# Harriers for Navy/Air Force



## CougarKing (28 Dec 2005)

Has anyone in this board ever considered the Harrier for Canadian Navy or Air Force service? I mean they could come in useful if the Navy ever commissions a new carrier. Since the US is the only nation in the world that can afford a supercarrier like the Nimitz class, it is more probable that any future Canadian carrier will be a small one similar to the VTOL carriers in British, Spanish or Italian service. Besides it's about time that Canada has a ship that some airpower projection capability- maybe we should consider building a amphibious assault ship similar to the UK's HMS Ocean or Australia's HMAS Narvantia/Armidale Class.

Here are some blog comments furthering arguing why Canada should build a new carrier.

http://www.noreplacementfordisplacement.com/archives/001167.html

I know the Harriers are nearing the end of their service lives in RN, RAF and USMC service, but they will probably see longer lives in Spanish, Thai and Italian service, which means that the needs for spare parts will continue. Thus, the Harrier would be a good choice for a shipboard fighter.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Dec 2005)

captsantor,

Thank you for the 2-year-old blog entry with dead links.  There has been various discussions of possible replacement aircraft for the CF-18, or supplementary to them, most from folks who haven't provided any foundation to their proposal in real world terms of defence pollcy suggestions or realistic acquisition factors. You will also find discussions on defence policy and acquisition programs in terms of GDP based spending if you are interested in researching the forums.

The following reiterates a recent post to a thread suggesting Apache Longbow helicopters of the CF, and was previously presented in a thread on CF-18 replacement. It has yet to be addressed in detail by any of the posters who promted it as a response. Iit is equally valid for your consideration as well.



> Not long ago there was a thread in the Air Force forum (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35100.0/all.html) where some posters were tossing out their personal choices for CF-18 replacement aircraft without having done any homework on procurement processes or the bigger picture of employment and logistics.
> 
> I inserted this post to help them wrap their heads around the most basic level of understanding that these issues exist, and that they are are real world considerations.  Here it is again for your to add to your list of factors to consider when proposing new equipment ideas for the CF.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sf2 (28 Dec 2005)

what's with people and wacky proposals??

I suggest we bring back the Spitfire and Mosquito.  Especially the Mosquito.  I mean, come on, its made of wood, and we have lots of that, so spare parts are readily available.  And I'm sure the wood would absorb radar, so its pretty much a stealth fighter/bomber anyway.  We could stage them out of petawawa, paint them black, or stain them, and use them for the new CSOR


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Dec 2005)

Everybody has these grandiose idears...like one guy...How about Apaches! (How about u clean up your room or no supper!!)

or lightly used UK subs and now Harriers or UUV's. (insert eyeroll)

WHERE IS OUR SEAKING REPLACEMENT! Like 1992....2006........................2010+ (insert massive glitches) 2012..................

"lets get a new Amphib Carrier with Griffons from 427 Sqn (make a canal on the Ottawa River and use Petawawa as a staging area) and use Twin Otters from Yellowknife as AEW and utility(w/ Harpoons), and maybe para insertion cap for JTF4 Ninja snipers. With some Sperwar crap as UAV's from the "ghan" and some rented ARTHUR  shell trackers radars as a multi-function radar on a recommissioned YAGs-Porte St.Louis like."

SANFORD AND SON NAVY!

some people in this forum should make a New Years resolution to do some research prior to making ridiculous posts on Gucci equipment.

Lets see the Cyclone flying around Shearwater first...(if it already here disregard this post)

Crow


----------



## Inch (28 Dec 2005)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> WHERE IS OUR SEAKING REPLACEMENT! Like 1992....2006........................2010+ (insert massive glitches) 2012..................
> 
> Lets see the Cyclone flying around Shearwater first...(if it already here disregard this post)
> 
> Crow



Ha! They aren't there yet, the Maritime Helicopter Training Centre (MHTC) is in the process of being built, construction started this past summer. No idea when it's anticipated to be up and operational though the SOR for the MHP states that it must be up and running 6 months prior to delivery of the first Cyclone. Other renovations are underway on the hangars.

This is a hell of a lot more progress than the last time we were supposed to get replacements. First one is supposed to be on the ramp by Nov 2008, less than 3 years to go.


----------



## NCRCrow (28 Dec 2005)

I hope you are right!!!

When I lived in the PMQ's in Rockcliffe the MHP trailers were visible from my overpriced PMQ.

LOL.............


----------



## STONEY (31 Dec 2005)

Hey INCH not to change the subject but any word yet on just what systems are intended to be fitted on Clyclone.

STONEY


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Dec 2005)

check out the MHP website, here:

www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/mhp/docssor_e.asp

Basically, the Cyclone will have an E/O pod, ISAR radar, low-frequency active sonar, sonobuoy dispenser and processor, Self-defence suite, rescue hoist, door gun and seating in comfort for a crew of four + 6 pax.


----------



## NCRCrow (31 Dec 2005)

dedicated ESM reciever? and link cap or datalink?


----------



## Sf2 (31 Dec 2005)

6 pax???????

That's with all this kit correct?  I'm sure a version painted green without the ASW stuff would be able to carry more people?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Dec 2005)

> 6 pax?
> 
> That's with all this kit correct?  I'm sure a version painted green without the ASW stuff would be able to carry more people?



That is correct- more like 19, I think.  You would have to visit Sikorsky's website to check that number.



> dedicated ESM reciever? and link cap or datalink?



Yes to the ESM and Link... there is really alot of capability in the new helo...I only hit the highlights and did not provide an exhaustive list.


