My other job is writing for Flight International magazine. And I'm in full-time training mode this week, which, alas, leaves me with even less time to blog (by the way, is "to blog" officially a verb, yet?).
So allow me to fill some space here this week the easy way -- by pirating copy I wrote for the magazine issue. I was on a bit of a naval aviation kick last week.
Here's a snippet of what I wrote about EPX, but read the full story here:
With three teams already lined up at the starting gate, the US Navy has attracted a competitive field for the newly launched EPX programme that the US defence industry normally reserved for the most high-profile requirements. Yet, the opportunity to replace 11 ageing Lockheed EP-3E ARIES II aircraft - the electronic intelligence-gathering subset of the USN's maritime patrol aircraft fleet - has sparked a wide-open and diverse race despite its relatively small numbers.Although the size of the EPX contract dwarfs the ongoing battle for the US Air Force KC-X contract, the USN requirement could rekindle the fight between military derivatives of Boeing and Airbus airliners that has characterised the KC-X contest. Boeing is actively pursuing a 737-based platform and Northrop Grumman is publicly considering the Airbus A321.
And here's a sampling of my story about the next-generation jammer, one of my recent favorites:
The US Navy has made the first move to develop and field its first all-new aerial jamming system since 1971.The next-generation jammer (NGJ) project is first aimed at boosting the electronic attack power of the Boeing EA-18G Growler, which will enter service in June.
But the replacement for the navy's ageing EDO ALQ-99 pod could widen the mission to other platforms, such as an EA variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the US Marine Corps. The US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 12 February kicked off a four-month study to identify and prioritise the functions needed for the NGJ to replace the venerable ALQ-99.
on February 19, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply
The drag-o-matic Super Hornet G Growler is going to have some issues... drag...When you consider it's cousin the 2 seat F model doesn't have much range to begin with and then hang all those stores on it. The JSF will need jamming support ( stealth always does because the best stealth designs (tail-less deltas like UCAS-D and the B-2) can really only hope to have their best performance in the 1-12GHZ region. Put tails on the jet like the JSF and F-22 and the bottom end of that region starts opening you up to other threats (S band etc).
Where the JSF is to give you the most affordable and for non-U.S. customers, the most exportable stealth allowed and not necessarily top drawer stealth. Then again USN and USAF know not to depend on stealth too much. Although so far, the word "stealth" makes a wonderful marketing tool.
And here at least F-22 can get out of bad situations as quick as it got into them (playing with Super SAMs coming down the pike in future years). Super-cruise ability in a threat area means something.
So on to JSF and here lets look at the Naval JSF with the bigger wing. The first job of that jet is to get aboard the boat safey with a good slow as possible approach speed. If you look at the 2006 JSF brief they are still looking at approach speeds that seem more like an F-4. So here that wing design since it isn't movable like an F-14 has to be compromised to get aboard the boat as it's first goal, everything else being meaningless. (Note: Look at Super Hornet, great slow speeds at the expense of poor super-sonic perf.).
Because the JSF won't do big super-cruise, means the jet isn't going to have the survivable quality of a super cruising F-22. Because of this, a negative stealth event with a JSF means more risk. Don't forget that when the F-117 was shot down, Lockheed came out and said even a turn could reduce the RCS of the jet by a factor of 100.
So with what should be near well over 700 mile radius of the JSF ( look at the JSF CTOL brief that LM gave to Norway showing excellent fuel economy and range) I see a problem with the G Growler keeping up with any 5th gen to give them the jamming support they need.
And remember that it is only an escort jammer and not stand-off jammer like the B-52SOJ proposal.
So any "first day" of the war stiff IADS claims by LM on the JSF mean that a naval JSF can only move around as well as it's slower Super-G Growler helper can move/reach via repeat tanking. Even the slowish JSF will be working fast in this environment and in my opinion will be slowed down in strike efficientcy (short exposure in the threat area) waiting around on the Growler. Good on Navy though for at least thinking of some jamming support vice the dumb idea of USAF to ditch their own organic jamming and depend on a joint solution.
I doubt an EA-35 will be workable as there is no growth room in the jet and you are talking about some power generation that has to be created somewhere. As far as I know, JSF onboard power is already spoken for just to make the JSF do regular tasks. Why did the USMC ditch their EA-35 plan some years back? Money? Or unworkable with that airframe? Or just a bad idea to muddle the program that early?
The electronic attack thing with the on board AESA is over-hyped too. If it can ever be done to a reasonable level (on-board power and workload tasking) where F-22 people have already said the AESA is at it's limits doing core bread and butter mission tasks..., And of course AESA can only electronic attak things in it's bandwith: X band. That means JSF right out of the gate has a front arc X-band only jamming and no ability to reduce the affect of bands under X band. Which again brings us back to needing off platform jamming support to survive in a stiff IADS.
JSF first day of the war in stiff IADS claims, runs counter to USAF people that have stated already JSF is not meant to survive in big stiff Super SAM IADS, F-22 is and even F-22 will have some serious work to do....("feets don't fail me now")
I think stand off weapons will be where it is at if anyone expects a JSF to work anywhere near a stiff IADS.
Consider that the Super Hornet Block II E and F have a tight on-board jamming system where the computer knows the profile of the jet re: it's airframes low observable appliances, (mild effect as they are). Add to that the ALE-50 ( and soon ALE-55 ) towed decoy on Super Hornet, where this decoy on other platforms was really effective in Allied Force.
So legacy as it is, a team of Super Hornet Block IIs cruising around with their own kind and Super G support and the Clint Eastwood ( in Dirty Harry ) saying: "A man's got to know his limitations).... Could probably pick away at a stiff IADS for cheaper money.
I hope someone wakes up by Block IV of JSF and thinks of putting on ALE-55s for those times when it is naked and defensive. Otherwise it will just have really great situational awareness of what is about to kill it.