CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

[Mike]

CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
"The Defense Department's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is one of
three aircraft programs at the center of current debate over tactical
aviation, the others being the Air Force F-22A fighter and the Navy
F/A-18E/F fighter/attack plane," explains a newly updated Congressional
Research Service (CRS) report. "The JSF program is a major issue in
Congress because of concerns about its cost and budgetary impact,
effects on the defense industrial base, and implications for U.S.
national security in the early 21st century." Each of those matters is
explored by CRS in "F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program:
Background, Status, and Issues," updated June 2, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

See also "Proposed Termination of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F136
Alternate Engine," April 13, 2006:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf

[Henry J Cobb]

Mike wrote:
> CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

"In response to the Department of the Navy’s need to replace its aging
EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed
the development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF.
Dubbed the EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015,
according to industry representatives"

Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
speed and stealth?

-HJC

[Joe Delphi]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
> > CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
> > http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
>
> "In response to the Department of the Navy’s need to replace its aging
> EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed
> the development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF.
> Dubbed the EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015,
> according to industry representatives"
>
> Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
> speed and stealth?
>

I thought that Boeing was already under contract to develop the F/A-18G as a
replacement for the EA-6B.

With regards to your comment about speed and stealth - I think speed is
important because it necessary for the aircraft to keep up with other
aircraft while they are inbound or outbound from a strike. The stealth
aspect is not that important for an EW platform. With all of the electrons
that it radiates, attempting to disguise or hide it would probably cost more
money than it is worth.

JD

[Mike Kanze]

Opinion: I doubt that a sufficient number of EA-6Bs will hold together long enough for a 2015 EA-35B service introduction, at least not without massive $$-cost rebuilds.

--
Mike Kanze

"Don't make me come down there."

- God


"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message ...
Mike wrote:
> CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

"In response to the Department of the Navy's need to replace its aging
EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed
the development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF.
Dubbed the EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015,
according to industry representatives"

Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
speed and stealth?

-HJC

[Robert]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
>> http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
>

> __Navy’s__ need to replace its aging

> EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed the
> development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF. Dubbed the
> EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015, according to
> industry representatives"
>
> Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
> speed and stealth?

No, F-22's aren't carrier capably aircraft.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Henry J Cobb
> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
> > CRS VIEWS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
> > http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
>
> "In response to the Department of the Navy’s need to replace its aging
> EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed
> the development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF.
> Dubbed the EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015,
> according to industry representatives"
>
> Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
> speed and stealth?

Lockheed's wet dream.

No, the F-22 would NOT be a better platform.
Ponder for a second that this request is coming DoN, and the majority
of their aircraft have to land on a carrier.

LM has floated this idea solely as a gambit to counter the F/A-18G,
but the "G" is available now, not a decade from now.

If USN can't afford the "G" they certainly can't afford a mythical EF-35.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Joe Delphi]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>
> LM has floated this idea solely as a gambit to counter the F/A-18G,
> but the "G" is available now, not a decade from now.
>
> If USN can't afford the "G" they certainly can't afford a mythical EF-35.
>

Anyone know the projected first flight date of the F/A-18G ?

[Henry J Cobb]

Robert wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>>EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed the
>>development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF. Dubbed the
>>EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015, according to
>>industry representatives"
>>
>>Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
>>speed and stealth?
>
> No, F-22's aren't carrier capably aircraft.

The Air Force needs jammers also or they won't be able to operate their
stealth aircraft.

-HJC

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Henry J Cobb
> wrote:

> Robert wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> >>EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, Lockheed Martin has proposed the
> >>development of a two-seat electronic attack variant of the JSF. Dubbed the
> >>EA-35B, the aircraft could potentially be available by 2015, according to
> >>industry representatives"
> >>
> >>Wouldn't the F-22 be a much better platform for this with more power,
> >>speed and stealth?
> >
> > No, F-22's aren't carrier capably aircraft.
>
> The Air Force needs jammers also or they won't be able to operate their
> stealth aircraft.

Explain please how jammers are needed to operate stealth aircraft?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Henry J Cobb]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> Explain please how jammers are needed to operate stealth aircraft?

https://www.aef.org/magazine/Dec2004/1204electron.asp
In fact, the prospective threat shapes up as being so great that even
stealth aircraft usually will get jamming support.

-HJC

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Henry J Cobb
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > Explain please how jammers are needed to operate stealth aircraft?
>
> https://www.aef.org/magazine/Dec2004/1204electron.asp
> In fact, the prospective threat shapes up as being so great that even
> stealth aircraft usually will get jamming support.

That link does not work anymore.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Henry J Cobb
> wrote:

> Harry Andreas wrote:
> > Explain please how jammers are needed to operate stealth aircraft?
>
> https://www.aef.org/magazine/Dec2004/1204electron.asp
> In fact, the prospective threat shapes up as being so great that even
> stealth aircraft usually will get jamming support.

Your quote above (and it should have had quotation marks around it) ,
while in the article, was completely unsupported by facts, data, or analysis.

They also specifically said that jammers were not needed for stealth aircraft,
although they might be used by stealth aircraft in some cases.

Despite what they stated in that article, I wouldn't run off thinking that
stealth aircraft "need" jammers to operate, certainly not in the near or
middle future.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Henry J Cobb]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> Your quote above (and it should have had quotation marks around it) ,
> while in the article, was completely unsupported by facts, data, or analysis.
>
> They also specifically said that jammers were not needed for stealth aircraft,
> although they might be used by stealth aircraft in some cases.
>
> Despite what they stated in that article, I wouldn't run off thinking that
> stealth aircraft "need" jammers to operate, certainly not in the near or
> middle future.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2001/0601stealth.asp
>> A prominent criticism of both the F-117 and the B-2 in Kosovo
>> centered on the fact that, even though both were billed as radar
>> evaders, both types were supported by jamming aircraft. This was not
>> supposed to be necessary.
>>
>> Jumper said bluntly that the F-117s and B-2s "don't need escort
>> jammers." However, senior USAF officials acknowledge that the stealth
>> aircraft certainly did coordinate missions with jamming aircraft,
>> particularly the EA-6Bs operated jointly by the Air Force, Navy, and
>> Marine Corps, to increase the safety margin when attacking tough
>> targets.

-HJC

[Rolf T. Kappe]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 16:26:34 -0700, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

>
>Anyone know the projected first flight date of the F/A-18G ?
>
I think they are hoping for August.

--Rolf