Boeing F-15EX/QA and related variants

[Moose]

This is an area where F-35's pod might actually work better. The rounds will stay below the flight path of the aircraft, making it easier to strafe at something low and slow as if it were a ground target.

 

[FighterJock]

Interesting Moose, I never thought about that concerning the F-35B/C gun pod being better than the traditional internal gun at being able to strafe slow moving targets.

 

[Ainen]

There will still be ECM of course, it is just going to be in every fighter, CCA, and decoy rather than in dedicated tactical platforms (there will still be the compass call type aircraft but that is not an escort jammer). The USN has a unique situation where it needs to potentially use ECM defensely (note that with NGJ the F-18G combat radius goes down to like 300-400 miles due to drag). The PLAN likely similar. But I think the Growler is the end of the line in US service. Quite honestly I find the German effort puzzling given the fact they are adopting F-35 already for the nuclear role; Lightning’s an out of the box SEAD platform. The USAF has not seen a need for a specialized standoff/escort jammer for decades and likely will never produce another dedicated SEAD type now that the capability is baked into F-35.

I think we should make a difference here: escort jammer is escort jammer, sead platform is sead platform.
The latter is going to be dead soon outside of Europe (wtf is so wrong with praetorian?), there's just no need.

But even remotely matching escort jammer with just self defense suits is out of question for the time being, and time being here means at least +10 years of operations from now(to around 2035). In this timeframe, maybe su-57 can be considered self-escorting, but I doubt it is a relief.

Everyone else can get full-size jammers only through dedicated EW versions or pods. There's no substitute to array size and power(especially as bands go down). There's no substitute to additional power sources to feed such jamming on existing aircraft. There're probably architectural problems in available 4th gen aircraft, preventing half-arsed solutions.
And so on.

Mixing different band jamming pods while retaining all the other functionality still takes a dedicated aircraft with very specialized electronics.

Finally, as you mentioned, growler isn't exactly a stellar EW platform - it's a medium weight, short-legged, slow bird, carrying big pods instead of fuel(and those pods happily run ram turbines).

My gut feeling thus is that "ea-15f" is likely to at least get a try this time.

 

[TomcatViP]

The performances of the Growler in term of jamming are proven and exceptional with offset range in hundreds of kt.
The key aspect of the F-15 is its dynamic capability and available payload, something that would be of poor use with a Jammer version.

Last but not least, the F-35 will carry Jammer pods and do that more efficiently than any other platform.

It's then hard to see what would justify spending on the Eagle that way.

 

[_Del_]

The performances of the Growler in term of jamming are proven and exceptional with offset range in hundreds of Nm.
The key aspect of the F-15 is its dynamic capability and available payload, something that would be of poor use with a Jammer version.

Last but not least, the F-35 will carry Jammer pods and do that more efficiently than any other platform.

It's then hard to see what would justify spending on the Eagle that way.

The answer to wattage is signature. And since there isn't a tactical aircraft In USAF service with a bigger frontal RCS than the Eagle, it seems like a bizarre match. You can't get close enough to make a difference with a large signature. And with an LO platform, you won't need the same wattage down range; you can get closer with less wattage than the F-15 can hope for.

They will continue to offer dedicated EA aircraft, but it won't for USAF service.

The Navy and Marines will continue to spend money on NGJ because SIGINT in contested air over the big ocean is critical to their mission, and I suspect the Marines would like to cover landing ships disembarking or embarking Marines. Those ships have large signatures and you'll need to get major wattage closer to the emitters to prevent burnthrough.

 

[Hood]

They do. AMRAAM and Sidewinder are both used, but almost never guns.

Does the Typhoon even have a workable air-to-air fire-control for the cannon?
They had enough trouble getting it working for air-to-ground, both in terms of it jamming and aiming.

 

[Josh_TN]

The answer to wattage is signature. And since there isn't a tactical aircraft In USAF service with a bigger frontal RCS than the Eagle, it seems like a bizarre match. You can't get close enough to make a difference with a large signature. And with an LO platform, you won't need the same wattage down range; you can get closer with less wattage than the F-15 can hope for.

They will continue to offer dedicated EA aircraft, but it won't for USAF service.

The Navy and Marines will continue to spend money on NGJ because SIGINT in contested air over the big ocean is critical to their mission, and I suspect the Marines would like to cover landing ships disembarking or embarking Marines. Those ships have large signatures and you'll need to get major wattage closer to the emitters to prevent burnthrough.

