data link between them, you can do that jamming in a coherent, cooperative manner. The signal, the technique, everything is done for [the pilot].”

                    Source is Pages 36 & 37: http://vanguardcanada.uberflip.com/i...april-may-2014

                    Comment


                      The MADL transceivers are mounted on the central core of the body, not the wings.

                      This is what one looks like. Search a good hires image of the F-35 for these.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	JMr3Ehp.png
Views:	1
Size:	246.6 KB
ID:	3680804

                      If you just want the pics, check here

                      http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....371234#p371234
                      Last edited by SpudmanWP; 15th June 2018, 06:17.
                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                      Comment


                        Here is Bogdan talking about How F-35 can attack every link in the kill chain.

                        https://youtu.be/cEPYnbFl_g0?t=4330

                        Comment


                          Directed-Energy Capability Targeted By Pratt F-35 Engine Upgrade Plan
                          http://aviationweek.com/defense/dire...d7857f3ddc506f

                          Comment


                            US Senate Blocks Sale Of F-35 Jets To Turkey Due To Russian Missile Deal

                            Comment


                              Nothing to do with s400 deal

                              Comment


                                If ASQ-239 has active antennas, the ones pictured in an earlier post is not one of them.

                                Comment


                                  This one?

                                  "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                  Comment


                                    That isn't reasonable, if EMCON is the reason then they won't give APG-81 electronic attack ability. Beside, you are compare apple to orange, US F-16, A-10, AV-8B don't have internal jammer because they don't have to pay a lot of attention to RCS unlike stealth aircraft, and external pods are more flexible, you will also noitice that A-10, F-16, AV-8B don't have internal forward looking infrared or missile warning system and as we know they carry missiles/bombs externally as well.
                                    Yet there have been contemporary US fighters which had internal jammers (F/A-18) or internal IRST/FLIR (F-14). The reason why those fighters you mentioned did not have internal jammers was simple - there was no requirement when they were designed, and once such requirement came up, those planes had too little internal space to effectively install jammers, or it would have required too costly modifications.

                                    Comment


                                      If ASQ-239 has active antennas, the ones pictured in an earlier post is not one of them.
                                      and you know that how?
                                      Yet there have been contemporary US fighters which had internal jammers (F/A-18) or internal IRST/FLIR (F-14). The reason why those fighters you mentioned did not have internal jammers was simple - there was no requirement when they were designed, and once such requirement came up, those planes had too little internal space to effectively install jammers, or it would have required too costly modifications.
                                      F-14 and F-18 are bigger aircraft and don't have to pay attention to weight as much as F-16 or AV-8B

                                      Comment


                                        once such requirement came up, those planes had too little internal space to effectively install jammers, or it would have required too costly modifications.
                                        Nope, Belgian F-16 were outfitted with internal French EW receivers + Israeli jammers.

                                        The main reason US fighters aren't equipped with internal jammers is that it doesn't fit the USAF doctrine. EW support, escorting and strike are all conducted by different platforms. This way, the USAF gets the best tool for each role.

                                        Other air forces that don't have the means of the US so they try to build/adapt platforms that can do every role, e.g. self-escorting, self-jamming, recon...

                                        The difference between a hypothetical passive ASQ-239 and an active ASQ-239 is only the TWT, which add a couple of kgs at most given F-35 very low radar signature.
                                        You can't use the same antenna for reception and emission in an EW suite. When you transmit, you're deaf. That's ok in a radar where you schedule RX & TX, in a jammer you need to be able to emit all the time.

                                        So the difference between a passive suite and an active suite is hardly trivial. Once you've chosen passive-only, going passive requires re-engineering the whole plane.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by blue apple
                                          The main reason US fighters aren't equipped with internal jammers is that it doesn't fit the USAF doctrine. EW support, escorting and strike are all conducted by different platforms. This way, the USAF gets the best tool for each role.
                                          Other air forces that don't have the means of the US so they try to build/adapt platforms that can do every role, e.g. self-escorting, self-jamming, recon...
                                          F-15 has an internal jammer, eventhough they have EF-111
                                          F-14 and F-18 both have internal jammer despite the existence of EA-6B and EA-18G


                                          Originally posted by blue apple
                                          You can't use the same antenna for reception and emission in an EW suite. When you transmit, you're deaf. That's ok in a radar where you schedule RX & TX, in a jammer you need to be able to emit all the time.
                                          So the difference between a passive suite and an active suite is hardly trivial. Once you've chosen passive-only, going passive requires re-engineering the whole plane
                                          Most jammers are deaf when they transmit because their receivers will be flooded with signal from the transmitter side/back lobes, because the aperture of a jammer is much smaller than a radar, their beam width will be much wider (many are omi directional) and their side lobes will be contain more percentage of total output.
                                          There are very few jammer with ability to jam without interfering with their own receiver.
                                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20180620-211351.png
Views:	1
Size:	295.9 KB
ID:	3680832
                                          Regarding ASQ-239, looking close at the photo provided by BAE, its antenna is not a single parabol antenna or panel antenna, but rather a series of vivaldi antenna put together as a planar array, so one group can operate as transmitter while others as receiver at the same time.
                                          Last edited by moon_light; 20th June 2018, 15:25.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X