----------



## h3tacco (31 Dec 2005)

The Cyclone will have  a similar but slightly different sensor suite  than the MH-60R, the newest version of the seahawk. I believe the ESM is the same model but all rest are similar type but different manufacterors. For examplre the Romeo has the ALFS sonar while the Cyclone will have the HELRAS, both low frequency with similar performance. For comparison the Romeo has a crew of three and with the full mission kit has room for one pax. The one exception is that the Romeo will be fitted for and with the Hellfire missile. Hopefully, in the future the Cyclone will be fitted with a ASM.

As a side note it will be interesting to see  how the  Romeo fairs with a three man crew, two pilots and a senso (read AESOp). One pilot flies and one acts as the ATO (Airborne Tactics Officer) essentially the TACCO. As with  the MHP the Romeo will have basically the same number of sensors as a MPA (MPA has a mad but doesn't have a dipping sonar) with less than half the crew. The standard crew on a P-3C or CP-140 is somewhere between 10 and 15 (correct me if I am wrong).


----------



## aesop081 (31 Dec 2005)

h3tacco said:
			
		

> The standard crew on a P-3C or CP-140 is somewhere between 10 and 15 (correct me if I am wrong).



Minimum mission crew for the CP-140 is 10 ( pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, 3 aesops, NAVCOM, TACNAV and 2 acoustics operators) but we usualy take extra front-enders for long missions.  Other P-3 variants use differing amounts depnding on their actual internal layout and stuff.  The overland mission may change all that but , last i heard, had not been decided.


----------



## NCRCrow (31 Dec 2005)

The Cyclone with a Link 11/14 Cap and a datalink will be sweet for Surpic missions for us shipboard EW's but vital for the radar guys in building a picture.

The ability to extend our Radar Horizon Range and VID surface combantants or white shipping will greatly enhance the RMP cap of the Navy.

AESOP's will have turn the ESM gear for once.....


----------



## FoverF (31 Dec 2005)

Not too far from the original topic of the thread;

What say all of you to F-35Bs? 
They could be operated off of the supply ships in a 2-plane section, or a civvy-designed container ship (as has been mentioned in other threads) could easily accomodate half a dozen, with a decent supply of fuel and muntions, and still have storage capacity. 

Not to mention the added benefits of having the STOVL variant in non-maritime environments (not the least of which is interoperability with the USN, USMC, and RN and RAF), particularily for CAS, and for arctic soverignty missions (where the only runways are usually gravel, and short)

Would the extra costs involved (training, logistics for the lift fan, lost range/payload capabiltiy) outweigh the benefits of being able to park some F-35s on the next desolate peice of rock the Danes start eyeing up (just as an example)?


----------



## Inch (31 Dec 2005)

FoverF,

Have a search for "JSF" and you'll find out everyone's points of view on the F-35 and it's variants.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Dec 2005)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Not too far from the original topic of the thread;
> 
> What say all of you to F-35Bs?



Fover, return to reply # 1.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37862/post-314044.html#msg314044

Complete the estimate of the situation and please present a fully developed proposal.

Thank you.


----------



## FoverF (3 Jan 2006)

Well,  I'm not just tossing out my personal favorite for a CF-18 replacement. I'm soliciting people's opinions as to whether they think the F-35B as a shipboard fighter would play a useful role in the CF. 

I've done a good bit of research on these a/c, but am limited, obviously, by the fact that it is still very much a paper airplane, so anything said by anyone is still little more than idle speculation. After all, there hasn't even been a prototype built for the CTOL version yet (only X- plane technology demonstrators), much less the S/VTOL variant. 

Regardless, I will endeavor to put together a more cogent and concrete proposal for the F-35B (particularily as a ship-borne a/c). Give me a week or so. 

In the meantime, I am still wondering as to whether or not people here see a significant role for a shipboard fighter. Even if it turns out to be economically feasable, is it wanted?


----------



## COBRA-6 (3 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> In the meantime, I am still wondering as to whether or not people here see a significant role for a shipboard fighter. Even if it turns out to be economically feasable, is it wanted?



Okay, I'll bite. A role for shipborne fighters? Well do we have amphibious assets that need air support? If we had the assets that could land a battle group on a beach, then I'm sure CAS would be needed. Until we have the ships to move them and assets to get them on shore, then what would the fighters be supporting? First step is the JSS to support an expeditionary group, then amphibious ships, then maybe naval CAS.  

There are all sorts of threads started here featuring some piece of shiny kit and the phrase "why doesn't the CF buy this tank/chopper/ICBM/tie-fighter?" It all comes down to priorities. We don't have a unlimited budget, so we have to buy the kit we need, to fill a required role. 

Besides, the army needs chinooks first!


----------



## FoverF (3 Jan 2006)

The only reason I mentioned the F-35B is because we're almost certain to get the F-35 (eventually). Acquiring the airframes would not really that big of a leap. It could probably be accomplished (if there was a will) with a relative minimum of the usual garbage that accompanies all major CF acquisition programs (Provided, of course, that the F-35B program even survives the usual garbage that accompanies all major Pentagon acquisition programs, and doesn't get cancelled). It would be kind of like purchasing the Merlin, since we've already bought the Cormorant. 
oh, wait... :, 
Of course the amount of airframe commonality depends on which variants we get. 

And as far as the whole ship-borne-fighter-thing goes, I was more thinking of giving the navy an increased capability in the more, well, 'naval' roles, like fleet air defence, anti-shipping, cruise missile defence, ESM, things like that. Of course, they would need a lot of UAV support to be effective, but that should be in place already, long before the F-35 becomes operational. 
Or would having the extra eyes provided by UAVs and/or Cyclones be sufficient most of the time?


