US Navy cites PLAAF to Justify F-18E/F Sensor Upgrade

I thought that those AESA radars were supposed to solve everything . . .

That's what I felt also. Perhaps this is the way the USN is using to assure the upgrades to the Super Hornets E/F variants continue. The USN is probaly justifying it's spending on the upgrades.

Originally Posted by unknauthr

According to this week's issue of Aviation Week, the US Navy is seeking to upgrade its Super Hornets with an IR imaging sensor similar to that found in many Russian and European fighters (4 June 2007 issue, page 30).

What's perhaps most interesting is the rationale provided for this addition: to provide an additional sensor suite that would not be susceptible to Chinese jamming:

"Although the service has been upgrading the fighter's radar, and the latest version (the APG-79 with active electronically scanned array) should have enhanced ability to nullify hostile jamming, Navy officials are worried about the proliferation of X-band electronic countermeasures systems, which could degrade radar performance. In particular, China's expansive spending on electronic warfare equipment is being carefully monitored. The service fears this build-up could compromise their own freedom to operate in the Pacific."

I thought that those AESA radars were supposed to solve everything . . .

except continued funding..... No threat, no money

My gut feeling is that in the next twenty years the sensor-war will shift towards non-radar devices in part to counter the US' dominance in applied stealth, and also towards direct energy weapons. In time too these will shift and ultimately most of what we see today as impressive aircraft and warships will be seen as akin to going into Midway in HMS Victory.

AESA is not meant to solve jamming and ECM, even though its more resistant to some ECM measures. I've heard things like the F-22 can't be used in Iraq because jamming devices aimed at IEDs are also affecting the plane.

Honestly I thought the Super bugs already have IRSTs. The F-14s have them, and so did F-4Es.

Sometimes I wonder if there is a conspiracy in the US to allow defense techs to seep into China through indirect channels, to create some kind of threat to sell for the defense industry---not too far behind to make the subject a non threat, not too advanced so there is nothing there that cannot dealt later.

To paraphrase from the new Pirates movie, "It's just good business."

Of course PLA uses the massive knowhow and production potential of China's IT industry to her best advantage!
ECM and ECCM are certainly top priorities of PLA's current modernization plans and attacking the enemies gadgets with your own wizard tools is certainly a kind of warfare pleasing the chinese mind. Supposing PLA has already a current capability to interfere with or even neutralize AESA systems would constitute no mean feat since China would have demonstrated to be superior to Russia and probably also France in the ECM field. (...of course we will have to sit and wait how this develops but without doubt sensors , electronics and ECM are some of the most advanced sectors of China's defense industry)

P.S.: ROCA must be fairly concerned by this, perhaps ROCAF's radar operators one day watch suddenly in consternation that their screens go dark and slowly a big fat red pacman emerges with a stern order from Beijing to turn everything off and go home because the game is over!

Originally Posted by crobato

Sometimes I wonder if there is a conspiracy in the US to allow defense techs to seep into China through indirect channels, to create some kind of threat to sell for the defense industry---not too far behind to make the subject a non threat, not too advanced so there is nothing there that cannot dealt later.

To paraphrase from the new Pirates movie, "It's just good business."

==You would think so wouldn't you? From what i have seen, all reports and publications coming from DoD and branches of services and various "think tanks" regarding to China can be summarised into five words--more fundings for the military.

Here is something to think about. I find this quote from Tom Cooper at ACIG.org to be very interesting.

http://www.s188567700.online.de/foru...t=4996&start=0

I do recal having participated in some discussions - involving the then local Russian air attache here in Vienna - that touched this topic too, several years back. The attache in question used to work in the development of avionics for Su-24s, for example.

Anyway, the matter was actually about the Russian aviation industry, especially Su-27s, and their development. And, eventually, we've touched also the philosophy and drive behind what the Russian designers do, how and why.

Basically (and this came out only after I think the second bottle of vodka), the matter was such that all they wanted to see were manuals of various Western aircraft and equipment. That's what - just for example - Sukhoi should be ready to pay small fortunes for. Their designers do not care about practical experiences of their pilots or ground crews in Chechnya, or in various African conflicts the least. They also don't care about possible requirements of their potential customers (foremost the Chinese and Indians). All they wanted to see were manuals - especially those of US aircraft - or related reports about future developments. They wanted the most basic, as raw as possible, data about technical capabilities, so they could analyse them.

And, once they'd get these into their hands, they'd sit down and read them carefully, trying to find out what are the Americans fielding. Then they'd do their best to develop things that is either a) better (in sence of being larger/faster/reaching further), b) more powerfull (in sence of having longer range, more power output etc.), or c) could successfully counter US or European systems in their fields.

