ARH AAMs vs VLO Aircraft

[gf0012-aust]

(Talking wrt long wavelength RF imaging for terminal guidance)



Hi @gf0012-aust -- Is it ok for you to name what that system is w/c is being tested for long wavelength RF imaging terminal guidance? Would you also know what freq band they're using? Thanks.

unfort not in a position to expand. CREF my old crow comment

 

[r3mu511]

(Talking wrt long wavelength RF imaging for terminal guidance)

unfort not in a position to expand. CREF my old crow comment

Ah ok, understand, thanks anyway.

 

[Boagrius]

fundamentally yes, we haven't really even hit the capability of active management of the platform - what we do at the moment is that we actively manage the environment - there is a subtle but distinct difference.

at the risk of flogging the horse beyond recovery, when all your "objects" within the track management operating picture are all eyed and eared up - even if its discretionary to only specific nodes, then that operating picture ball (not just the bubble) brings in a whole new definition and appreciation of managing the noise transmitted, received and detected within that sphere.

"Stealth" isn't dead. VLO platforms won't die, they will evolve as the environment ebbs and flows in its own point in time sophistication level

for me its not about one door closing and another opening - signals and signature management is a complex beast where there are no clear gates to open or close.

its kind of similar to labels applied to 4th, 5th and 6th generation combat aircraft - there is a blurring of capability even though those platforms have common tech features.

there is no binary transition - hence why a lot of combat systems are evolutionary, its why you have block releases etc....

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I find it just astonishing how far from reality the public, Hollywood influenced perception of air warfare is likely to be.

So very much seems to centre on the ability to dominate the EM spectrum/battle for information via systems whose function and performance is a guarded secret. Makes a total mockery of certain "journalists" who base their often bold views on what publically available info they have access to.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the comprehensive response. I find it just astonishing how far from reality the public, Hollywood influenced perception of air warfare is likely to be.

I won't name the capability - but the other day I saw this "breathless" report on some technology - the implication was that they were discussing some bright brand new capability

I had a private chuckle as I first saw that capability 8 years ago - and the vendor had only just exposed it to a few NATO partners - and the US services had been using it for a few years prior to that

so this journo was getting all bright eyed and breathless over a tech that was over 10 years old - its just that no one in uniform or in industry had ever discussed the capability in the open (because you don't)

The recent debate around subs by the media was another example where they would write pages of nonsense about capabilities which they clearly did not comprehend but had been fed some key words which they then proceeded to turn into printed alphabet soup.

I am still yet to see a local industry journalist or broadsheet defence journo who understands what JSF and Growler bring to the table. I've yet to see any article published in Oz which demonstrates an understanding of why nations get subs - and why Oz needs subs

its no wonder the general public trot out half arsed letters to the editor if the information sources they use are woefully deficient

 

[Boagrius]

I won't name the capability - but the other day I saw this "breathless" report on some technology - the implication was that they were discussing some bright brand new capability

I had a private chuckle as I first saw that capability 8 years ago - and the vendor had only just exposed it to a few NATO partners - and the US services had been using it for a few years prior to that

so this journo was getting all bright eyed and breathless over a tech that was over 10 years old - its just that no one in uniform or in industry had ever discussed the capability in the open (because you don't)

The recent debate around subs by the media was another example where they would write pages of nonsense about capabilities which they clearly did not comprehend but had been fed some key words which they then proceeded to turn into printed alphabet soup.

I am still yet to see a local industry journalist or broadsheet defence journo who understands what JSF and Growler bring to the table. I've yet to see any article published in Oz which demonstrates an understanding of why nations get subs - and why Oz needs subs

its no wonder the general public trot out half arsed letters to the editor if the information sources they use are woefully deficient

I can only imagine. Even as a civvie I find myself regularly gobsmacked at the audacity of the claims made publicly about various capabilities from individuals with no more expertise on the matter than myself (cref none). Gotta make $$ I guess...

 

[r3mu511]

I won't name the capability - but the other day I saw this "breathless" report on some technology - the implication was that they were discussing some bright brand new capability

I had a private chuckle as I first saw that capability 8 years ago - and the vendor had only just exposed it to a few NATO partners - and the US services had been using it for a few years prior to that

so this journo was getting all bright eyed and breathless over a tech that was over 10 years old
...

Sounds like a similar case to the current media coverage/hype over NIFC-CA, built on top of CEC, w/c JHU APL was already working on for the USN way back in the 90s, and already featured the "new" capabilities like plot data integration (as opposed to just track data sharing like in the older NTDS), forward-pass weapon engagements. etc.