Basically, as the title states the marines are upgradeing ALL of their c130s and intend to upgrade their V-22s to the Harvest HAWK standard.
This adds an EWAR pod and, more importantly, a sensor ball with laser designator. This will allow hellfires, and viper strikes (currently, in the future APKWS, basically guided hydra rockets), to be on the platform, allowing a right place right time instant strike, along with route recon.
The Tiger EWAR pod provides both defenseive and offensive jamming capabilities, and is integrated to units on the ground, allowing them to control it.
This is wonderful, as it adds gunship capabilities to both airframes, and allows massive mission flexibility. C-130 in the area? Can provide interm support until fast movers arrive. V-22s can soften up LZs on their own.
Linky: https://news.usni.org/2016/05/11/marines-to-add-harvest-hawk-weapons-package-to-entire-c-130j-v-22-fleets
>>29920635
Of course, even without the weapons the sensor ball and jammer is great to have for current missions. C-130 can get though hazardous landing conditions better and the V-22 can survey LZs.
They are also adding it to the Viper and Venom helicopters.
>>29920635
I thought the V-22 Osprey was being replaced by the one that looks like a black hawk, but VTOL and dosen't crash all the time?
>>29920715
Thats the blackhawk replacement. 2 different birds with 2 different (but simular) roles.
The V-22 is actually one of the safest airframes the marines inventory. You fell for meme.
>>29920635
It's worth noting that the Intrepid Tiger II jamming pod is purely an extremely directional communication jammer, at least in my understanding of it.
>>29920715
V-280?
I think that's only for the Army.
>>29920744
The II can be reprogrammed for other tertiary applications.
The ablity of a ground guy to open his channel, and his channel only for comms, at will, is huge.
>>29920715
That's for the Blackhawk and the program hasn't even been awarded.
>>29920635
What did the based alton brown tell us about unitaskers /k/? tsk tsk.
>>29920834
Wut.
>>29920778
I'm just saying, it's of somewhat limited use as a true electronic attack capability.
How much does it weigh? How many troops do they have to leave behind?
Does that constitute the whole payload for the V-22?
Anyways, arming cargo planes & tilt rotors is idiocy. They really shouldn't even exist.
>>29920860
How is being able to snoop on enemy comms, and then jam selective bands while not jamming friendly bands (while keeping the ablity to switch freqs on the fly as the enemy does) "limited"?
Thats a significant part of EWAR as a whole. About the only thing left past that is radar jamming.
>>29920878
It's not just radar jamming, although that is an extremely significant thing which cannot be understated, the system just doesn't have the sort of power to be used in as wide an area as you might desire. Just look at it, it's tiny.
>>29920866
The ball weighs around 280 pounds, the jammer somewhere around there, so pretty negligible.
www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-in-talks-to-expand-applications-for-its-hawkeye-143257/&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjgooq3ndTMAhXEz4MKHTTqB7cQFggbMAc&sig2=c6lnIPFZdqER3TdmNkXWXg&usg=AFQjCNFpYEhJ9p_9vG8mYE1r7f2Lnbo7xQ
How is recon and organic offensive weapons stupid?
>>29920895
>, although that is an extremely significant thing which cannot be understated
I think you are overstateing its importance in regards its role. You are essentially calling the compass call limited.
Its range is unknown, but there are versions the size of AIM-7 sparrow, which is not exactly a small missle. (12 foot long)
>>29920914
>I think you are overstateing its importance in regards its role.
Bullshit.
>You are essentially calling the compass call limited.
It is limited, however it provides a useful role. Even then, that's because the amount of area it can affect is far greater, thanks to the fact that there's simply more power available. I am literally saying that the Intrepid Tiger II is of limited use as a full jammer.
>Its range is unknown, but there are versions the size of AIM-7 sparrow, which is not exactly a small missle. (12 foot long)
I urge you to compare it to other jamming pods. Anon, the thing, as I've stated several times before, is extremely directional. Every publication states this. That is not to say it isn't very useful, but the fact of the matter is that there are limitations to its effectiveness as compared to larger systems.
>>29920969
>Bullshit.
Its litterally one aspect (out of many) of EWAR, its not everything.
>It is limited,
Wew lad, well you are certainly entitled to your opinon.
>I urge you to compare it to other jamming pods.