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> The only reason I mentioned the F-35B is because we're almost certain to get the F-35 (eventually). Acquiring the airframes would not really that big of a leap. It could probably be accomplished (if there was a will) with a relative minimum of the usual garbage that accompanies all major CF acquisition programs (Provided, of course, that the F-35B program even survives the usual garbage that accompanies all major Pentagon acquisition programs, and doesn't get cancelled). It would be kind of like purchasing the Merlin, since we've already bought the Cormorant.
> oh, wait... :,
> Of course the amount of airframe commonality depends on which variants we get.
> 
> ...



OK, now you've leapt from wishing upon an airframe to completely rebuilding the navy too in your best of all possible worlds.

That's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture with respect to being "almost certain" we'll buy into the F-35, "if it survives." 

Now you need to do the estimate for the increase in naval power too.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> ESM,



And what exactly do fighter aircraft have to do with ESM ?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jan 2006)

> And as far as the whole ship-borne-fighter-thing goes, I was more thinking of giving the navy an increased capability in the more, well, 'naval' roles, like fleet air defence, anti-shipping, cruise missile defence, ESM, things like that.



I did not know you had that much pull to set policy and procure equipment.


----------



## STONEY (4 Jan 2006)

THE F-35B is i think a STOVL which stands for short takeoff vertical landing.  Notice thats short takeoff,  not vertical takeoff. While it may be possible to take off vertically it cannot carry any usefull load if it does, hence it is mainly meant to make rolling takeoffs so could not normally operate from JSS . The Brits & Americans plan to use it from big deck carriers only to take advantage of long takeoff rolls with a decent load factor.


----------



## FoverF (7 Jan 2006)

Apologies in advance, I'm still trying to figure out how to use your "quote" system properly. 


			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> OK, now you've leapt from wishing upon an airframe to completely rebuilding the navy too in your best of all possible worlds.
> 
> That's a lot of unsubstantiated conjecture with respect to being "almost certain" we'll buy into the F-35, "if it survives."
> 
> Now you need to do the estimate for the increase in naval power too.



Ummmm. 
Actually, all I was talking about was wondering about the feasibility of putting some F-35Bs on ships, should they be bought. Hardly a 'best-of-all-possible-worlds' construction. you'll have to wait to see my proposal for that  
And it consists of little conjecture, none of it unsubstantiated. Your view on the probability of the CF getting the F-35 may differ from mine, and that's fine, but that hardly makes my view unsubstantiated. Mine is based on the facts that

a) every foreign procurement contract the Canadian government issues weighs very heavily on domestic industrial offset.
b) Canadian gov has invested over $150 million directly into the F-35 program
c) Canadian government has also loaned/invested many times that amount into companies developing technologies for contracts in the JSF program
d) Canadian companies have over $400 million worth of contracts in the F-35 program already, and it hasn't even hit production yet

This is significant because, IIRC we already have more involvement in the JSF program than Eurofighter can offer in their program (I will try to include figures for that in my proposal). The F/A-18E/F is scheduled to be out of production (2012 or so) long before a CF-18 replacement is expected (and so far there are no export or follow-on orders, or even strong prospects). Although this IS conjecture, I highly doubt you would be able to extract several hundred million dollars worth of industrial offsets from Dassault/French gov/labour unions for the Rafale. F-22 is out of our price range. The JAS-39C is a possibility, but I have yet to hear any significant government official even speak it's name. Russian fighters are out for the obvious reason. The only other real option is never replacing the CF-18s with a manned fighter at all (which IS remotely possible, but not, in my opinion, likely).

Not to mention that every reputable aviation news source consistently names the F-35 as being Canada's most likely Hornet replacement.
I'm not trying to suggest that the F-35 is the best choice, just the most likely.



> "Of course  the amount of airframe commonality depends  on which variants we get."


-You are simply (and incorrectly) nit-picking my semantics.  I said 'of course' because it is a direct relation that should need no further explanation. And the word 'depends' does not make it indefinite. The statement is an indisputable fact. Absolutely no speculation or uncertainty of any kind. 

Summing up, you can disagree with the 'almost certain' part, but that hardly makes my statements unsubstantiated.

And there have already been suggestions, from the DAO among others, that either the F-35A or F-35B variant be cancelled. Of the Pentagon's 9 largest platform procurement programs of the last 20 years (Paladin, Comanche, A-12, Sea Wolf, B-2, F-22, Stryker, F/A-18E/F,  F-35), 3 were cancelled completely, 3 were cut by 80% or more (in terms of numbers of platforms), two are proceeding relatively well (but with very grave concerns about their inability to meet key performance goals), and one is still completely up in the air. 
So adding a caveat that one of the F-35's variants might be cancelled or become prohibitively expensive due to numbers cuts is far from baseless speculation. It is merely prudence. 



> Now you need to do the estimate for the increase in naval power too.


Well, that's the whole meat and bones of the idea. It's also the hard part, and the largest part of the proposal I'm working on. (It' also what I was trying to ask here in the first place  ;D)
I'm no expert in the field, so it's where I've had to spend most of my research. We'll see my results soon enough. 



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> And what exactly do fighter aircraft have to do with ESM ?


The F-35 and F-22 were both designed from the beginning to be ESM platforms, in addition to their respective air superiority and multirole tasks. I'll elaborate a little more in the proposal, which should follow in a few days. 



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> > Quote
> > And as far as the whole ship-borne-fighter-thing goes, I was more thinking of giving the navy an increased capability in the more, well, 'naval' roles, like fleet air defence, anti-shipping, cruise missile defence, ESM, things like that.
> 
> 
> I did not know you had that much pull to set policy and procure equipment.


