The Growler is said to be a full-spectrum jammer while the same cannot be said of the Rafale. Although the Rafale did contain AESA jammers internally for a long while up until the recent jammer pod that has been delivered which now contains AESA jamming for the Growler.
I’m not sure what MAWS/HMD has to do with jamming.
As you can see here, F-35 has no egress jamming capability, thus is not all-aspect like the Growler.
That’s a really old graphic, and it’s pretty clear they show the F-35 only using it’s own radar to jam
Is there anything stating that since 2014, the F-35 has had full-aspect jamming capability? I’m not aware of that being one of the upgrades. Also, if they were only showing radar jamming then why is the growler also jamming in rear-aspect?
They were only showing it for the F-35, Growler is clearly shown to be using it’s specialized pods in this graphic since thats the whole point of having Growlers, while F-35 doesn’t have jammer pods like ALQ-99
Either the Boeing presentation was dishonest, or all-aspect broadband protection does not equate to all-aspect jamming like you may think it does.
Both definitions by AI pretty much say that all aspect jamming is a part of all aspect broadband protection
No, what they’re saying is that having 360 RWR and 360 MAWS (for example) is enough to qualify as all-aspect broadband protection even if you don’t have 360 degree jamming. If you have a way to detect and counter threats from all directions, such as 360 degree RWR and then using chaff, that qualifies as all-aspect broadband protection.
no it very much is saying that broadband includes jamming, not that it matters much because AI definitions are not at all a trustworthy source
Boeing has only a little of connection to F-35, if does?
That isn’t what is said. Look closely, “defensive coverage from all aspects” “defensive capabilities that can detect and counter threats from any direction”. That is a far cry from all-aspect jamming.
They’re selling the growler so yes there’s some incentive to downplay the F-35’s capabilities but I would not say that they would go so far as to outright lie here.
Here’s the original link to the presentation: Wayback Machine
they arent lying about radar + jammer pod (which F-35 doesnt have) EW capacity. APG-81 is X band and front facing
This is a presentation that Boeing was making to convince officials that stealth will matter less and jamming will be a more prevalent factor in the emerging battlespace (buy more of our Growler and less F-35s!). Makes no sense not to include all jamming capabilities in this context when comparing the Growler and F-35. Nothing in the presentation, which I’ve linked above, says that it is only looking at radar + jammer pod.
Nice drawing, not how defensive flood jammers work.
As already stated, the likes of the AN/ALQ-131 simply create a ball of what can be called “fuzz” around the aircraft.
The F-35 and Growler sport directional ECM systems and can beam specific radar contacts as well as preform flood jamming.
Your presentation is exclusively showcasing offensive jamming systems, not defensive systems which are standard across most aircraft today, there is no reason to market the likes of standard flood ECM as it is and has been standard on almost all military aircraft since Vietnam in NATO service, its not a feature, its presence is a baseline expectation.
On the flip side, fighters have not had directional offensive jammers as a standard, it being a feature on the F-35 is a new component and the newer AN/ALQ defensive pods are also working to integrate such features as well.
The F-35’s MAW is part of the ASQ-239, and as quartas has already stated, it provides 360 degree coverage.
The F-35’s look through system is provided by the ASQ-239, it being able to provide a view through the entire aircraft proves that the system does indeed provide 360 degree coverage.
AIM-9X, AIM-120’s and HARM.
Isn’t F-35 MAW one of the functions of the DAS? It’s all connected through sensor fusion but ASQ-239 isn’t responsible for actually detecting missiles through IR/UV
Yep, its all part of the defensive system set onboard.
The ASQ-239 itself is what would be called said defensive system as it is the system that sports the main countermeasure control computer, the AN/AAQ-37 DAS plugs into that.
Without the ASQ-239 the DAS would only be a fancy means to look through the aircraft as the 239 is the brains of the defensive systems onboard.
Italy has a dedicated version of the Tornado — the ECR.
The related suggestion was submitted in June:
As for the protection pod, while the German Tornado used the Cerberus II and the British one used the Sky Shadow, the EL/73 pod for the Italian Tornado was integrated into the airframe from the beginning. This is why Italian Tornados fly with two boz, whereas the British and German ones use one pylon for the ECM pod. The Italian Tornado’s countermeasure suite is built directly into the airframe, saving one pylon.
In short, and somewhat surprisingly, the Italian IDS’s electronic suite is superior to its contemporary British and German counterparts.
Here’s a photo of the prototype during testing of the EL/73 pod.
