F-22s fly overwatch and keep any aerial threats off the F-35s while the F-35s penetrate and attack ground targets
The F-35s are also relaying any data they have to the F-22 because they might be in a position to see something the F-22 can't
Yeah, anybody with even the slightest knowledge of military procurement knows that more units purchased = lower unit cost. I've been reading about Dem & GOP politicians criticizing the deal & calling for renegotiations for years.
I didn't really understand what they meant by this: "The Raptor uses its advanced air maneuverability to shield the F-35 from airborne threats while the F-35 relays data to the F-22 to paint a clear picture of the battlefield."
Are they saying that the F-35 stays out of range and relays the battlefield data to the F-22s, which close in to fire on the target?
Well, the F35 is a multi-role platform, so I guess it can do target painting (or something in that vein) as well? That's normally something reserved for stuff like AWACS though as far as I know.
Im kinda puzzled at why the c variant is the most expensive. The B I think should be the most expensive given the complexity of the VTOL system. But it is only a few mil more than the A variant and like 50 mil less than the C. Why?
F-35C is a bigger plane with different wings, more fuel capacity, enhancements specific for Naval operation AND most importantly is being ordered in less numbers than the other versions.Im kinda puzzled at why the c variant is the most expensive.
The B I think should be the most expensive given the complexity of the VTOL system. But it is only a few mil more than the A variant and like 50 mil less than the C. Why?
False assumption, premiseThe current problems with the C might also be because of the compromised airframe. Is it possible that they need to launch it at a higher velocity to make up for the airframe deficiencies? That would then explain why the pilots experience the whiplash problem.
I think ultimately the C will be less than the B, but the B was produced first (the Marines were eager to replace their classic Hornets without having to get Super Hornets) and the C was produced last (the Navy has always been the least enthusiastic service and is happy with their Super Hornet situation) so the B has the benefit of more scaling. Also all the extra structure in the C to support catapult takeoffs and arrested landings isn't as cheap as you would think.
Another thing: why bother using fighter jet aircraft to drop bombs? It kinda reminds me of how the space shuttle ended up being more expensive than just using expendable rockets. Why not just shoot missiles at targets from surface ships?
The United States has poured ten of billions of dollars into developing fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, relatively simple signal processing enhancements, combined with a missile with a large warhead and its own terminal guidance system, could potentially allow low-frequency radars and such weapons systems to target and fire on the latest generation U.S. aircraft.
It is a well-known fact within Pentagon and industry circles that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and track low-observable aircraft. It has generally been held that such radars can’t guide a missile onto a target—i.e. generate a “weapons quality” track. But that is not exactly correct—there are ways to get around the problem according to some experts.
Traditionally, guiding weapons with low frequency radars has been limited by two factors. One factor is the width of the radar beam, while the second is the width of the radar pulse—but both limitations can be overcome with signal processing.
The width of the beam is directly related to the design of the antenna—which is necessarily large because of the low frequencies involved. Early low-frequency radars like the Soviet-built P-14 Tall King VHF-band radars was enormous in size and used a semi-parabolic shape to limit the width of the beam. Later radars like the P-18 Spoon Rest used a Yagi-Uda array—which were lighter and somewhat smaller. But these early low frequency radars had some serious limitations in determining the range and the precise direction of a contact. Furthermore, they could not determine altitude because the radar beams produced by these systems are several degrees wide in azimuth and tens of degrees wide in elevation.
Another traditional limitation of VHF and UHF-band radars is that their pulse width is long and they have a low pulse repetition frequency [PRF]—which means such systems are poor at accurately determining range. As Mike Pietrucha, a former Air Force an electronic warfare officer who flew on the McDonnell Douglas F-4G Wild Weasel and Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle once described to me, a pulse width of twenty microseconds yields a pulse that is roughly 19,600 ft long—range resolution is half the length of that pulse. That means that range can’t be determined accurately within 10,000 feet. Furthermore, two targets near one another can’t be distinguished as separate contacts.
Signal processing partially solved the range resolution problem as early as in the 1970s. The key is a process called frequency modulation on pulse, which is used to compress a radar pulse. The advantage of using pulse compression is that with a twenty-microsecond pulse, the range resolution is reduced to about 180 feet or so. There are also several other techniques that can be used to compress a radar pulse such as phase shift keying. Indeed, according to Pietrucha, the technology for pulse compression is decades old and was taught to Air Force electronic warfare officers during the 1980s. The computer processing power required for this is negligible by current standards, Pietrucha said.
Engineers solved the problem of directional or azimuth resolution by using phased array radar designs, which dispensed with the need for a parabolic array. Unlike older mechanically scanned arrays, phased array radars steer their radar beams electronically. Such radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. The necessary computing power to accomplish that task was available in the late 1970s for what eventually became the Navy’s Aegis combat system found on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. An active electronically scanned array is better still, being even more precise.