Was this really a necessary post that contributed to the discussion? Or was it just a sarcastic barb? Did I mean that I personally would be buying these aircraft, and writing the policy to see them used in these roles? 
Or perhaps I meant I *personally* would be using my superhuman matrix-like powers to fly over the fleet and secure them from harm.  8)  :threat: (which would actually be pretty cool ) 

Or maybe I was just elaborating on what roles a shipborne fighter could play.  



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> THE F-35B is i think a STOVL which stands for short takeoff vertical landing.  Notice thats short takeoff,  not vertical takeoff. While it may be possible to take off vertically it cannot carry any usefull load if it does, hence it is mainly meant to make rolling takeoffs so could not normally operate from JSS . The Brits & Americans plan to use it from big deck carriers only to take advantage of long takeoff rolls with a decent load factor.


There has always been much discussion about the difference between VTOL, STOVL, ASTOVL, V/STOVL,  other acronyms ad nausea. 
There's a big difference between reducing your useful load, and not having any useful load. They can all take off vertically with some kind of load, it is just preferred that you take off conventionally if at all possible. What kind of weight the F-35B is capable of lifting vertically is completely speculative at the moment, but it will be substantially greater than the preceding generation of VTOL aircraft (Yak-38, Yak-141, and Harriers of various marks), and substantially less than a CTOL F-35. I've had to rely mainly on LM/BAe figures, and some extrapolations from the Harrier to come up with numbers, but I'll elaborate more on payload/mission weights in the proposal, which should be finished in a few days.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

Thank you FoverF, that is a much more well-rounded description of where you are headed in your thoughts than simply suggesting an airframe as you did initially. I am sure you have had an opportunity to look around now and understand our collective hesitancy to engage such threads that appear to be more idle speculation than introduction of realistic case studies.

I have no intention to debate your discussion point by point, mainly because I do not closely follow aircraft technological development. I will, however, offer the following as possible factors to consider:

 - i would suggest you not rely too heavily on past or even current defence industry spending trends to predict likely acquisitions - the Arrow and the EH-101 programs easily show that governments are fickle and easily make decisions to "cut their losses" and head in new directions without warning

 - many of the major programs you mention as eliminated or reduced by the US had their inception and development work based in the Cold War clash of the titans high-intensity conflict scenario. The changing global atmosphere was likely the major factor in those programs ending or changing direction. 

 - that global setting - and the potential directions for Canadian foreign policy and defence policy - will establish the background for future defence spending and acquisitions. Quite simply, if you cannot develop a reasonable basis for Canada to establish and maintain a fixed wing naval air arm of sufficient size to merit its own existence, then speculation on suitable airframes for it is moot.

 - the world and domestic political environments, whether we agree with their most commonly perceived public biases or not, must also be considered. Similar to the way the CDS and the CF are trying to explain to Canadians in general that "peacekeeping" is not a user-friendly, short-sleeved, blue-berets in the Cypriot sun, "hand out the ROWPU water" activity any more - what is palatable in terms of acquisitions to the more vocal areas of the constituency (who do sway the sound-bite loving politicians of both government forming and opposition parties) must be managed for image and overt justification. In the same way that SAR helicopters was an easy sell, while ASW ones could easily be postponed, similar trends have to be anticipated - if we can't sell the public on a major acquisition, or at least justify it in readily understood terms, then speculating on it's likelihhod or suitability is a hollow argument.


Thank you again, I look forward to the broader scope of your analysis and extrapolation to possible force structures. Be careful, however, we have a term in the military where we refer to "situating the estimate" - this occurs when someone is (sometimes subconsciously) only selecting and examining the factors of a situation that lead to the previously preferred conclusion.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

Mike, with all due respect,

This is an internet forum, not a project office.  I don't know this guy's back ground, but he just typed out a pretty darn good synopsis of his views.  Members of this forum come from all walks of life, some very experienced, some with none.  You can't expect a 15 yr old air cadet to present a full estimate about something he saw on Discovery Channel.  If a few want to duke it out over what aircraft they think the CF should buy, let them.  Its not going to discredit this forum.  There are enough members here with vast military experience who will maintain the credibility of this site.

I just think you're being a little hard on some people.  Let them chat - there are people of equal level who will chat back and keep them entertained.  If you constantly shoot them down, telling them to come back with a thesis, they aren't going to post anymore and you'll lose members.

Cheers


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Jan 2006)

short final,

FoverF is doing a great job of laying out his views and opinions in support of his preferred approach. My comments are meant to help him refine that and to help him see what other factors may need consideration as he continues to develop his pitch, including the incorporation of some factors he may not have yet considered. FoverF's presentation is already an excellent example that we can point others to when they want to simply toss a suggested airframe/tank/ship name into the ring for debate. Without such background investigation by the interested parties, it simply becomes a general discussion based on LCF and wishes.

Thanks

Mike


----------



## Sf2 (8 Jan 2006)

That maybe so Mike, but remember that this is a internet forum, as I said before.  Again, you can't expect everyone to have a 500 word explanation behind their opinion.  If I may suggest, perhaps add a "Procurement" forum, that requires technical knowledge, research, and insight, and not LCF conjecture.  I belong to a number of other non-military forums, and most have a technical section where general disucussion is not permitted.  Otherwise, I say let everyone "chat".  That's why we're here.

Just a suggestion, 

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> The F-35 and F-22 were both designed from the beginning to be ESM platforms, in addition to their respective air superiority and multirole tasks. I'll elaborate a little more in the proposal,



I cant wait.  There is no such thing as an "ESM platform".  There are ELINT, TELINT, SIGINT platforms but no aircraft out there will be designed soely as an ESM platform.  ESM systems simply complement other detection systems such as Radar. Do not confuse RWR systems for ESM systems also.  The F-22 and F-35 may well have an ESM system on board but that hardly makes them "ESM platforms by design".  If you want you can argue with me all day, i will pull out the definition of ESM right out of My basic electronic warfare course manual.  And so we both understand what MY background on this is......I'm an ESM system operator .


