Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 376

Thread: 2018 F-35 News and Discussion

  1. #331
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    991

    IMI Systems (formerly Israel Military Industries) and Israel Aerospace Industries have jointly developed a new long-range precision strike weapon suitable for use during stand-off-range attacks.

    Named Rampage, the supersonic weapon is 4.7m (15.4ft) long and has a total weight of 570kg (1,250lb). Its rocket and warhead performance and navigation suite enable the design to be deployed against high-value, well-protected targets with "utmost precision", the companies say.
    Suitable for carriage by a broad range of aircraft types, including the Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter, the Rampage missile will be released from outside an area protected by air-defence systems.

    Potential targets include command and control sites, communication facilities, air bases, maintenance centres and critical infrastructure, the companies say.
    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-missi-449358/


    The Israel Military Industries (IMS) and the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) are currently at the final development stages of a new air-to-surface missile—the Rampage.r
    The "Rampage" missile is designed to be launched from a fighter jet 150 km away from the target, meaning it will not be detected by the enemy's detection and interception systems.
    Rampage air-to-surface missile
    Israel's two big military industries have held over the past year joint experiments which have shown the "Rampage" is operational.
    The stand-off method—long-range artillery launching—has been used by the IAF for many years.
    The production process and sale of the 4.7-meter long missile—that weighs half a ton including its rocket engine, and has a relatively small warhead that weighs some 150 kg—will commence during the upcoming year.
    The Israel Air Force (IAF) is likely to purchase the missile for its operational needs.
    Among the missile features are its ability to control and monitor the extent of its shrapnel, which will make its strike surgical, accurate and with minimum collateral damage despite the fact the missile spends a lot of time in the air from the minute it is launched until it strikes its target.
    However, the IMS and the IAI say that in light of the new ability developed—launching the missile up to 150 km from the target—the ratio between the accuracy and the effectiveness of the strike and the missile's large distance from the fighter jet is its most significant advantage.
    The IAI's Missiles and Aerospace Division's manager, Boaz Levi, told Ynet that the missile's cost is about one third of the cost of similar missiles being sold across the world.
    The Rampage already has a potential buyer, however the IAI did not reveal its identity.
    The missile will be adjusted to all offense platforms including the IAF's F-15, F-16 and F-35 fighter jets and will be used against anti-aircraft batteries, enemy's headquarters, armament storages, and logistic bases among others.
    The missile's warhead will be guided by a GPS system, which will allow him to strike during the day as well as the night and in any weather conditions including fog and cloudiness.
    The GPS system's Achilles' heel is that it can be relatively easily disrupted. Therefore, the missile's developers added an additional algorithm-based navigation system as backup that will give the missile immunity.
    The missile will have two kinds of warheads, with the first one designed for penetrating armor protected targets such as bunkers and those immune to shrapnel damage.
    IMI's Fire Power Division's Manager Eli Reiter said, "Sending four fighter jets carrying four Rampage missiles allows us to strike under conditions we've never had before."
    The IAF's need of precision strikes has grown over the past few years, an example of that is the strike against bases and weapon storages in Syria, for which the IDF has assumed responsibility a month ago.
    Syria's army launched hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles as retaliation to the IDF's multiple strikes. At the beginning of 2018, a Syrian missile shot down an IAF's f-16 fighter jet in the Upper Galilee.
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,...283738,00.html

    Unfortunately, it won't fit inside F-35 or able to attack moving target unlike AARGM-ER

  2. #332
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,661
    How do you think that a Der Spiegel editorial saying "The biggest military acquision program in three decades goes to the Donald" would look like for an SPD/CDU German government?

    I think it would go down a bit better then a report that US is putting a Tariff on German auto exports into US.
    You would be dead wrong, the US voter does not have a monopoly on being a silly nationalistic chap on its bad days.