I believe the USMC decided F-35 met their EW needs as is. I am not aware of them buying any NGJ. More over they are ultimately standardizing on F-35 and would have no F-18 fleet to mount pods on.

 

[_Del_]

I believe the USMC decided F-35 met their EW needs as is. I am not aware of them buying any NGJ. More over they are ultimately standardizing on F-35 and would have no F-18 fleet to mount pods on.

LM has said the F-35 is a potential platform. Raytheon has said they want the pods to be platform agnostic and hung under anything. They also mocked some artwork of an angular pod under an F-35. The Marines said they didn't want a dedicated EW variant and did not see why they couldn't hang the pods under a standard F-35. Connect or disconnect those dots as you will.

 

[FighterJock]

True _Del_, I would just let the F-35 Radar handle the EW mission as it is powerful enough to do the job without having to hang dedicated EW pods on the hardpoints and use up usefull space that could have been for weapons instead.

 

[Josh_TN]

LM has said the F-35 is a potential platform. Raytheon has said they want the pods to be platform agnostic and hung under anything. They also mocked some artwork of an angular pod under an F-35. The Marines said they didn't want a dedicated EW variant and did not see why they couldn't hang the pods under a standard F-35. Connect or disconnect those dots as you will.

I am not aware of USMC ever mentioning it wanted pods for F-35s, but ok. I doubt they have the money for integration annd unit purchases even if it is a desired capability.

 

[RJMAZ]

Most of the drone strikes have been at night. This is most likely on purpose as it prevents visual targeting using cheap weapons. There was a lovely report last week about the F-15 running out of missiles. They tried and failed to get a gun kill in the dark. The pilot said it was far too dangerous at low altitude in the dark.

Wherever I see someone supporting a cannon it makes me smile. I'm looking at you Mr Kenny

There are already RF and IIR seekers in the works for hydra; those are far superior solutions to the problem than guns.

These are definitely the best option. Having dozens of these rockets available per aircraft. The pilot can sit at 5,000 feet and take out dozens of cheap slow moving drones.

It won't be long until we have dedicated mini missiles. Laser guidance is pretty good providing the aircraft has a high quality pod. The same weapon can hit ground targets, helicopters and drones.

They do. AMRAAM and Sidewinder are both used, but almost never guns.

I haven't actually heard of a confirmed gun kill of an Iranian or Russian drone. Only multiple failed gun attempts at night.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And now insults. I'm impressed.

True _Del_, I would just let the F-35 Radar handle the EW mission as it is powerful enough to do the job without having to hang dedicated EW pods on the hardpoints and use up usefull space that could have been for weapons instead.

The F-35 radar only transmits on X-band, IIRC, while the NGJ pods cover a very wide range of frequencies.

 

[Ainen]

The F-35 radar only transmits on X-band, IIRC, while the NGJ pods cover a very wide range of frequencies.

This, + it also for obvious reasons radiates only within +- 60 degrees off axis. Sets of pods cover close to 360.

 

[Archibald]

Wherever I see someone supporting a cannon it makes me smile. I'm looking at you Mr Kenny

To Coventry with you - good riddance.

 

[FighterJock]

One question. How much would the EW pods weigh if put on the F-35s hardpoints?

 

[Ozair]

One question. How much would the EW pods weigh if put on the F-35s hardpoints?

Which EW pods, the NGJ? It would weigh the same...

If you are talking an as yet undeveloped pod, which is the case because no current EW pod specifically designed for the F-35 exists, then that would be a complete pluck...

 

[Josh_TN]

Once you give F-35 pods, you have made it about as visible as F-18. It also is now firmly subsonic. IMO a better option would be a UAV with the antennas integral to the airframe, since we are talking about a subsonic only platform anyway. And at that point, is not likely to be more cost effective to just have more CCAs with much more limited bandwidth/power that can nevertheless give a lot more false signals from different angles and something to physically shoot at? Or MALD, or something between MALD and CCA?

I think the era of expensive high output jammers is ending.

 

[_Del_]

Which EW pods, the NGJ? It would weigh the same...

If you are talking an as yet undeveloped pod, which is the case because no current EW pod specifically designed for the F-35 exists, then that would be a complete pluck...

Well, Terma has developed the gun-pod and a "multi -mission" pod with the same mould line.