----------



## NCRCrow (8 Jan 2006)

LOL...does ESM stand for East Side Marios

Fire away about ESM and ELINT, but a fighter as an ESM platform is absurd. Satellites do that!

FF........have a read of the link below and navigate. 

AESOP enjoy the fine BC weather. Just played 18 at Olympic View....lovin it 

https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/StartPage.aspx


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jan 2006)

[thread jack]

Sigh....  BC weather would be nice - What am I missing?  I'll be home in the valley early Feb, just in time for the trees to start budding.

[/thread jack]


----------



## FoverF (9 Jan 2006)

Perhaps my terminology is a bit off then. 

The definition of ESM I was using is: 
"That division of electronic warfare involving actions taken under direct control of an operational commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate sources of radiated electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition."

The F-22 and F-35 are both stealth aircraft, and were both designed to operate in complete emcon, without compromising their SA. This means gathering as much passive information (particularly RF signals) as possible, and being part of a network-centric system, to data-link it back to the operational commander and other airborne assets. 
So I suppose it would be more accurate to say they were designed to collect and distribute SIGINT, in addition to their respective primary roles. 

Which is why both of them where designed with embedded full-span leading edge, trailing edge, and full-length vertical stab antennae, and "other EW apertures".

These are (in the words of BAe, responsible for their EW systems) for "acquisition and tracking of  main beam and side lobe emissions, emitter location and ranging, emitter ID, mode determination, and signal parameter measurement;".
Also, "The EW system also can use the radar antenna for electronic support measures (ESM)". 
(hardly what I would call an RWR)

So the question was 'what does a fighter have to do with ESM?', and the above paragraph is my answer. 

Far be it from me to argue with someone who is a professional in the field, so perhaps you could clarify why, if I were to send this a/c off to sniff out another ship, for example, it would not be providing ESM? I suspect that this is mainly a minor disagreement of terminology.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2006)

FoverF,

according to the CF basic EW manual states that ESM is " that division of EW involving actions taken to search for, intercept and identify electromagnetic emissions and locate their sources for the purpose of imediate threat recognition.  The F-22 and F-35 are equiped with ESM systems because the have to detect their targtets in EMCON which precludes the use of radar and other active sensor systems.  This does not make them ESM platforms.  The CP-140 (which i fly) has an ESM system for the purpose of detecting submarines but that does not make it an ESM platform...there is no such beast.  ESM is exactly what it says...Support system.  The F-22 and 35 are FIGHTERS that use ESM as a means of target detection.  Aircraft like RIVET QUICK and RIVET JOINT are ELINT platforms because their mission is the detection and analysis of EM signals.



			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> So I suppose it would be more accurate to say they were designed to collect and distribute SIGINT, in addition to their respective primary roles.



You mean ELINT......."inteligence derived from electromagnetic non-communications systems by other than the intended recipient" (AAP-6) vice SIGINT wich incorporates comunications sytems emission interceptions ( although by defenition SIGINT includes ELINT and COMINT)

Semantics maybe.........but i see a big difference in the operational applications of the theory you describe


----------



## FoverF (10 Jan 2006)

Fair enough. 

The reason I said SINGINT rather than just ELINT is because the radar array has demonstrated that it can be used as a comms antenna, and so would likely be able to provide some COMINT as well.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> The reason I said SINGINT rather than just ELINT is because the radar array has demonstrated that it can be used as a comms antenna, and so would likely be able to provide some COMINT as well.



Although it may have demonstrated that it could be used as a comms antena, i doubt it practicaly would.  Assuming that the F-22 and 35s radars would operate in the same range as most airborne radars (9-11 GHz) this isnt exactly the normal radio comunications range.  Also the single man crew makes almost impossible to mange a COMINT sytem.  They were designed as fighters and thats what they will do.  RC-135V/W and EP-3E will continue to provide dedicated EW support while fighters will use their EW systems in support of their own missions.  Case and point is that even with advanced EPM systems such as the advanced self-protection jammer, the US navy still sees the need for a dedicated VAQ aircraft ( EF-18G Growler) to accompany strike packages and provide SEAD for the embarked air wing.  The USAF will face the same requirement with the demise of the EF-111A Raven.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2006)

This is all very off-topic however, maybe a mod can split it


----------



## FoverF (10 Jan 2006)

It is indeed an X-Band antenna. But it does have a whole lot of power behind it, and it is very directional. 

The comms capability I was talking about is this (From aviaiton now)



> Northrop Grumman, L-3 Turn F/A-22 Radar Into Wide-Bandwidth Data Link
> By David A. Fulghum
> 
> TALKING RADARS
> ...



Obviously this doesn't adress the workload issue, but the vast majority of this data would be up-loaded and analyzed by someone else anyways. Either after the fact (downloaded after a sortie) or data-linked as close to real-time as possible. So while an F-35 crewman would   have extreme difficulty running a COMINT suite (or ELINT for that matter), no matter how automated, he won't really have to. He just flies the antenna around. 

And in Canadian service, there are no RC-135s or EC-130s, or EP-3s, or what-have-you. Other than the CP-140 (which is laible to be of little use to a Task Group deployed to the South China Sea or anywhere else that is not Canada), an embarked F-35 would be by far the best EW game in town. 

And while it is straying from topic slightly, we are still discussing the F-35 and it's capabilities and potential roles.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2006)

Foverf

Some really good and well thought out posting here. keep up the good work.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> Other than the CP-140 (which is laible to be of little use to a Task Group deployed to the South China Sea or anywhere else that is not Canada),



Care to explain that one ?