Litterally right at the same size as the AN/ALQ-99, which is an offensive radar jammer.
>>29920635
Marines want to have their own air force? USAF should look at this capabilities duplication and take command of this waste of resources :^)
>>29920992
>Its litterally one aspect (out of many) of EWAR, its not everything.
Just the lack of radar jamming makes it limited. You have to realize, limited does not necessarily mean bad, but the fact of the matter is that those limitations are in place. Further, all the literature out there states right there that it is a highly directional set. Given the size and shape of it and how jammers work, this makes complete sense.
>Litterally right at the same size as the AN/ALQ-99, which is an offensive radar jammer.
You need to get your eyes checked. Badly.
>>29920847
>F-35 is bad because multirole
>V-22 becomes multirole transport and strike craft therefore it is ...?
>>29921005
>Marines want to have their own air force?
Every day i say "yep, that is the most retarded, ignorant, and silly thing i will read all day".
Every day i am wrong.
>>29921009
>Just the lack of radar jamming makes it limited.
And the radar jammers (alq-99) is inversely limited due to being unable to jam certain freqs, and be programable on the fly, without degradeing friendly assets?
Further, all the literature out there states right there that it is a highly directional set.
Of course, that does not preclude omnidirectional operation.
>You need to get your eyes checked
No u, pic related.
Before you respond, make sure you post an ALQ-99 pod on a pylon.
>>29921013
>>F-35 is bad because multirole
>F-15, 16, 18, is bad because multirole
WEW LAD
E
W
L
A
D
>>29920635
Man, I can't wait until the valor 280 is in full production and is deployed and smakes the shit out of the osprey.
>>29921040
>is inversely limited due to being unable to jam certain freqs, and be programable on the fly, without degradeing friendly assets?
To an extent, yes. However, I would make the argument that the radar-jamming is more than worth it. Further, the NGJ is further supposed to be capable of being programmable on the fly, and being able to adapt on the fly to various pop up threats. I would be surprised if the technology to avoid friendly wavelengths is NOT included in it.
>Of course, that does not preclude omnidirectional operation.
First of all, essentially all jammers are directional. Second of all, with what has been said of it in the literature seems to imply this is to a far greater degree than with other systems. This is supported by the fact that the system is extremely small and lightweight, compared to other systems. There's a reason there's a very large aircraft (the EC-130H) is dedicated for that wide area communications jamming role.
>>29921073
You know you are essentially compareing a blackhawk to a chinook right?
Two entirely different airframes.
>>29921100
No, they are both supposed to be able to move a squad and their gear in and out of a hot zone
>>29921110
>No, they are both supposed to be able to move a squad
That's your problem. The V-22 carries multiple squads, faster, and farther.
>>29921097
>However, I would make the argument that the radar-jamming is more than worth it.
And if you dont want to jam yours, his, and everyones radar, but perform every single other elint task?
>First of all, essentially all jammers are directional.
False. The plain jane ALQ-99 IS NOT, only the ALQ-99F was (on the ef-111a) due to the fact that it had 10 jammers and a fucking dish in its weapons bay.
>This is supported by the fact that the system is extremely small and lightweight,
>After posting the pic
Well, again, you are certainly entitled to your opinon.
>>29921110
Yes, just like the chinook and blackhawk :^)
>>29921146
>And if you dont want to jam yours, his, and everyones radar
Then you offset him, so he's not flying directly behind you. That way, you achieve effects on target without him hitting you too badly.
>but perform every single other elint task?
COMINT at the most. The NGJ can cover the spectrum of ELINT, as well as other things.
>False
You straight up don't know how jammers work. Daily reminder that the AN/ALQ-99 has multiple directional antennae on it. That's unclassified information, buddy.
>Not noticing the significant height and width difference
Yeah, we're done here.
>>29921196
>Daily reminder that the AN/ALQ-99 has multiple directional antennae on it. That's unclassified information, buddy.
Not the pod system, friend. You again, think what was integrated into the EF-111A is standard, thats completly incorrect.
>Yeah, we're done here.
Indeed we are.
>>29921212
>Not the pod system, friend.
Mate.
>>29920635
So pretty much the marines want everything that the air force versions have...