Introducing the Terma F-35 Multi-Mission Pod

Terma has delivered more than a 100 Gun Pods for the F-35 Lightning ll, the only certified external pod for the F-35 fighter jet. Terma is now introducing the F-35 Multi-Mission Pod – a further development to the Gun Pod, providing additional mission payload volume for the platform.

www.terma.com

So that shape would theoretically let you carry one NGJ-LB or -MB on centerline with an acceptable signature effect. Beyond that you'd have to talk to LM about a specific shape for underwing stores.
We know they have been at work integrating IRST and fuel pods for the Raptor. It'd be pretty surprising if work hasn't taken place at least exploring stealthy ETs and such under their best-seller.

And at that point, is not likely to be more cost effective to just have more CCAs

Yes. Particularly cheap ones, or MALDs, because you could get them close and the inverse square law still applies.
Tangentially-related, there was scuttlebutt (related to the "let's rethink NGAD") that maybe you could integrate all the necessary elements to control CCA from an F-35 cheaply and quickly enough -- if you put all that gear in a pod.

I think the era of expensive high output jammers is ending

Probably not, because there will always be vulnerable systems like tankers and cargo aircraft or the eternal BUFF or possibly ships that you may want to mask at a distance. And as radars get more wattage, the wattage required to prevent burn through will likewise go up.
We'll probably see a lot of high output jammers, but they are more likely to be integrated in the future as part of a radar array than slung in pods.
The one advantage of a NGJ-type system is that you can sling it under just about anything with a minimum of integration effort. It's essentially self-contained.

 

[FighterJock]

I would think that the CCAs would be an option to have as EW platforms as there would be no need for external pods on the hardpoints and there for reduce their stealth properties.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yes. Particularly cheap ones, or MALDs, because you could get them close and the inverse square law still applies.
Tangentially-related, there was scuttlebutt (related to the "let's rethink NGAD") that maybe you could integrate all the necessary elements to control CCA from an F-35 cheaply and quickly enough -- if you put all that gear in a pod.

Incr1 CCAs have been explicitly linked to F-35 controllers; the requirement apparently includes F-35 compatible cruise speed with the ability to advance ahead of the piloted aircraft at military power. The CCA timeline for IOC is 2028 and GA at least is quite confident they can significantly cut that speed to ramp. So F-35 is the only realistic fighter controller. I suspect initially that will have to use a less well integrated solution - pods and stand alone pads.

But I also think it likely the USAF explores completely remote control as the primary mechanism with local control/automation as the fallback. If you have a couple hundred low latency LEO communications satellites in orbit broadcasting in every tactical format and frequency, why does the controller need to be in an aircraft? The UAVs can either get instructions directly from the satellites or alternatively use a local relay drone, perhaps a dedicated version of the offboard sensor station, to convert a laser downlink into whatever MALD-esque datalink the CCAs use. “RQ-180” might be another candidate.

 

[_Del_]

Well, bandwidth demands make autonomy or semi-autonomous the preference. There will be times you might lose a direct connection for any number of reasons.

 

[Ainen]

that shape would theoretically let you carry one NGJ-LB or -MB on centerline with an acceptable signature effect. Beyond that you'd have to talk to LM about a specific shape for underwing stores.
We know they have been at work integrating IRST and fuel pods for the Raptor. It'd be pretty surprising if work hasn't taken place at least exploring stealthy ETs and such under their best-seller.

There's no such thing as acceptable signature effect. You're either stealthy or you carry literal systems of corner reflectors(which pods are). Whole point of stealth aircraft was to get below that.

It isn't end of the world (other aircraft somehow fly without stealth), but it will certainly kill stealth.

It's probably possible to design and install a special conformal pod for belly station, but it won't be NGJ.
Same with weapon bays(for example, replacing bay doors).

 

[_Del_]

There's no such thing as acceptable signature effect. You're either stealthy or you carry literal systems of corner reflectors(which pods are).

Obviously Lockheed-Martin and the Pentagon both disagree with you as they are currently producing and procuring respectively external pods for use on their stealth aircraft.

 

[Ainen]

Obviously Lockheed-Martin and the Pentagon both disagree with you as they are currently producing and procuring respectively external pods for use on their stealth aircraft.

Obviously they understand that stealth aircraft with such pods are not stealth anymore.
It just isn't the end of the world; under right circumstances there are things more important than stealth.