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Jan 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Care to explain that one ?



Only experience operational taskings involving the re-equipped 140 can explain that one. I can see where he is coming from based on the way he is presenting the research, but I think you already hit the nail on the head- a fighter is a fighter. Full stop. What is being proposed, I think, is to use a fighter for another purpose, a sub-optimum purpose considering the platform.[although a stealthy EW platform is desirable, IWI.] Carrier based paltforms notwithstanding, airborne EW ops supporting TG's and TF's typically require extended endurance, a fairly comfortable chair and a coffee pot, something a fighter has little of compared to larger aircraft operating from an airstrip. I would think Plan B would likely involve satellites and UAV's, not fighters?

Fighter based EW supporting a strike or recon sortie might be [is] a completely different story.


----------



## Mortar guy (10 Jan 2006)

I have to agree with FoverF on the whole ESM/ELINT debate here are I think aesop is being a bit too pedantic in his criticism of the whole "JSF as ESM platform" concept. I'm not saying you're wrong, aesop, I just think we shouldn't let semantics or differing interpretations of terminology get in the way of a good debate on the use of AESA-equipped platforms for non-traditional uses.

The AESA radar on the JSF (and on the F/A-22, F-15, F/A-18E/F) are capable of performing SIGINT/ELINT roles, ECM functions like jamming, and communications. With all this capability, why not use the JSF (if we ever get it) for such things as SIGINT or as an EW platform? Just my two pennies...

MG


----------



## NCRCrow (10 Jan 2006)

Chaff for distraction.....JSF as an ESM platform..get your head out of your Clancy book

No real experience here in EW applications,just a bunch of BS........

nice keep up the good work post by Slim....... 


I am out


----------



## Slim (11 Jan 2006)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> nice keep up the good work post by Slim.......



I help where I can...Since I don't know jack about the suject at hand.

I do think some of us may have been a tad rough on the young lad as he's obviously done some homework and research.


----------



## FoverF (11 Jan 2006)

> Care to explain that one?



Well, a CP-140 is nice to have, when it's around. Basing is basically what I'm getting at. The Task Group is not always going to be within reasonable range of shore bases, or shore bases might not be available for military ops at all. Something like a Falklands/Malvinas dispute, or like I said, a conflict in the South China Sea are examples. Something on-deck and always available would be a lot more useful in these kinds of situations. 

WRT to using AESA as ECM systems; I don't think AESAs are going to be useful as active jammers any time soon. As of yet none of the in-service radars can do this, and IIRC that function was supposed to be developed for the F-22 and ported to the F-35. This has since been cancelled from the F-22, and I don't know if it's going to happen for the F-35 in the forseeable future. Given that the USN has just dumped a whole lot of money into the Growler program, I don't think they expect it either.

I agree with whiskey601 that a lack of endurance is a very serious factor here. As for UAVs and satellites being the preffered plan B, that all depends on what kind of capabilities your UAVs have and what kind of satellite coverage you have. As far as UAVs go, we're talking rotary-wing, or very small fixed-wing ones here, not exactly Global Hawks (although there may be some circumstances where this IS the case, provided we buy them). They will be a step up in terms of endurance from a vertol F-35, but nowhere near in terms of sensors, or altitude. And we have to look at how many would be embarked (obviously this depends on the type, and is something I'm still looking into). As I said before, you still need UAVs, but IMHO any time you're expecting trouble, or actively looking for contact, an F-35 would be probably be a better bet. 

As far as satellites go, I have to admit quite a bit of ignorance here. I can talk your ear off for hours about orbital mechanics, and all the physics-type stuff involved, but I really don't know much about the capabilities of electronic surveilance satellites. I'm going to make a few educated guesses though
1) Canada doesn't have any
2) Canada isn't going to get any soon
3) Geosnyc orbit is a LONG way away, so the good ones are probably lower orbit, and so of limited availability (a few passes per day) anyways
4) We're going to be dependant on someone else deciding that they agree with what Canada is doing, that they don't need the bird at the moment, that they don't mind burning a lot of fuel to get it to where we need it, and that people on our ships can get info from it in close to real time.

Please feel free to correct me on any of these points (I know people around here seem awful shy about correcting me), but it seems to me we shouldn't be relying on them too heavily. I think in a combat situation against another navy, 'plan B' should really involve any and all assets we can get our grubby little hands on, not just dinky ship-board UAVs and someone else's satellites. That would include F-35s (if they were on-board).

I'm certainly not trying to promote the F-35B as the be-all and end-all of Canadian EW. I certainly agree that it is a 'sub-optimum' use of the a/c. But it's also hardly the main selling point for the a/c. It was just one of a list of capabilities I was looking at, and it got jumped on, so we've been expounding on it. I certainly don't think you can justify carrying the aircraft (and displacing a helicopter) solely for it's EW suite (I'm still kind of up in the air as to whether it can be justified at all without a carrier). It's just one potential application for which it could come in handy. 

Anyways, have a rotational dynamics class to get to, gotta jet


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> As far as satellites go, I have to admit quite a bit of ignorance here. I can talk your ear off for hours about orbital mechanics, and all the physics-type stuff involved, but I really don't know much about the capabilities of electronic surveilance satellites. I'm going to make a few educated guesses though
> 1) Canada doesn't have any
> 2) Canada isn't going to get any soon
> 3) Geosnyc orbit is a LONG way away, so the good ones are probably lower orbit, and so of limited availability (a few passes per day) anyways
> 4) We're going to be dependant on someone else deciding that they agree with what Canada is doing, that they don't need the bird at the moment, that they don't mind burning a lot of fuel to get it to where we need it, and that people on our ships can get info from it in close to real time.