Hell while they are at it, why not just BUY CV-22's instead of the MV-22s so that they can stop worrying about issues that pop up in one aircraft and not the other
-Pissed off V-22 FE
>>29921224
I want you to circle what you think the "jammer" is. Think REAL hard before you post the editied pic.
>>29920715
V-22 has the best safety record though
>>29921244
Depends on what you'd call the jammer. I'd say the entire thing is the jammer, as it's an entire system. If you're strictly speaking of the transmitter, the radome or the XMTR both have parts to play.
>>29921294
The radome (really any) is just a cover.
The XMTR is the transmitter. Its NOT directional.
The antenna on the bottom is for reciving and direction/range finding of external hostile signals.
>>29921310
You ever read up on how to do jamming?
>>29921364
Honestly, have you?
You seem to think all jammers are equal in capability, hell, that all the alq-99 systems are.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>>29921405
>You seem to think all jammers are equal in capability, hell, that all the alq-99 systems are.
What? I've specifically been saying that they aren't. What the hell gave you that impression?
I ask because you seem to completely fail to realize that you CAN use radar jamming against targets without jamming your comrades. I even mentioned how to do it earlier.
>>29921421
> I've specifically been saying that they aren't.
>"First of all, essentially all jammers are directional."
You sure?
You turn on the 99 you are fucking yourself, your friends, and the enemy.
Even the AESA on the growlers is degraded by it.
>>29921444
>You sure?
First of all, that's not anywhere near saying that. Second of all, it's still true. Why is it that you can have a jammer offset from your forces, turn it on, and have it heavily degrade the enemy while having very little effects on the forces you are supporting? Why is that proper jammer usage?
>You turn on the 99 you are fucking yourself, your friends, and the enemy.
SEE ABOVE, YA DAFT CUNT.
>>29921457
>. Why is it that you can have a jammer offset from your forces
You mean move it far away from friendly forces and it effects it less?
Well no shit. Its still omidirectional.
>>29921469
Look, if you look at how they're actually used, you see that the jammer is closer to the friendlies than it is to the foes. Just admit you haven't the faintest clue of how jamming is done in real life.
>>29921531
>Look, if you look at how they're actually used, you see that the jammer is closer to the friendlies than it is to the foes.
To other weasels performing SEAD? Yes, but they are launching HARMS.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the 99 is omnidirectional.
>>29921545
>To other weasels performing SEAD?
Not just that. You do the same thing against fighters.
>You are completely ignoring the fact that the 99 is omnidirectional.
You're overlooking the fact that actual usage illustrates that while there is certainly an omnidirectional component, maximum effect is in a cone in front of them.
>>29921556
>You do the same thing against fighters.
The ALQ-99 is not really deployed against air assets.
>You're overlooking the fact that actual usage illustrates that while there is certainly an omnidirectional component, maximum effect is in a cone in front of them.
Thats more due to the internal workings of the system, than anything. The best effect is directly underneath the airframe. Above it is worse.
Again, that has zero to do with the transmitter, and everything to do with equipment/the plane in front of the trasmitter and degradeing it.
>>29921744
>The ALQ-99 is not really deployed against air assets.
If you hadn't noticed, that's because there has been next to no fighting against enemy air assets.
>Thats more due to the internal workings of the system, than anything.
Well yes, they'd designed in such a way that they can do best in a cone in front of them. That's the entire point in their design.
Wait I don't get it. A laser designator is attached to aircraft that don't have the missile system for it. So who's firing the missile?
And if it's a separate dedicated attack aircraft wouldn't it already be in range with its own sensor equipment anyways?
>>29921955
If the asset can target for another asset which carries the missiles, that's good. But they're putting weapons on the first assets as well. Apparently they had guys on the ground lazing targets for bombs literally tossed out the back of V-22s. This allows the V-22, and Huey, and even the C-130s to self target for their own weaponry. This is especially good with the advent of APKWS, which is just about the perfect CAS munition.
>>29921955
>A laser designator is attached to aircraft that don't have the missile system for it.
For the C-130? (or the V-22)?
Viper strike, my man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-44/B_Viper_Strike
Its been around, already integrated into current harvest hawks.
>>29922040
They can carry (or at least will at some point) a far greater variety of munitions.
>>29922058
Well yes, but specifically for the laser designator, thats what its for (for now).
>>29920866
>the AC-130 shouldn't exist
Topkek friendo.