With a missile warhead large enough, the range resolution does not have to be precise. For example, the now antiquated S-75 Dvina—known in NATO parlance as the SA-2 Guideline—has a 440-pound warhead with a lethal radius of more than 100 feet. Thus, a notional twenty-microsecond compressed pulse with a range resolution of 150 feet should have the range resolution to get the warhead close enough—according to Pietrucha’s theory.
The directional and elevation resolution would have to be similar with an angular resolution of roughly 0.3 degrees for a target at thirty nautical miles because the launching radar is the only system guiding the SA-2. For example, a missile equipped with its own sensor—perhaps an infrared sensor with a scan volume of a cubic kilometer—would be an even more dangerous foe against an F-22 or F-35.
Speaking of AWACS, we are probably going to see massive changes in that arena as the doctrines driven by F-35\F-22\B-3 when it comes along begin to be the standard.
Some have argued that the days of dedicated AWACS aircraft are limited
AFAIK, the Growlers system provides a more comprehensive view of whats going on that far surpasses what a Prowler crew could ever dream of.I dont think so, you cant match the electronics on a jetliner with small fighters. AFAIK the Growlers cant even match the Prowlers they replaced. A 2 man modified fighter plane just cant replace a 4 man dedicated EW aircraft.
Build stealthy airframeAWACS are going to have to get stealthier however unless they want to be pushed way far backfield. Same goes for jet tankers.
(edit: that came off as dickish on my part)
I understand what your getting at but also note I said "changes" in the way we do things.
Just stealthifying everything is not "change".
Entire ways of doing things have to be updated now that every aircraft is going to be a part of the system, gathering data, analyzing and sharing among other nodes in the network.
AFAIK, the Growlers system provides a more comprehensive view of whats going on that far surpasses what a Prowler crew could ever dream of.
Just like the civilian world, technology allows you to do more with less.
vs
Compared to the veteran EA-6B Prowler it will replace, the EA-18G Growler has less room for the receivers, transmitters and antennas that detect, localize and jam enemy radars and communications. The Growler also has just two crew members instead of four to manage mission workload.
The EA-18G nevertheless offers carrier air wings a more capable electronic attack platform, able to keep up with Super Hornet strike fighters and increasing AEA missions. "We’re faster. We’re much more maneuverable," said Capt. Paul Overstreet, EA-18G program co-manager at Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). "We have a weapons capability to protect ourselves."
Actually a contributing factor in retiring the EF-111A in favor of the EA-6B was the Prowler was more versatile. The Prowler was far more capable in terms of communications intercept and jamming. The EA-18G, like the EF-111A, does not do everything the EA-6B is capable of and doesn't have half the range of either older aircraft. It would be very surprising if the EA-18G ever exceeded Mach 1 operationally.
The EA-6B and EA-18G is operated from expeditionary squadrons, as well as carrier squadrons, as a joint force with USAF personnel. The USAF still requires a jamming capability and in fact is deficient in this area. For example there has been a very long standing requirement for a stand off jamming aircraft which has been started, cancelled, restarted, and I believe cancelled again. The USAF continues to depend on the EA-6B/EA-18G force for escort jamming.
the growler has an architecture advantage, and although earlier iterations were regarded as less capable, the advances in systems miniaturisation are rapidly pulling back that advantage.
there are then the obvious manning, resourcing, logistics advantages.
Prowlers are being maintained for a reason, but the capability lead is shortening
Its a development "point in tme" issue more than anything.
the airframe of the Prowler is/was functionally more efficient so had more real estate available for its ewarfare suite. Its suite is designed around a 3 man team so is optimised around that construct, and at the time of its development it had a specific design intent.
the Growler was never going to be a direct 1 for 1 replacement for the Prowlers mission set as they have different requirements.
Hoever, add in miniaturisation advances and sensor advances and the 2 man crewed Growler starts to exceed the Prowler in some areas, even though it may not be as effective in "all" of the Prowlers design role.
But, and its a big BUT, once the design architecture dvelopments for the JSF leak through to other opportunities (and a classic example is the advances and improvements that JSF has provided to another distributed architecture sister - F22) then the Growler will leap ahead pretty quickly. Those advances and developments start to take away the need to deliver an ewarfare capability to the same CONOPs requirement of the Prowler.
The wild card would be a backseater version of the JSF. I'm not totally convinced by the development of a singler seat JSF ewarfare platform, you can only hand off so much to the system at an ewarfare level, and IMO trying to get the pilot to rely totally on an autonomous ewarfare suite would be folly. We are already seeing how NOT to do this so after all the lessons learnt that are available, I cannot see the US making a single seat JSF ewarfare asset (and for convenience and artistic license, lets pretend its called a "Howler"
A JSF already has a sensor and ewarfare capability that exceeds what any of he F-teen platforms can deliver, and you cannot at this point retro build DAS etc into an older platform, its a distributed design and its built into the architecture of the plane itself. However a JSF already has the basics of elements like DAS which no other small 1-2 man fighter even remotely approaches. If you start junking thinks like the STOL elements that does give you real estate for extra and more pwoerful ewarfare elements, but its still relies heavily upon automation at the platform level. That kind of ewarfare dependancy is dangerous - irrespective of whether the technology exists to start taking up more and more of the backseater roles, the legal and operational constraints are not conducive to it.