LOL- Given the recent liberal pledge to eliminate space based weapons, discussion of the existing intergalactic fleet of Canadian armed recce satellites is verbooten. 

Canada industry has a few satellites, the Canadian military has 1 or more sitting in a warehouse somewhere. 

Access to and use of satellite Intel is generally OPSEC.  I shouldn't have brought it up.

Cheers.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2006)

You want to displace a helicopter and put a F-35/22 on the deck instead?  I don't think so...  Vertol fighter does not mean it can take off on the back of a frigate.  You would need a small carrier or flat top vessel, minimum.

The CP-140 has the legs to go out 700nm from shore and loiter for upwards of 8 hours.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jan 2006)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> You want to displace a helicopter and put a F-35/22 on the deck instead?  I don't think so...  Vertol fighter does not mean it can take off on the back of a frigate.  You would need a small carrier or flat top vessel, minimum.
> 
> The CP-140 has the legs to go out 700nm from shore and loiter for upwards of 8 hours.



we routinely go longer....much longer


----------



## Mortar guy (11 Jan 2006)

> Chaff for distraction.....JSF as an ESM platform..get your head out of your Clancy book
> 
> No real experience here in EW applications,just a bunch of BS........



Thank god a Sea Cadet has sorted us out and set us straight on the whole JSF/ESM issue! Now that we have been sufficiently schooled in the ways of ESM and the potential roles of the JSF by HFXCrow, I guess there isn't any need for anyone to read this article:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/supersonic-sigint-will-f35-f22-also-play-ew-role/index.php which explains how the F-35 and the F/A-22 can be used for ELINT and that this capability is being seriously pursued.

Or this article from the C4ISR Journal: http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=1052264 that goes into more detail about how the JSF's AESA radar will enable it (and any other AESA-equipped aircraft) to perform ELINT, jamming and broadband comms functions with its radar. 

Thanks for that man, this was almost a sensible debate about real capabilities but you brought our collective heads out of our Clancy novels!

MG


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jan 2006)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> Thank god a Sea Cadet has sorted us out and set us straight on the whole JSF/ESM issue! Now that we have been sufficiently schooled in the ways of ESM and the potential roles of the JSF by HFXCrow, I guess there isn't any need for anyone to read this article:
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/10/supersonic-sigint-will-f35-f22-also-play-ew-role/index.php which explains how the F-35 and the F/A-22 can be used for ELINT and that this capability is being seriously pursued.
> 
> ...



MG,

Your sarcasm, as funny as it was , is rather missplaced.  I am not arguing that the F-22/F-35 with their AESA radars have a role to play in the EW spectrum.  What i was debating was FoverF's statement that they were designed as ESM platforms from the onset. This is a falacy brought about by a lack of understanding of what ESM is, how it is employed and no experience in the field.  HFXCrow and I work with ESM systems as part of our MOCs.  ESM is not ELINT, it is not EPM either.  These roles are what is being explored for AESA radars.


----------



## Mortar guy (11 Jan 2006)

aesop,

My comments (especially the sacrastic ones) weren't directed at you. I don't think FoverF ever said that the JSF was ever designed from the outset as an ESM platform and, in fact, all he was saying was that the capabilities offered by the AESA radar and various other ESM features on the JSF could make it a decent ELINT platform. Granted he may have used the wrong terminology but, as you will note in the articles I posted, he was right on the money. The US and other JSF partners are seriously contemplating exploiting the capabilities inherent in the JSF to allow it to expand the roles it is capable of performing. 

I haven't seen anyone seriously refute the statements made by FoverF about the potential uses of the JSF for EW roles as you seem fixated on his use of terminology rather than the technological merits of the proposal. I suggest we stop debating the JSF/EW semantics issue as the articles I posted have proven beyond a doubt that the JSF will have substantial ESM/ECM/ELINT capabilities and that, at a minimum, the USMC is seriously pursuing the idea of the JSF as an EW platform.

While I respect that you work in this field, you haven't exactly won me over with your knowledge of the subject. You said that you doubted the AESA radar on the JSF could be used for broadband comms, ESM or jamming when in fact it is being designed to do all of those things and more. Perhaps being an aesop on an Aurora doesn't necessarily automatically qualify you as the forum expert on AESA radars or the JSF? No offense intended and all I am saying is we shouldn't be shutting people down too quickly on this topic unless our statements are backed up by facts. I hope you will agree that FoverF posted a well thought out idea, based on facts rather than conjecture or opinion, and we shouldn't give him a hard time just because he confused ESM for ELINT.

OK, let's go back to the idea of basing the JSF on the MCDV with special modifications to their weapons bay to hold a section of ninjasniperSEALs...

MG


----------



## aesop081 (11 Jan 2006)

FoverF said:
			
		

> The F-35 and F-22 were both designed from the beginning to be ESM platforms, in addition to their respective air superiority and multirole tasks



How's that MG ?

I'm no expert...thats true. I realise that there is potential being explored for an EW role for new generation fighter. But i know what ESM is and what it is not.  i dont feel i was overly harsh, he makes some good points, i wont argue there.  I try not to expand too much into my thoughts on ESM as alot of it  resides in the realm of OPSEC....sorry

And yes, he did post a very well thought out idea with relevant material, it had a rough start but worked out very well.  


edited for terrible typing and hitting the post button while eating supper


----------



## Mortar guy (12 Jan 2006)

What wine goes well with crow?  :-[


----------



## STONEY (12 Jan 2006)

FoverF  After all that being said it will be interesting to see your filled out proposal. But even if the F-35 is the greatest A/C of all time
and Canada does aquire it sometime in the distant future it will probably be the "A" model .  The chances of Canada getting the "B" are i think slim. If we did get the "B" the chances of it operating in the Naval inviroment are even slimmer. If this slim chance ever came to pass, it would i believe only operate from a large deck ship which in itself is another dream with  small odds of ever coming to pass. The odds of it ever using a small deck except in an emergency are zero, zilch or none.  But dream on, Martin Luther King Jr. also had a dream, and some of it came true.

p.s. I think any wine is good with crow.

