F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Rifleman62]

He making a "deal" with the defence industry. He negotiating.

 

[Bearpaw]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html

 

[RaceAddict]

Looks like Trump and Trudeau may get along just fine...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812061677160202240

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!

 

[dimsum]

From Reddit...yes, but OP (GTFErineyes) seems to know what s/he's talking about.  Also, a few expletives here and there so maybe not totally SFW:

Super Hornet pilot here... long fucking post ahead and I can't fucking believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely shitty Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

And before people say that this will rein in the military-industrial complex, or that this will save us money.... read on why he's so horribly wrong.

First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this shit. Politicians getting involved in procurement and trying to micromanage ever aspect is exactly how we end up with unnecessary procurement, aging equipment, and a persistent 'kick-the-can' down the road mentality.

Don't believe me? Here's two recent examples of brilliant political meddling:

    The USS Zumwalt and her class of destroyers were envisioned due to a Congressional requirement for shore bombardment ships after the US retired the Iowa-class battleships in the early 90s. Aside from the fact that shore bombardment for mass amphibious assaults is of questionable necessity in modern warfare with the advent of precision weapons and helicopters, this class was cut to just 3 ships (with each now costing multiple billions) with unnecessary compromises (although railguns are fucking cool, tbh) and an unknown future and role
    The F-22 was originally supposed to have over 700 of them built. Citing the end of the Cold War, the US cut that order to around 380. Then in the 2000s, it was finally cut down to 187 total built because the Bush administration felt it was unnecessary and a relic of the Cold War. Fast forward to today, and we don't have enough F-22's so we've had to extend the life of our F-15s - which are aging - and now suddenly everyone now wants F-22's instead of F-35s. Oops.

Now, as for the F-35 and the F/A-18 Super Hornet... look, as a Rhino pilot (the nickname for the Super Hornet), I'd love all the fancy toys, funding, and the entire concept behind the Advanced Super Hornet/Block 3 Rhino...

But this ship has sailed. And honestly, this whole tweet just screams of populist politics from someone who doesn't know the intricacies or complexity of a modern fighter jet project or modern aerial warfare.

Cost First of all, the F-35's cost has gone way down since the project underwent reform a few years ago, with low rate production F-35A's (the Air Force model) reaching the cost of the Super Hornet already. The Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets at a price of $90 million each, and they recently bought the EA-18G Growler (the electronic attack version of the Rhino) about $110 million a piece.

Yes, the F-35B and -C versions (the Marine and Navy versions, respectively) cost more, but replacing the F-35A with the Super Hornet or a derivative of it makes no sense, unless you're reading Wikipedia and think the $60 million price tag on a Super Hornet still exists (it doesn't). Not to mention, the Advanced Super Hornet concept isn't going to cost anywhere near $60 million, not after you've added the conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapon pods, and other equipment.

And before people say 'but the F-35 has had cost overruns!' - yes, it has, and they're inexcusable. That said, the time to cancel the program was 10 years ago, not today after the first F-35B squadron went operational a year ago, and not after the first F-35A squadron went operational this year, and not after multiple nations have their Air Force personnel in the US training on and preparing for their own inductions of these planes.

To Best Understand the F-35... Read Further I was going to try and do a point by point comparison of the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but I realized it was easier to just explain why the F-35 exists in the first place.

Back in the 1970s, the US Air Force adopted a "high-low" doctrine to replace the 8+ variants of interceptors and fighters they had in operation. That doctrine produced the "high" F-15 Eagle - a no-holds-barred air superiority fighter that was big, fast, and cost a ton of money. The "low" plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Viper), was supposed to be small, cheap, and a complement to the F-15.

You see, fighter jets have gone through different 'generations' of development. The first generation of fighter jets - those designed during and right after WW2, like the German Me262, the Soviet MiG-15, and the US F-86 Sabre, had little in difference to the propeller fighters of WW2 besides having much higher speeds and engine performance.

The second generation of fighter jets, of the 1950s like the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-106 Delta Dart, pushed the aerodynamic envelope. They had big afterburning turbojet engines, were capable of supersonic flight, and were primarily focused on speed to intercept Soviet bombers as it was widely believed that any war would be determined by massive bomber formations carrying nuclear weapons to annihilate the other side.