That should be the main driving power behind their development.

Interestingly, the Russians were also working very little on tactics or finding out best ways how to deploy these systems in (potential) combat. This was what the Chinese were doing. The attache explained how once they've got two highly-qualified Chinese Su-27-pilots as guests (for a month or so at least), to work with them on some system he wouldn't go into any details about, and how these supposedly were true experts in US equipment, tactics and operational thinking. So much so, the Russians were completely surprised by sheer amount of knowledge and what kind of things these two Chinese did know (but the Russians didn't know).

So, interestingly, one does not get to hear much about Russians teaching anybody on EW/ECM-deployment, but others - especially the Chinese and the Ukrainians (or their Israeli counterparts) - doing this.

Just wonder how PLA is able to know that amount of detailed stuff about US avionics and weapons systems...?

Perhaps they have some little tweety birds quietly sitting in some important ROCAF offices...

Originally Posted by unknauthr

I thought that those AESA radars were supposed to solve everything . . .

I don't think this should come as any real surprise.

To stay ahead the USN must continually upgrade its aircraft, especially radar and computer systems. The rapid advances in electronics today reminds me of the rapid advances in guns and armour at the beginning of the last century. If a country sits still its "latest and greatest" will soon be outmatched.

Cheers

Originally Posted by unknauthr

According to this week's issue of Aviation Week, the US Navy is seeking to upgrade its Super Hornets with an IR imaging sensor similar to that found in many Russian and European fighters (4 June 2007 issue, page 30).

What's perhaps most interesting is the rationale provided for this addition: to provide an additional sensor suite that would not be susceptible to Chinese jamming:

"Although the service has been upgrading the fighter's radar, and the latest version (the APG-79 with active electronically scanned array) should have enhanced ability to nullify hostile jamming, Navy officials are worried about the proliferation of X-band electronic countermeasures systems, which could degrade radar performance. In particular, China's expansive spending on electronic warfare equipment is being carefully monitored. The service fears this build-up could compromise their own freedom to operate in the Pacific."

I thought that those AESA radars were supposed to solve everything . . .

"In particular, China's expansive spending on electronic warfare equipment is being carefully monitored. The service fears this build-up could compromise their own freedom to operate in the Pacific" so basically now The United States will have a harder time spying on China. hmmmm.....am i correct?

Here's something from the opposite end... analyst recommends slashing the F-35 program because China's strategic depth is "too deep" for short-legged strike aircraft:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...s100012388.php

Originally Posted by adeptitus

Here's something from the opposite end... analyst recommends slashing the F-35 program because China's strategic depth is "too deep" for short-legged strike aircraft:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...s100012388.php

That can't be true, I thought the F-35 had longer range than the F-16, I read that web site and they say the Air Force should buy only 880 F-35's and than buy 880 Block 60 F-16's. But the F-35 has longer range and is stealthy and can carry far more weapons than the F-16. I read that the F-35 can carry 10 air to air missiles or 4 air to air missiles and 6 two thousand pound bombs.

Well that depends, with full external fuel load, two Sidewinderes and two Mk84, the F-16s combat radius is quoted as some 1.300km. This is not a great load of course and range shrinks with a better loadout.
The F-35 is quoted around 1.100km. I'm not shure but I think it's in a clean config. With external tanks, it's weapon carrying capability of course shrinks and it compromises stealth.
With the SDB, it's strike capability will get better.
But a true long range fighter/striker is somethink different, IMO.
And if you consider China as a potential threat, it's strategic depth and width make such an oppinian as in adeptius' link perhaps understanable.

Originally Posted by unknauthr

According to this week's issue of Aviation Week, the US Navy is seeking to upgrade its Super Hornets with an IR imaging sensor similar to that found in many Russian and European fighters (4 June 2007 issue, page 30).

What's perhaps most interesting is the rationale provided for this addition: to provide an additional sensor suite that would not be susceptible to Chinese jamming:

"Although the service has been upgrading the fighter's radar, and the latest version (the APG-79 with active electronically scanned array) should have enhanced ability to nullify hostile jamming, Navy officials are worried about the proliferation of X-band electronic countermeasures systems, which could degrade radar performance. In particular, China's expansive spending on electronic warfare equipment is being carefully monitored. The service fears this build-up could compromise their own freedom to operate in the Pacific."

I thought that those AESA radars were supposed to solve everything . . .

It just goes to show the new military equipments the United States is getting is not to fight terrorism but to stay ahead of China. They would never use advanced systems like the F-22 to fight terrorists, because that's just overkill. In any case, all the rhetoric you hear about the global war on terror is actually to unite all countries together against a common enemy (terrorism), so in essence, United States and China are allies.