Cheers


----------



## Douke (12 Jan 2006)

I am not an aircraft expert and even less in electronic warfare, just pointing one or two thoughts extrapolated from what I have read in this post :

I understand the JSF will not be an extremely sophisticated or overly powerful EW mean, but the fact that is can fill a very decent part of that role is a big asset in my opinion. Wasn't the CF-18 bought with the same kind of "not the best in any field but very polyvalent aircraft thought" ? In our limited budget army, we have to find very polyvalent equipment that will fill as much roles as possible. And we still have existing EW means for when the situation requires it, they are just less strained by constant minor sorties that could be done by a less capable aircraft.

Just a thought,
Douke


----------



## Mortar guy (12 Jan 2006)

Despite my better judgement I am going to stay involved in this debate  ;D

The CF is now seriously considering purchasing an LHD to fulfil the CDS's "Big Honking Ship" requirement. Options include the LHD variant of the Royal Schelde Enforcer, the Spanish Strategic Projection Ship or possibly other designs. Therefore, the possibility of the CF operating a through-deck aviation ship is very real and, as such, the capability to operate the F-35B will also exist. Now, STONEY, I assume you know that the F-35B is not off the table as far as the CF is concerned, right? The cost difference between the A and the B is not huge and if we did have an LHD or two, purchasing a dozen or so B models when we buy our A models might make a little tiny bit of sense, nescafe?

Here is info on the Enforcer LHD if you're curious: http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/

MG


----------



## FoverF (12 Jan 2006)

Yes, we've already established that I should have said that the F-22 and F-35 were both designed from the beginning to be ELINT platforms, not ESM platforms. My terminology was off there. 

As far as displacing a chopper, this is the biggest concern I have at the moment. It's fairly common sense that you could only deploy F-35s as part of a Task Group. A single destroyer/frigate with a single fighter and no helo is not a good idea.

It comes back to the basic fighter truism that; a pair of fighters is an asset, a single fighter is a liability. But then you've got two ships with no helos, and that's no better, unless you can come up with some scenario that involves tac air but no hostile subs, and no need for helo airlift of any kind (including picking up downed pilots). So as a bare minumum, you would need a JSS to provide basing for either the helos, or the fighters (preferably the fighters, but being able to run them off of the smaller vessles might provide some benefits in certain situations. Still looking into this.)

But WRT having a larger flat-topped ship for the fighters, my prosal includes options ranging from a DeGaulle-class carrier (Thales and DCN Brest have offered to build another conventional-powered CdG Class carrier for around $1 billion US...) to a SCADS-type containerized suite that can convert container ships or other vessels to flights ops, to just making do with the JSS.


----------



## Inch (12 Jan 2006)

Ok, I have to jump in on this one.

Operating a JSF from a Frigate? What are you basing that idea off of?

I've landed a helicopter multiple times on a frigate, and let me tell you, it's challenging to say the least. Not to mention that a helicopter is designed to hover, not just land and take off vertically. I really have my doubts that you'd be able to station keep with the ship as it's corkscrewing below you while hovering in a VTOL fighter.

But, that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jan 2006)

Not to mention that the flight decks are not designed to take the abuse of the thrust a V/STOL jet would produce landing and taking off.


----------



## NCRCrow (12 Jan 2006)

lets get our MH first ! Why do we need a SEAD cap or ELINT cap?

your right, I don't know jack.

Chianti anyone.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Jan 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not to mention that the flight decks are not designed to take the abuse of the thrust a V/STOL jet would produce landing and taking off.



Due to a serious shortage of OD's, there will be no more scuffing and burning of paint aboardship. From this point  forward all launch and recovery operations will be conducted using giant elastic bands.   In addition, neither the CP-140 and the Herc will no longer be stored in the hangar since this would impair the nigthly volleyball tourney.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jan 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Due to a serious shortage of OD's, there will be no more scuffing and burning of paint aboardship. From this point  forward all launch and recovery operations will be conducted using using giant elastic bands.   In addition, neither the CP-140 and the Herc will no longer be stored in the hangar since this would impair the nigthly volleyball tourney.



Thank heavens...i wasnt looking forward to spending RIMPAC onboard ship........a hotel will do nicely    ;D



			
				FoverF said:
			
		

> Yes, we've already established that I should have said that the F-22 and F-35 were both designed from the beginning to be ELINT platforms, not ESM platforms. My terminology was off there.



NO, they were designed from the begining to be FIGHTERS....everything else was designed to help it do that or as secondary capabilities. Notice how the projects were called "Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF)" for the F/A-22 and "Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)" for the F-35.  

That being said, dedicated variants may well come in the future for either platforms as requirements develop.


----------



## STONEY (19 Jan 2006)

WOW !!  SO THIS IS ,THE LATEEST HARRY POTTER NOVEL?


----------



## blueboy (11 Feb 2006)

I read this whole thread and now have a greater understanding of the ESM spectrum and the JSF program, but what happened to the Harrier concept ? Besides it being an aging fighter with no endurance, the concept would be in the ballpark for the Canadian Politician to chose a platform that makes no sense for the Military, (providing it was built in Quebec by Bombardier) yet if it was ever to happen the personnel would just make do as we have always done.


----------