 

[Josh_TN]

There's no such thing as acceptable signature effect. You're either stealthy or you carry literal systems of corner reflectors(which pods are). Whole point of stealth aircraft was to get below that.

It isn't end of the world (other aircraft somehow fly without stealth), but it will certainly kill stealth.

It's probably possible to design and install a special conformal pod for belly station, but it won't be NGJ.
Same with weapon bays(for example, replacing bay doors).

Signature reduction efforts are a sliding scale, not an absolute of stealth and non stealth. Even a platform that is detectable at only modestly lower ranges can still benefit from having a much smaller signal that is easier to lose in the noise.

ETA: for a fighter type platform, being hard to track at BVR AAM ranges is still a huge advantage - if you still get to shoot first, it probably does not matter that much if your pods increase your signature.

 

[_Del_]

Obviously they understand that stealth aircraft with such pods are not stealth anymore.

Or they know exactly what it does to the signature from which aspects and find that it is still stealthy enough to do what they would like it to do.

Spending $10,000,000,000 putting IRST into external pods under F-22's, for instance, doesn't make much sense if the end result wasn't an acceptable level of signature reduction and the aircraft suddenly becomes "not stealth anymore."

 

[Ozair]

Well, Terma has developed the gun-pod and a "multi -mission" pod with the same mould line.

Introducing the Terma F-35 Multi-Mission Pod

Terma has delivered more than a 100 Gun Pods for the F-35 Lightning ll, the only certified external pod for the F-35 fighter jet. Terma is now introducing the F-35 Multi-Mission Pod – a further development to the Gun Pod, providing additional mission payload volume for the platform.

www.terma.com

So that shape would theoretically let you carry one NGJ-LB or -MB on centerline with an acceptable signature effect. Beyond that you'd have to talk to LM about a specific shape for underwing stores.
We know they have been at work integrating IRST and fuel pods for the Raptor. It'd be pretty surprising if work hasn't taken place at least exploring stealthy ETs and such under their best-seller.

While the Terma pod has the ability to host an EW package it is very small compared to the NGJ. You would lose significant capability by attempting to install a version of NGJ in a package that size. NGJ also has significant power generation and cooling integrated into the pod you likely lose with the Terma pod as well.

Either way my point remains, the weight is unknown although the original question was likely pointless anyway.

I agree a CCA would be a better platform to host an EW package. While Increment 1 could host an EW package to actually replicate the capability of the NGJ a custom airframe would likely be required that has greater power generation and cooling integrated or the ability to carry the NGJ as is. I doubt either increment 1 could carry the NGJ in its current/projected forms.

Comes back to the intent of the EW effect and the acceptable risk to platform and technology.

 

[Ainen]

Or they know exactly what it does to the signature from which aspects and find that it is still stealthy enough to do what they would like it to do.

Spending $10,000,000,000 putting IRST into external pods under F-22's, for instance, doesn't make much sense if the end result wasn't an acceptable level of signature reduction and the aircraft suddenly becomes "not stealth anymore."

I can't help but wonder where does the 10 bil number comes from.

Unlike the number they spent to let f-22(f-35, b-2, f-117) not to carry any externals in LO configuration. Those are pretty well known.
As is the ability of f-35 and f-22 to carry payloads outside.

Logical answer here is that (1) being LO doesn't matter in all situations, and (2) being LO is of lesser importance than being properly connected and having a wider spectrum vision, not limited to 25-year old radar - at least in some situations.
And (3)that yes, it's a very obvious compromise. Doing it another way(for example, as originally envisioned) was for one reason or another just not feasible within available budget.

Or they know exactly what it does to the signature from which aspects and find that it is still stealthy enough to do what they would like it to do.

"Stealthy enough" is a good term. F-15EX is also stealthy enough to do what they would like it to do. As is f-35 flying with LRASMs.
Same with f-22 - some situations in Westpac (where PLAAF now challenges USAF in levels of connectivity) don't allow 35-year fresh concept (ATF) to be feasible out of the box anymore. Especially in parts where it was cut 25 years ago to save money.

 

[NMaude]

Unlike the number they spent to let F-22(F-35, B-2, F-117) not to carry any externals in LO configuration. Those are pretty well known.
As is the ability of F-35 and F-22 to carry payloads outside.

FTFY. It's F and B NOT f and b.