By the end of the 2nd generation (the end of the 1950s), avionics had improved rapidly: on-board radars, data-links to ground intercept controllers, and air-to-air missiles came into existence, which created the third generation of fighter jets. The F-4 Phantom was the US's third generation fighter jet - it could fly fast, it had powerful engines, and it had a powerful radar and the latest in air-to-air missile technology. Problem was, the technology wasn't quite there yet, and the tactics (which I will cover later) weren't up to date.

In the late 60s, the US started developing the next generation of fighter jets: they had to maneuver and perform well, but would continue leveraging avionics. Thus was born the first fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat and the aforementioned F-15.

Well, avionics design and warfighting changed considerably. The F-16 - packed with modern avionics and radar - quickly took on the strike fighter role, capable of air to air combat as well as air-to-ground combat, becoming the workhorse of airstrikes in the Gulf War through today.

By the end of the Cold War, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation air superiority fighter - thus was born the F-22. In the late 90s, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation complement to the F-22 - and thus the Joint Strike Fighter project started.

The JSF had lofty goals - too lofty as some would say - as it wanted to combine a strike fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 (which itself was derived from the rival prototype of the F-16, the YF-17), AV-8 and A-10.

It was always destined to be a HUGE project. All this talk of its 'record expense' was by design: the US alone was going to purchase 2,443 of them to replace all those airplanes, many of whom were last produced for the US decades ago (no exaggeration - the last A-10 rolled off the line in 1984).

The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.

This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.

So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.

The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.

What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.

The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.

The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.

Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.

Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is fucking stupid.

PART II below

edit: aw gilded, thanks!

    permalinkembedsavegive gold

[–]GTFErinyes [score hidden] 7 hours ago*

PART II

No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.

The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.

In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.

Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.

Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.

The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new fucking printer.

So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-fucking-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.

For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.

Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.

Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).

Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the fuck out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.

The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.

I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.

The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the fuck down.

Absolutely NONE of this shit is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.

Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're waisting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.

Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.

In sum:

    Cost - the F-35 isn't necessarily more expensive than the Super Hornet, and it is a cheaper beast going forward than standing pat with what we have
    The time to cancel the F-35 was a decade ago, not today, after the F-35 has already reached operational status
    The F-35 has had cost overruns and delays, yes, but those are in the past. It's pointless to start a competition now for a fighter jet we decided on 16 years ago
    The Super Hornet isn't the right plane for the Air Force, and is reaching its upgrade limits a lot quicker than the F-35 will
    The F-35 is the cornerstone of American airpower for the next few decades, and will be the cornerstone of Western airpower as well. This affects a whole lot more than a tiny fraction of the US budget
    Most people don't know shit about aerial combat, military procurement and testing and development, but all feel fit to comment anwyays

edit: thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5jtocu/trump_asks_boeing_for_f18_pitch_citing_tremendous/dbixlo6/

 

[Kirkhill]

Excellent piece Dimsum!

Now that the Donald has tweeted his "support" for a Super Hornet solution can we expect to see Rabble and the Washington Post coming out in favour of the F35?  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

Concur, that was a good read from a bubba sporting a G-1... :nod:

 

[NavyShooter]

Concur.

History, technology, tactics, logistics...it all ties in with the F-35.  Well written piece.  Even a few F-bombs so that us Chiefs can understand it.

NS

 

[MarkOttawa]

1) PEOTUS gets results?

Lockheed CEO tells Trump she will work to drive down cost of F-35

The chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp told President-elect Donald Trump on Friday [Dec. 23] that she was committed to driving down the cost of the company's F-35 fighter jet, a day after Trump took aim at the cost of the F-35 in a Twitter post.

CEO Marillyn Hewson said she spoke with Trump on Friday afternoon and assured him that she had heard his message "loud and clear" about reducing the cost of the F-35.

Trump, in a tweet posted late on Thursday, suggested that an older aircraft made by rival aerospace company Boeing Co could offer a cheaper alternative to the F-35.

"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!" Trump said.

Hewson, in a statement posted on Twitter, said she had had "a very good conversation" with Trump on Friday.

"I gave him my personal commitment to drive the cost down aggressively," she said in the statement.