At the end of the day its about he capability set and requirement, and just like CAS and maritime strike, its no longer about the platform built to do a role, but a platform that has the flexibility to provide an extra contribution to the capability and operational need.
We're already seeing this at the ewarfare level as the advances in tech and capability are seeing a reduction in the need for dedicated ewarfare platforms and an increase in the development and training for pilots and crew in smaller assets pick up those specialised roles. One is not a replacement for the other, but the brooader system design is now about literally anything that is in theatre should be doing more than just its main task, ie they are all contributing feeds into the broader warfighting picture. that goes for air land and sea assets.
Saw an F35 earlier this week. Noisy f'er. Saw an F22 fluttering about this afternoon. It looked like it was trying to keep up with a P51 Mustang and an F-86 Sabre.
It's airshow qualification week in Tucson. If flyers of vintage aircraft want to share the skies with current AF planes at airshows they have to complete some training.
My office is in the low level flight path for Air Guard touch and goes. You'd think they'd get bored after a few passes, let alone all day long. The Guard flies F16s. The F35s are a lot louder.all jets are loud. very fucking loud. i used to work on a navy base, and having an F35 or F/A-18 fly overhead was very common. and very, very loud
Because 1 SSM costs a lot more than a handful of 500lbs LGBs. SSMs do not have the range of aircraft. Ship based SSMs don't have the same TTT as aircraft delivered ordinance (as ships need to close to range at much lower speeds). Or - it's really complicated!
Im not finding 500 carat diamonds, but Im basically at least finding some of the basic points that I was referencing.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2008/03/01/teeth-of-the-growler/
And then this from your favorite forum F-16.net
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16330
And then this from DefenseTalk.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/growler-compared-prowler-11499/
Im not finding 500 carat diamonds, but Im basically at least finding some of the basic points that I was referencing.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2008/03/01/teeth-of-the-growler/
And then this from your favorite forum F-16.net
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16330
And then this from DefenseTalk.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/growler-compared-prowler-11499/
As the EA-6B Prowler flies into retirement and the Corps takes a new approach to electronic warfare, some Marines who spent their careers in the radar-jamming aircraft will be transferred to other military occupation specialties, and many will work with unmanned aircraft.
About 10 percent of Marines in the 7588 electronic warfare officer MOS will become 7315 unmanned aircraft systems officers. Concurrently, the Corps is changing the duties of the 7315 MOS.
“The new 7315 MOS will provide us with a cadre of better-trained and more versatile [unmanned aircraft systems] officers capable of serving in a variety of operational roles in support of Marine Corps doctrine,” said Maj. Paul Greenberg, a Marine spokesman at the Pentagon.
Most of the transitioning electronic warfare Marines will be company-grade officers with a primary 7588 MOS, Greenberg said. Other electronic warfare officers will stay in that MOS until they leave the service, and will serve in B-billets, he said.
The electronic warfare community’s transition is one facet of the Corps’ new approach to controlling the electromagnetic spectrum in battle, and the service’s new philosophy is more complex than merely rolling dozens of Marines from a niche community into a new MOS.
Currently, Prowlers are the service’s electronic warfare workhorse, but in the future, a variety of platforms — including unmanned systems, rotary aircraft and ground vehicles — will also be a part of this warfare domain. It amounts to a Corps-wide makeover of electronic warfare in which manipulating and monitoring the electromagnetic spectrum is a more integral part of every aspect of combat.
Cost isn't just that though. A missile has no need for:
Life support, return fuel, engine and airframe maintenance and crew, flight deck, and probably more.
So from reading about other craft, it looks like the f35 is lacking the tilt back seat that the f16 had, probably because of all he space being packed with electronics, and that is causing some of the g problems. Although, what is with this about the landing gear needing to be redesigned? It seems simple enough to have gotten it right the first time, or is this a symptom of extreme weight trimming?
It shouldn't be that surprising that the f35 lost in a maneuverability fight with the f16. The f16 is the most maneuverable jet they make, no? It is even intentionally slightly unstable to promote maneuverability.
It just seems to me that all you really need for manned missions is air superiority. For strike and "bomb truck" missions you can make do with either UAV platforms or cruise missile attacks, or even simply using older cheaper 4th gen platforms. Like, the F35 is meant to take out radar systems early on...but um, why not just take them out with cruise missiles? Blanket the skies with the missiles and a few will get through. And the F35 being used to bomb jihadis is massive overkill.