Friday, April 25, 2014

F-35 News. What we all missed..Quote of the week.


 Check this out....
"[Stealth] is needed for what we have in the future for at least 10 years out there and there is nothing magic about that decade," Greenert said. "But I think we need to look beyond that. So to me, I think it's a combination of having aircraft that have stealth but also aircraft that can suppress other forms of radio frequency electromagnetic emissions so that we can get in."
That's Admiral Greenert, Chief Of Naval Operations talking.

He let the cat out of the bag but no one was paying attention.

Basically he's telling us that in 10 years, the stealth advantage that the F-35 brings to the party will no longer be good enough.

How did we all miss that?

NOTE:  Could this explain why the Russians built the partial stealth PAK-FA instead of a full stealth airplane?

35 comments :

  1. Sounds to me like a reason to have NGJ on the F-35 (like the Marines want) and time to renew NGM efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. if you have to put a jammer on a stealth airplane then why have a stealth airplane in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Solomon

      PAK-FA is a defensive fighter intended to operate over Russian airspace(Ditto for the Silent Eagle). Accordingly, PAK-FA doesn't need all-aspect stealth, just the frontal aspect stealth to delay the lockon by US fighter jets.

      The F-35 on the other hand is intended on operate over hostile airspace in penetrative strike missions, so it needs all-aspect stealth to evade enemy ground radars.

      Delete
    2. "if you have to put a jammer on a stealth airplane then why have a stealth airplane in the first place?"

      If NGJ were a wide area jammer like the ALQ-99, you might have a point. However, because NGJ is AESA based, it will not give away its position when using its jamming capability. Combine that with a stealth fighter's ability to get closer before jamming is needed means that the jamming will be more effective.

      Delete
    3. SpudmanWP

      All radio signal emissions are picked up by RWR, including AESA radars and jammers.

      Furthermore, an F-35 with external NGJ pods wouldn't be stealthy at all so there is no need to use a stealthy platform as NGJ carriers.

      Delete
    4. You pretty much know when you are being jammed. Jamming via a stealth platform makes stealth irrelevant.

      Delete
    5. Answer this question: Assuming you know you are being jammed and assuming you can then detect the jamming signal, not tell me how you use that to figure out who is jamming you and from where?

      NGJ pods have not even been developed yet so to say that they are no stealthy is premature at best. Before you say that they cannot be stealthy, if you can make something as large as the F-35 VLO then nothing says that the NGJ cannot be. Keep in mind that what makes NGJ special is what is inside, not it's shape. The first version of NGJ for the Growler will not need to be stealthier than the airframe carrying it but take the NGJ innards and put in a VLO pod and it's a perfect match for the F-35.

      Jamming from a stealth platform, especially with an AESA based jammer is the better solution. Jamming with AESA is like getting a laser shined in your eyes, you will likely know it's there and could guess the direction it'c coming from. Problem is that your buddy standing nest to you does not see the laser and cannot help you find the source.

      Delete
    6. An emitter is an emitter - no getting around that. Point it at an enemy system, it's a good chance they will know they are being attacked, and will respond accordingly. The NGJ on F-35 has gotten shoved so far to the right that nobody is even talking about integrating the system anymore. And it's easy to understand why: it's going to be expensive: the F-35 is a single seat aircraft, meaning even more automation will be required than Growler. The F-35 has enough challenges already, but mostly it makes little sense for a stealth aircraft to emit any signal at an enemy system except for self defense. OTOH, if you have 3 or 4 Growlers covering different vectors, who's to say which vector is hot. So the defensive picture has gotten that much more difficult. From this simple scenario, It's easy to see why the Navy wants to increase Growlers to 7 or 8 per carrier.

      Delete
  3. Sounds like he's making the case for the partial stealth advanced super hornets and growlers. Navy appears to be taking a more realistic look at the future than everyone else, or at least it seems that way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This is really just Moore's law at work. The more time passes, the less effective stealth will become. Would you bet on more potent jammers and radars(which will obviously be improved) or stealth shaping and materials?

      Delete
    3. great point. but more importantly the Navy appears to be fully in the camp of stealth is dead and Moore's law rules.

      Delete
    4. Moore's law, diminishing stealth and all that jazz. Suppose if Radar and Detection technology catches up to current Stealth Technology, rendering the Stealth Features on the F-35 and PAK-FA and the others useless, the PAK-FA is still a very sleek, nimble, twin jet aerial platform with a decent missile capacity and range as well. Partial stealth or no stealth, the Russians seem to be getting a better deal for their money here. At least theoretically.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. forget missiles. that isn't what i think is the next wave. its all about electronic attack. beam weapons. whether you're talking about using AESA emitters (i think that's what they're called) burning through missile seeker heads or you finally get lasers on airplanes, its all about the future that the US Navy seems to be all over while the USAF and others are stuck pushing last century's project because it was already in development and no one has the balls to say that it took too long and while a good idea when we started is now obsolete.

      Delete
    7. forget missiles ?......aww shucks...just when i was about to put in a piece about the BrahMos Supersonic Cruise/anti ship missile currently fitted on Su-30's for testing and beinf planned on the PAK-FA.

      Delete
    8. But you do realise that as computer processor power increases, radar power increases, you will need more 'Power' to power them. You will need the sucessor to the Lithium Ion batteries as well as new materials for making chips and other components that can absorb all that energy and heat. And thats just for comnputers and radars. We are still to come up with battlefield acceptable semi-conductor materials and energy storage technology that is sooo needed to power your Laser beams and Electro propulsion cannons

      Delete
    9. this probably needs to be done in a post tomorrow but i'll bite. i think the Navy is pushing for lasers and real electronic attack. i also think that means we're going to see the return of the BIG fighter.