Lockheed shares closed down 1.3 percent on Friday, nearing their lowest levels since the Nov. 8 election. They were the biggest drag on a basket of defense-related stocks. Boeing's stock ended near the unchanged mark.

Trump had met with the chief executives of both Lockheed and Boeing on Wednesday...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defense-idUSKBN14C1QU

2) Meanwhile at AvWeek:

Citing F-35 Cost, Trump Asks Boeing for F-18 Quote

A day after meeting with the heads of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, President-elect Donald Trump has asked Boeing to price out the cost of an F/A-18 Super Hornet to potentially compete with the F-35.

Trump has dragged Lockheed’s F-35 into the spotlight in recent weeks, slamming the program for “out of control” costs. Now, he is calling in the big guns, asking Boeing to give him a price estimate for what it would take to build a “comparable” Super Hornet.

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!” he tweeted late Dec. 22.

"We have committed to working with the president elect and his administration to provide the best capability, deliverability and affordability across all Boeing products and services to meet our national security needs," Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher told Aviation Week after the tweet.

It is unclear what exactly Trump intends to do next. A president can’t single-handedly cancel one military aircraft and replace it with another, as the tweet indicates Trump is considering. So, does he want a competition between the multi-service F-35 and Boeing’s Super Hornet, the backbone of the U.S. Navy’s carrier air wing?

It's worthwhile to note that comparing the F-35 to a Super Hornet is comparing apples to oranges. The F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth aircraft that is almost invisible to enemy radar, equipped with sophisticated electronics and sensor suites. The venerable F/A-18 E/F, while also an advanced fighter, is not a stealth aircraft. The Super Hornet was designed in the 1990s, and the Navy will begin operating the F-35C carrier variant starting in 2018.

Boeing did offer an upgrade package for the Super Hornet in 2013 that included conformal fuel tanks and a new enclosed weapons pod, both part of an effort to reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section. However, this proposal did not gain traction with the Navy or other customers. The fact remains that the F/A-18 was not designed from the ground up as a stealth aircraft, as was the F-35...
http://aviationweek.com/blog/citing-f-35-cost-trump-asks-boeing-f-18-quote

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

A look at how to replace the F-35, another joint procurement disaster.The F-35 isnt even in full rate production yet.By all accounts its a great plane with alot of bugs.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-troubled-f-35-five-ways-replace-it-10914?page=2

Boeing has worked extensively at developing versions of both the F-15 and F/A-18 that have stealth characteristics, and that take advantage of various technological developments since the airframes originally entered service. In pursuit of a contract with South Korea, Boeing developed plans for the F-15 Silent Eagle, a modernization of the traditionally dominant fighter that would have dramatically reduced its radar signature.  Similarly, Boeing has studied the concept of conformal fuel tanks on the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which would enhance its stealth capabilities and increase its range. Meanwhile, ever more sophisticated F-16s continue to roll off the production line.

The Silent Eagle and the Advanced Super Hornet remain in development limbo, but would go a long way to filling the gap before Generation Six fighters arrive. One of the complaints commonly made about maintaining the legacy fleet is that the airframes have aged, making continued use both more expensive and more dangerous.  The purchase of new airframes could resolve this problem.

 

[Kirkhill]

But if the Silent Eagle and the Advanced Super Hornets are in "development limbo" doesn't that mean that they still need to be developed, debugged?  And doesn't that mean time?

The F15, F16 and F18 have been in development since the 1970s.  Aren't they ready yet?

I'm pretty sure that new wing configurations, cowlings, fuel tanks, conformal packs, engines, hard points will all have to be proved, just as they have to be proved on the F35, even when working with "legacy" armaments.

 

[GR66]

It would appear to me (as an uninformed outsider) that one of the major problems with the F-35 is that it is really two different programs in one.  They have combined the concept of 5th Generation sensor fusion with a completely new airframe.  Delays or problems with one or the other causes delays and problems with the entire package.  And because the two programs are so totally integrated you are left with no alternative options.

I wonder if perhaps the 5th Generation side of the F-35 was actually a separate program from the airframe itself, and could then be a joint program with involvement with other aircraft and sensor manufacturers you might have more flexibility.  Boeing could integrate some of the software technology into their new-build aircraft where possible in order to make them integrate more efficiently into the future "system of systems" (as could ship builders, ground vehicle manufacturers, etc.) rather than the situation we have now where it's either you buy the F-35 and get 5th Generation software or you're left out in the cold with an inferior 4th Generation alternative like Canada.

It seems strange to me that such a revolutionary change in the way warplanes are designed to communicate and share information seems to be focused on just a single airframe.  We're told that if Canada buys anything other than the F-35 we'll be relegated to an auxillary role and unable to operate in the same battlespace as the F-35.  If this is true of our potential 4th Generation fighters is it not also true of every other non-F-35 weapons platform in existence? 

If the F-35 sensor fusion is to be so dominant on the future battlefield then why aren't they spreading it as widely as possible to make every weapon system we have as integrated as possible with this new technology.

It seems to me that either the US has made a serious mistake by giving too much control of this technology to LM, or critics are being dishonest about the inability of anything other than F-35s to share the battlespace with F-35s in anything but a minor, supporting role.

 

[PuckChaser]

From a layman's prospective I don't think you can adequately separate both systems. The F-35 is Gen 5 not just because of stealth, but because of the degree of integration between the avionics software and the aircraft systems. Everything is designed to run through the computer, which allows functionality. Most of the airframe teething issues have been sorted, its now strictly software which is holding back functions.

That's the beauty of the whole system, however. You can infinitely upgrade the software to do new things and troubleshoot bugs as you build the physical airframes. Its only a matter of time before the software is sorted, meanwhile the planes can be mass produced and upgraded in a slightly more complex version of downloading Windows updates.

 

[GR66]

From a layman's prospective I don't think you can adequately separate both systems. The F-35 is Gen 5 not just because of stealth, but because of the degree of integration between the avionics software and the aircraft systems. Everything is designed to run through the computer, which allows functionality. Most of the airframe teething issues have been sorted, its now strictly software which is holding back functions.

That's the beauty of the whole system, however. You can infinitely upgrade the software to do new things and troubleshoot bugs as you build the physical airframes. Its only a matter of time before the software is sorted, meanwhile the planes can be mass produced and upgraded in a slightly more complex version of downloading Windows updates.

I think you're kind of supporting my point.  It's not stealth that makes the F-35 a 5th Generation platform.  There are other aircraft that are stealthy...maybe not the latest generation of stealth technologies, but still comparatively stealthy.  The sensors themselves aren't really what makes the F-35 a 5th Generation platform either.  The installed sensors from what I've read aren't really anything revolutionary in themselves (other than how the "see through" visual sensors are integrated into the airframe).

What makes the F-35 a 5th Generation platform is the computers which integrate the sensors on the aircraft and share that information with other F-35s.  I totally get that you can't take a legacy platform like an F-15/F-16/F-18 and make them stealthy like the F-35.  They weren't designed that way and it's not something you can simply "modify" without basically re-designing the aircraft from the ground up.

However, what am I missing in the possibility of installing a 5th Generation computer system in an existing airframe?  I'm sure the F-35's software is designed specifically for the specific sensors installed in the aircraft, probably taking into account the physical positioning on the airframe in relation to the other sensors, the flight characteristics of the aircraft, etc.  But aren't those things really variables that could be accounted for in the software to accommodate installation in different airframes?  One model of AESA radar operates in a similar manner as a different model of AESA radar.  One FLIR system gives you similar information to another FLIR system, etc.  I would imaging wiring in a different computer bus system into an existing airframe and adjusting the software parameters to account for the different sensors installed and unique platform characteristics would be simpler than actual physical changes to the airframe. 

Just the ponderings of a confused civie.

 

[PuckChaser]

We'd need an Avionics Tech for the finer points, but with the technological leaps forward I feel it would be like trying to fit the F-35's Gen 5 computer into a legacy Gen 4 aircraft would be like trying to install Windows 10 on a Commodore 64. Everything is supposedly so integrated in the F-35, you wouldn't be able to make it work. There's sensors all over the aircraft, so even if you did get the computer and software in there, without those sensors it'd be useless.

You can get more modern digital information sharing radios and links into older aircraft, but it wouldn't be close to the scale the F-35 has.

 

[MarkOttawa]

F-35 and Super Hornet, stealth and EW--excerpt from a piece with lots of tech detail by Dave Majumdar ( http://nationalinterest.org/profile/dave-majumdar ):

...
Stealth:

The one area where no version of the Super Hornet can compete with the F-35 is stealth. Stealth more or less has to be baked into an airframe design right from the outset—no ifs or buts. However, Boeing has tested a version of the Super Hornet with a significantly reduced radar cross-section—particularly in the frontal sector. The company has also tested conformal fuel tanks that can carry 3500lbs of additional fuel and an enclosed low-observable (LO) weapons pod that can carry 2500lbs of ordnance onboard the Super Hornet that would allow the jet to fly without bulky external fuel tanks or external stores during the first day of a conflict. Those features would greatly reduce the F/A-18E/F’s visibility on radar, however, even with those enhancements, the Super Hornet will never be a true stealth aircraft comparable to the F-35. It just is not physically possible.

Electronic Warfare:

But the question that remains is if stealth will remain the end all and be all of survivability as Lockheed Martin and the Air Force publicly contend. The Russians and the Chinese are developing low-frequency radars that can track fighter-sized stealth aircraft that are—just by the laws of physics—optimized to defeat radars in the fire control bands (Ku, X, C and part of S). Electronic warfare will become increasingly necessary to support stealth aircraft as time goes on and as low frequency radars proliferate. “[Stealth] is needed for what we have in the future for at least ten years out there and there is nothing magic about that decade,” then chief of naval operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said at the U.S. Naval Institute annual meeting in Washington, D.C, in 2014. “But I think we need to look beyond that. So to me, I think it’s a combination of having aircraft that have stealth but also aircraft that can suppress other forms of radio frequency electromagnetic emissions so that we can get in.”

The U.S. Air Force—despite its public rhetoric—recognizes that electronic warfare will be increasingly important as enemy capabilities continue to improve. At least a dozen Air Force pilots with experience flying stealth platforms have told me that stealth aircraft don’t go into a high threat area alone and unafraid. That trend will continue to accelerate as low frequency radars proliferate and fire control radars start moving to lower bands. “Stealth and electronic attack (EA) always have a synergistic relationship—detection is all about the signal to noise ratio. LO lowers the signal, EA increases the noise,” one Air Force official told me. “Any big picture plan looking forward to deal with emerging A2/AD threats will address both sides of that equation.”

Indeed, the F-35 does have formidable electronic attack capabilities resident within its Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. However, while the APG-81 is capable of acting as a high-gain electronic support measures antenna and as a formidable jammer, it can only do so within its own operating frequencies within the X-band. Meanwhile, the Super Hornet and its EA-18G electronic warfare variant are also equipped with an AESA radar—the Raytheon AN/APG-79. The Raytheon-built radar has much of the same potential capabilities as the APG-81, however the Navy has not yet taken full advantage of the APG-79’s potential. But the Navy will exploit more of the radar’s potential electronic warfare capabilities in the coming years.

Another advantage that the F-35 has over the Super Hornet is its BAE Systems AN/ASQ-239, which uses a series of embedded antennas on the aircraft’s skin to provide a detailed electronic picture of the surrounding battlespace to the pilot. However, technology has not stood still during the F-35’s prolonged development. The Navy is adding the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV to the F/A-18, which greatly increases the Super Hornet’s electronic warfare prowess. However, Boeing could easily adopt even more sophisticated systems for the F/A-18E/F airframe such as BAE’s ALQ-239 or a version of the forthcoming Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System—both of which offer fully integrated radar warning, geo-location, situational awareness and self-protection capabilities. These later systems offer capability similar to the F-35’s AN/ASQ-239—which they were derived from.

Another option for an Advanced Super Hornet derivative could be to adopt the EA-18G Growler variant’s Northrop Grumman ALQ-218 radar warning receiver/electronic support measures/electronic intelligence (RWR/ESM/ELINT) sensor as standard equipment. The ALQ-218—as a purpose-built electronic intelligence-gathering tool—is in many respects more capable than the ASQ-239. Indeed, an electronic warfare officer onboard an EA-18G can analyze an unknown signal and jam it even if the threat is not in the aircraft’s threat library—something the lone pilot onboard an F-35 cannot do. However, the ALQ-218 system might be overkill for a fighter aircraft.

Sensors and Sensor Fusion:

While the Super Hornet does not have an integrated electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) like the F-35, it can carry advanced podded sensors. In fact, carrying a targeting pod instead of an integrated EOTS is an advantage in many cases. The F-35’s EOTS—while state of the art when the jets’ requirements were specified—is now dated technology. The F-35 Joint Program Office will address those technological issues in the JSF’s Block IV configuration in the early 2020s, but the process of upgrading individual systems onboard the stealthy new jet is much more complex than on a fourth-generation platform where a new targeting pod can simply be exchanged almost at will with the right software load...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-super-plane-could-replace-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-18875

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

It would appear to me (as an uninformed outsider) that one of the major problems with the F-35 is that it is really two different programs in one.  They have combined the concept of 5th Generation sensor fusion with a completely new airframe.  Delays or problems with one or the other causes delays and problems with the entire package.  And because the two programs are so totally integrated you are left with no alternative options.

I wonder if perhaps the 5th Generation side of the F-35 was actually a separate program from the airframe itself, and could then be a joint program with involvement with other aircraft and sensor manufacturers you might have more flexibility.  Boeing could integrate some of the software technology into their new-build aircraft where possible in order to make them integrate more efficiently into the future "system of systems" (as could ship builders, ground vehicle manufacturers, etc.) rather than the situation we have now where it's either you buy the F-35 and get 5th Generation software or you're left out in the cold with an inferior 4th Generation alternative like Canada.

It seems strange to me that such a revolutionary change in the way warplanes are designed to communicate and share information seems to be focused on just a single airframe.  We're told that if Canada buys anything other than the F-35 we'll be relegated to an auxillary role and unable to operate in the same battlespace as the F-35.  If this is true of our potential 4th Generation fighters is it not also true of every other non-F-35 weapons platform in existence? 

If the F-35 sensor fusion is to be so dominant on the future battlefield then why aren't they spreading it as widely as possible to make every weapon system we have as integrated as possible with this new technology.

It seems to me that either the US has made a serious mistake by giving too much control of this technology to LM, or critics are being dishonest about the inability of anything other than F-35s to share the battlespace with F-35s in anything but a minor, supporting role.

They cannot be separated.  The aircraft's sensors are integrated into fibre-channel avionics architecture that also includes communicative and adaptive flight and engine controls all designed into an airframe that is structured, designed and tuned into a complete package that maximizes the receipt and shared transmission of data, information and knowledge whilst minimizing the likelihood of any other less-developed aerospace combat platforms.

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

I think what he was trying to say is that from the get go, they could have put those things into say, an F-16, and they could have tested them there.  I'm not sure if that would have worked - probably to an extent, and maybe better.  It's impossible to know that though.

 

[PuckChaser]

I think what he was trying to say is that from the get go, they could have put those things into say, an F-16, and they could have tested them there.  I'm not sure if that would have worked - probably to an extent, and maybe better.  It's impossible to know that though.

If you mean when the F-16 was originally designed in 1974, the technology did not exist to this level (or at all) to do that.

If you mean do it now, you completely missed the part where he said the systems are designed as part of the structure. You can't just pop the computers and some cables in and call it 5th Gen. You'd be completely redesigning the F-16, and it would have to go through the same weapons and flight tests the F-35 is completing now.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Dimsum]
From Reddit...yes, but OP (GTFErineyes) seems to know what s/he's talking about.  Also, a few expletives here and there so maybe not totally SFW:

[/quote]

Very awesome read thank you.

 

[jmt18325]

If you mean do it now, you completely missed the part where he said the systems are designed as part of the structure. You can't just pop the computers and some cables in and call it 5th Gen. You'd be completely redesigning the F-16, and it would have to go through the same weapons and flight tests the F-35 is completing now.

I'm not talking about an actual 5th generation aircraft, but rather a less advanced airframe that could be used to test the new sensor technology.  You could then, once the technology is perfected, build a new air frame around it.  Of course it's very possible that such a thing would be impossible.  I really have no idea, and as such I wouldn't argue such a point.