  3. #333
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    563
    Interesting, the Israeli Rampage AGM seems to be yet another aero-ballistic missile concept, similar in vein to the recent Russian Kinzal and the Chinese CM-400AKG. Although with a range of 150km, significantly less than the Kinzal and the CM-400AKG, one wonders what real capability is being offered here.

  4. #334
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    It seems to be a big rocket for such a short range. My thought is that it flies a very high ballistic arch in order to come in near-vertically in order to defeat the defenses which cannot see/defend in an upwards cone.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #335
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    258
    Not anything like Kinzal. This is the next evolution in hardened perpetrator pgm. Most of weight will be casing and warhead with a missile tacked on.

  6. #336
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    258
    You would be dead wrong, the US voter does not have a monopoly on being a silly nationalistic chap on its bad days
    I expect that German auto industry wont be happy with that outcome. In fact I would say they would be downright hostile to any German government that allowed such a outcome.

  7. #337
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    11
    I don't think it is a penetrator because they are advertising it for blast fragmentation. Those roles require two very different casings. For a penetrator munition you need a very hard, strong casing to burrow deep into concrete and/or rock before warhead detonation. For blast fragmentation you want a casing that comes apart easily in a calculated manner to increase shrapnel damage.

  8. #338
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    A warhead can have great longitudinal strength to be a good penetrator yet fragment horizontally. It can also have a frag sleeve ala Hellfire.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #339
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,661
    I expect that German auto industry wont be happy with that outcome. In fact I would say they would be downright hostile to any German government that allowed such a outcome.
    Newsflash, its not something that a German government can "allow" or not, its entirely dependent on Donald, something that its not lost this side of the pond and just like AUDI, BMW and Mercedes are not particulary happy about that possibility, Apple, Microsoft and severall other US companies, namely Boeing and Lockheed Martin would/should/are(?) hostile to any US government that endanger their exports to the European Union and Canada, or do you believe that somehow that kind of tariffs wont be answered in kind?
    Last edited by Sintra; 13th June 2018 at 00:18.

  10. #340
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    11
    The Hellfire is a HEAT round, SpudmanWP. Such a weapon is good for punching (melting really) a hole through around a foot of steel. It's not so good at punching though several meters of substantially different materials (compacted earth, high compressive strength concrete, and high tensile strength steel rebar). And if it fragments from axial force then I maintain that it will not be a good penetrator as oblique impacts are a fact of life. Field conditions will inevitably involve axial stresses and then the weapon will shatter and fail.

    Now it might be that in the future you can change out the whole front section of the Rampage for a penetrator munition (which will have a reinforced casing). But they aren't advertising it.

  11. #341
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,290
    AGM-114 also has a blast frag warhead which has been quite handy in Southwest Asia.

  12. #342
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    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."

  13. #343
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    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."

  14. #344
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote 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).

    Quote 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...

    Quote 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

  15. #345
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote 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...

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

  16. #346
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    865
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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:	246 
Size:	162.4 KB 
ID:	261061




    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 at 05:30.

  17. #347
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    17
    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

  18. #348
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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

  19. #349
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    17
    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

  20. #350
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    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:	12 
Size:	246.6 KB 
ID:	261080

    If you just want the pics, check here

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

  21. #351
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    12
    Here is Bogdan talking about How F-35 can attack every link in the kill chain.

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

  22. #352
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,646
    Directed-Energy Capability Targeted By Pratt F-35 Engine Upgrade Plan
    http://aviationweek.com/defense/dire...d7857f3ddc506f

  23. #353
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,336
    US Senate Blocks Sale Of F-35 Jets To Turkey Due To Russian Missile Deal

  24. #354
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    235
    Nothing to do with s400 deal

  25. #355
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    47
    If ASQ-239 has active antennas, the ones pictured in an earlier post is not one of them.

  26. #356
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,911
    This one?

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

  27. #357
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    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.

  28. #358
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    865
    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

  29. #359
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    386
    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.

  30. #360
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    865
    Quote 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


    Quote 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:	6 
Size:	295.9 KB 
ID:	261140
    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 at 15:25.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES