I would have to say yes since there already fielding AN/APG-79 AESA radar in the F-18 E/F that can simultaneously use air-to-air and air-to-ground modes .
USAF Electronic Attack - Why not buy some Growlers?
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
I would have to say yes since there already fielding AN/APG-79 AESA radar in the F-18 E/F that can simultaneously use air-to-air and air-to-ground modes .
fretburner
As for processing power. You have to look back at the F-117, It was completely unstable and was for the most part flown by the computer with pilot input.(The pilot used the stick to tell the plane what he would like to do but the computer decided the best way to do it). Remember that plane first flew almost 30 years ago before laptops and PCs as we know them. The retail market has driven the development micro processor's to a point were other technology's have to catch up.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
^ I'm sure the processing power is there, if we're talking like teraflops or whatever... but translating that into "functions" the aircraft or pilots can use, I think is a different matter. I'm just guessing by the way. I don't have any idea how complex these things are - Jamming + Scanning + Identification +... - but, if we're looking at, for example, Honda's ASIMO, it seems like they have the mechanical stuffs nailed, but the processing power, albeit in a much smaller frame than an aircraft, is NOT there. It can't calculate the robot's center of gravity like a human brain can.
The F-35 is already wired for the NGJ (Next Genneration Jammer) which will be a faceted, AESA based multiband jammer pod system.
The plan is to fly 2-4 hig-band pods on the wing stations and 1 low-band pod on the centerline station. Space has already been saved in teh CIP to handle integration issues.
The plan is to fly 2-4 hig-band pods on the wing stations and 1 low-band pod on the centerline station. Space has already been saved in teh CIP to handle integration issues.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
How is this going to affect the "stealthiness" of the F-35?
Comparing ASIMO to AESA radar is Apples to Oranges. The limitations in ASIMO are not due to computing in any way. A gyroscope will keep balance or center of gravity with no problem, But when the human body moves its center of gravity is constantly changing.When you walk your mass is constantly out of balance, when you stop you tend to bend your knees to stop the momentum. Then theres going up and down hills which changes everything. Placement of your feet on uneven ground and so on and so on. These are all things that we feel we don't have to watch where our feet are going. Interpreting how we interact with the environment and writing that into code is very difficult.To write code for every variable would be a daunting task.The real goal is to write code that would allow the robot to learn just like a child.
Writing code for weapons,aircraft and radars are much more specific in there task.The basic premise behind radar for instance is the same as it was for England during WWII .One difference is how the return is interpreted, Over the years with computing power radar is now able to make a very accurate digital picture. Since its digital the computer can also interpret it further and target objects that match a digital picture of that object stored in its memory. From there the computer can priorities the targets based on predetermined values programed in to the software.Among a hundred other things. But there is very few variables .
When the pods are emitting , The "stealth" designed into the plane is out the window anyway. There will be dedicated platforms for this type of
equipment. With pilots trained for the equipment and the tactics to deploy them properly.
Spudman do you have any links for this. Its not that I doubt you but it sounds like some interesting reading. Software designers are going to have a field day with this system if its half as capable as they say.
Here are a few sources:
http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir043/n239a.ppt
http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_bu...19-08-R-0101/NGJ_BAA_Industry_Day_-_Final.pdf
Somewhere I have seen a comp simulation of a F-35 with the pods attached but I cannot find it now
http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir043/n239a.ppt
http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_bu...19-08-R-0101/NGJ_BAA_Industry_Day_-_Final.pdf
Somewhere I have seen a comp simulation of a F-35 with the pods attached but I cannot find it now
Here are a few sources:
http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir043/n239a.ppt
http://www.navair.navy.mil/doing_bu...19-08-R-0101/NGJ_BAA_Industry_Day_-_Final.pdf
Somewhere I have seen a comp simulation of a F-35 with the pods attached but I cannot find it now
Thank You
I think I've seen that also but thought it was someones wishful thinking. I must say it looked good.
No. There is talk of Boeing selling a Growler Lite with enhanced battle space management capabilities.Unlike the Growler, a Growler Lite will not carry ITT ALQ-99 radar jamming pods and interference cancellation system. It will only be equipped with sensors like Northrop Grumman's ALQ-218(V)2 radio frequency receiver and Raytheon's ALQ-227 communication countermeasures set for electronic surveillance. The DoD has not approved this.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #34
I guess the USAF can't wait no longer on the EF-35? F-15C "Jammers"
Ramon Estrada, Raytheon's director of F-15 growth programmes, declined to answer whether the APG-63(V)3 can detect Russia's stealthy new PAK-FA prototype fighter, which Sukhoi designates as the T-50.
But Estrada confirmed the AESA is designed to detect targets with small radar cross sections. "I don't know the specifics with the T-50," Estrada says, "but I will tell you that this -(V)3 radar is very capable of detecting low-RCS platforms".
The array also improves the F-15's ability to track radar signals, which could prove useful in the jamming role.
Giggy, however, emphasized that an F-15C equipped with a jamming pod would not become a rival to the US Navy Boeing EA-18G Growler."I want to dispel the idea that we're looking at an F-15G," Giggy says.
It's also a very interesting to note that Estrada mentions the APG-63v3 is "very capable of detecting low-RCS platforms". Because this would mean Aegis ships - US and its Allies - would be able to detect the F-22, B-2, and F-35, and have their radar guide the missiles to hit the stealth fighter/bomber.
The missiles' own seeker, if it's radar-guided, won't be able to hit a stealth fighter on its own right?
Ramon Estrada, Raytheon's director of F-15 growth programmes, declined to answer whether the APG-63(V)3 can detect Russia's stealthy new PAK-FA prototype fighter, which Sukhoi designates as the T-50.
But Estrada confirmed the AESA is designed to detect targets with small radar cross sections. "I don't know the specifics with the T-50," Estrada says, "but I will tell you that this -(V)3 radar is very capable of detecting low-RCS platforms".
The array also improves the F-15's ability to track radar signals, which could prove useful in the jamming role.
Giggy, however, emphasized that an F-15C equipped with a jamming pod would not become a rival to the US Navy Boeing EA-18G Growler."I want to dispel the idea that we're looking at an F-15G," Giggy says.
It's also a very interesting to note that Estrada mentions the APG-63v3 is "very capable of detecting low-RCS platforms". Because this would mean Aegis ships - US and its Allies - would be able to detect the F-22, B-2, and F-35, and have their radar guide the missiles to hit the stealth fighter/bomber.
The missiles' own seeker, if it's radar-guided, won't be able to hit a stealth fighter on its own right?
That's quite a long bow you are drawing there mate. No platform is totally invisible to radar (that I know of - then again, that doesn't say much LOL) - eventually, most radar will be able to detect the F22/B2 - but that's of little use if the F-22 is around 400m away isn't it? The LO characteristics simply make it many times harder to detect that a non LO platform - LO isn't a magical "cloak of invisibity". It is drawing an extremely long bow to say that just because the 63v3 can do something that the SPY1D can do the same simply because they are both AESA's.
So when Estrada mentions that his radar is very capable of detecting low RCS platforms - he's not making any claims backed by any facts or comparitive data. I see it as Boeing's reply to all the fanboi's claims that the T50 is the next 'messiah' of the air. I suppose history or the odd leak will provide us the answers to that very vague statement.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
^ But then again, the SPY1 radar should be a LOT more powerful than any AESA radar in a fighter right?
Or maybe Mr. Estrada is just playing games with the Russians, kinda like saying "Don't keep your hopes to high up" or something like that.
Or maybe Mr. Estrada is just playing games with the Russians, kinda like saying "Don't keep your hopes to high up" or something like that.