      SU-30's and the old F-14 won't be big fighters anymore. they'll be small. i even wonder if we won't see a return to some type of 747 air superiority sized fighter. power generation for almost unlimited shots while in the air and what's hanging off its wings? not missiles but turbines to provide extra power from the wind generated by flight.

      Delete
    10. Ans on that battery/technical note......I met a couple of DARPA senior scientists and officials in a seminar whose theme was the Future Infantry Soldier and was expecting them to talk about some big bang technology that would change infantrymen forever. What they talked about was Storage of energy on the Battlefield and forward operating bases. The various challenges they faced, materials being used, effect on the logistics chain etc. Rest assured, if they work as well as they talk, the US might just get the next generation of ceramics, semiconductor materials and batteries to even Kickstart the FCS. Yes, FCS.

      Delete
  4. thats a weird statement. if a stealth fighter has pylons with pods hanging off it, then its not stealth anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gun pod, and it's pylon, are stealthy.

      They just have to be designed that way from the start and be a single unit as opposed to an NGJ pod on a standard pylon.

      Delete
  5. http://rt.com/usa/154956-stealth-jet-f35-growler/

    ReplyDelete
  6. citing russia today, seriously? those fuckers have no clue, never had one, never will

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. russia today was simply re-broadcasting a reuters report. besides. if you want an open source look at Russian tech and want to know what they think about us then RT is a great resource.

      Delete
  7. General Welsh agrees.
    "Recent advancements in radar technology have diminished our traditional stealth capability. The question becomes, how do you regain the advantage? We are pursuing technology through the entire spectrum: radio frequency, audible detection, infrared signature, and optical systems."

    So without worthless (and unproven) stealth the F-35 program is (or should be, in a just world) dead, dead, dead. Anyhow, there are much better ways to put ordnance on a distant target than using a Lockheed-profiting expensive unreliable "strike" fighter which can't fight and now, according to Greenert and Welsh, can't even strike. And of course Amos doesn't need to either strike NOR fight so he's quiet as a mouse, which somehow seems right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so we have a case of Welsh actually knowing better but still pushing the Lockheed Martin line. i wonder what the discussions behind closed doors are like. i wonder if they actually want the airplane or if they feel trapped.

      Delete
    2. You know, in the military you go along to get along. Greenert pushes the envelope more than most would dare to do.

      Delete
    3. You have to set up you next job after the military...

      Delete
  8. What's the great advantage of few stealth low performance unnafordable airplanes? Once the hole bunch of "low tech" high performance airplanes evade the few Amraams the few F-35 could launch to them at high altitude and long distance, who is going to protect the troops and vehicles on the ground being attacked by hundred of airplanes ? Do the few F-35 will chase those airplanes in dogfight at low altitude with their cannon in case they use it externally? And not just that, the enemy could also use their AAA to destroy the F-35 even with AK-47 It's really worrying the future of of the occidental soldier on the ground in case they will receive massive air strykes. Occident is obsessed with high tech unaffordable toys. It will be better to have a great quantity of 4+ fighters like the Super Hornet to deal with big number of 4+ enemy fighters at high altitude and close to the ground

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC_qyywcVZk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPLQ4-dSuwM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b2_1396010336[ www.youtube.com/watch?v=5847b_VFPCw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO8I7mdPIhY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4p4ET_HAg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRtPtcAaULk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q9BwRvbsWw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://aviationweek.com/awin/air-forces-acquiring-fewer-fighters-prices-rise

    “Conventional stealth is vulnerable to low-band detection,” Garcia said. “And the 'fifth-generation' scenario has become outdated over the past five years.” He mentioned contrails and visible vortices as signatures that are not affected by RCS reduction. Other analysts have noted the dense wingtip vortex trails visible in many inflight photos of F-35s.
    ------
    And this is from Raytheon executive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well the Navy doesn't have that problem, they were doing their job more realistically.
    I can't wait for the results of this next exercise.

    Http://worldnewsviews.com/boeing-says-lockheed-martins-f-35-is-junk-wants-navy-to-buy-super-hornets-and-growlers-instead

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzqTcFRuVPs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  11. And to continue with the idea of the useless stealth advantage of few F-35 protecting the troops and the fleet, here is a video I prepared long time ago for my Peruvian folks, showing the danger to rely only in small forces using long range radar guided missiles. They can be easily jam and defeated and then any other fighter could detect and destroyers them with a combination of long range radar/ IR missiles. If the opponent have bigger number of those cheap agile and capable fighters, it will be impossible to stop them when they decide to retaliate and destroy your fleet and ground forces. For the video, just replace the F-16 and F-5 for the F-35 and will be the same scenario for the Pacific fleet relying only in the F-35.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8jb6AGN6CA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  12. Even if the F-35 were going to be a jamming platform, it can't generate as much electrical power as a Growler. This is why the Growler can use the same pods as a Prowler and get increased performance over the older jet.

    Only the F-15 with dual seat configuration (a D or E model) could offer comparable jamming capabilities as the Growler, but the Air Force is not interested in any program that doesn't also funnel funding to the F-35 "Albino Elephant."

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wonder how a single F35 will stop 4 of this airplanes for the same price. Russia is planning to produce it in mass.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=suYRkobsxX8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/egypt-signs-unprecedented-military-deal-with-russia/2014/04/22/

    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig35/

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=D76Xs7U-jgM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.