U.S. Raytheon’s new avionics shield boosts survivability for Navy F/A-18s fighter jets
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
RTX confirmed its advanced electronic warfare prototype for the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet cleared a key software and hardware integration review on Sept. 22. The milestone matters because it underpins the jet’s survivability against modern radars and missiles.
On September 22, 2025, U.S. company RTX published a release saying that its Advanced Electronic Warfare prototype for the Super Hornet cleared a key review focused on software maturity, integration with flight-representative hardware, and alignment with a government reference architecture. The U.S. Navy still leans heavily on the Super Hornet for strike and fleet defense, and its survivability in dense radar environments depends on what sits in the electronic warfare bay. In simple terms, this is the jet’s shield. It listens for threat radars, decides what they are, then jams or deceives them so a missile never gets a clean look.
Follow Army Recognition on Google News at this link
RTX’s new Advanced Electronic Warfare system for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has cleared a key review, paving the way for prototype testing. The upgrade aims to replace legacy jammers and decoys with faster, modular defenses to keep the Navy’s frontline strike fighter survivable against evolving radar and missile threats (Picture source: U.S. DoW).
The new suite is expected to replace or absorb functions long handled by the aircraft’s Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures architecture. On the current E and F models, that architecture typically combines a radar warning receiver, an onboard jammer from the AN/ALQ-214 family, expendable countermeasures, and a fiber-optic towed decoy known as ALE-55. Over the years, these pieces evolved through multiple blocks as threats improved, with the jammer and decoy working in tandem. The towed decoy acts like a bright lure, hanging aft on a long fiber while it imitates the aircraft’s radar signature. The onboard jammer then floods a missile seeker with the right kind of confusion. ADVEW, as RTX brands the new system, is meant to take over this job set with faster signal processing and a design that welcomes tech insertions rather than resists them.
The review centered on software maturity and its integration on flight-representative hardware. RTX also highlighted a Test Plan Working Group, a coordination step that matters later when government testers grade detection ranges, reaction times, and endgame effectiveness. The process is simple: mature the software in the lab, deliver prototype shipsets, then march into government integration testing with the instrumentation ready to capture results.
The value proposition is about speed, agility, and openness. Modern threat radars are not static, they hop frequencies, shift pulse patterns, and cooperate across a network. To counter that, a self-protection suite needs wide instantaneous bandwidth, agile receivers, and classification algorithms that can make an initial decision fast and refine it on the fly. RTX says the prototype aligns to a government reference architecture. It means the avionics suite is a modular, open-systems approach that allows the Navy to slot in new digital receivers, different exciter or amplifier modules, or a refreshed decoy interface without deeply modifying the aircraft.
The hardware picture is still guarded, as expected at this stage, but some features are safe hypothesis for a modern suite. It is expected to be have a digital radio frequency memory techniques for coherent deception, a rapid geolocation and sorting of multiple emitters with improved sensitivity to low probability of intercept waveforms and also the ability to coordinate effects with an attached towed decoy so the jet can manage its own signature. The path likely includes hooks to talk with the aircraft’s mission computers and data links, because electronic protection works best when fused with the rest of the jet’s picture rather than acting in isolation. The U.S. Navy wants a defensive core that does not fall behind its sensors, weapons, and networks.
A Super Hornet executing a maritime strike or a suppression task will approach the envelope of modern integrated air defenses. The aircraft has to detect emitters quickly, classify them with enough confidence to act, then choose from a menu of options: jam, deceive, break lock or stay quiet and let the decoy flash bright at just the right moment. A more capable suite shortens the detect-identify-react loop and makes those choices more precise. In mixed strike packages, better self-protection reduces the burden on EA-18G Growlers. The escorts can concentrate on standoff effects and corridor opening instead of guarding every shooter at close range.
The Navy is keeping Block II Super Hornets in service longer and continues to bring Block III jets online with upgraded mission computers and networking features. A refreshed electronic warfare suite fits next to those upgrades and helps avoid a mismatch where the jet’s offensive and sensing gear leap ahead but its defensive shell lags behind. Partners will take notice, such as Kuwait and Australia, which operate Super Hornets or closely related types. A U.S. Navy validated replacement path for legacy components tends to become the default refresh option for foreign fleets that want to keep up with evolving threats without creating their own architecture.
In the Western Pacific, U.S. and allied aircraft face dense anti-access networks with overlapping surveillance and fire control radars. In Europe, Russia has adapted its air defense practices in war, and new emitters or tactics show up faster than peacetime cycles predicted. Maritime security missions from the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea now contend with cruise missile and one-way attack drone threats launched from shore or small vessels. In all of these scenarios, the Super Hornet is asked to show up and survive while larger next-generation air dominance programs mature. Incremental and open-architecture upgrades are the pragmatic bridge, allowing the current fleet to be credible. If the prototype continues to perform in government integration testing, the Navy will gain hard data on the system’s detection speed, classification accuracy, and endgame effectiveness against representative threats.
{loadposition bannertop}
{loadposition sidebarpub}
RTX confirmed its advanced electronic warfare prototype for the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet cleared a key software and hardware integration review on Sept. 22. The milestone matters because it underpins the jet’s survivability against modern radars and missiles.
On September 22, 2025, U.S. company RTX published a release saying that its Advanced Electronic Warfare prototype for the Super Hornet cleared a key review focused on software maturity, integration with flight-representative hardware, and alignment with a government reference architecture. The U.S. Navy still leans heavily on the Super Hornet for strike and fleet defense, and its survivability in dense radar environments depends on what sits in the electronic warfare bay. In simple terms, this is the jet’s shield. It listens for threat radars, decides what they are, then jams or deceives them so a missile never gets a clean look.
RTX’s new Advanced Electronic Warfare system for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has cleared a key review, paving the way for prototype testing. The upgrade aims to replace legacy jammers and decoys with faster, modular defenses to keep the Navy’s frontline strike fighter survivable against evolving radar and missile threats (Picture source: U.S. DoW).
The new suite is expected to replace or absorb functions long handled by the aircraft’s Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures architecture. On the current E and F models, that architecture typically combines a radar warning receiver, an onboard jammer from the AN/ALQ-214 family, expendable countermeasures, and a fiber-optic towed decoy known as ALE-55. Over the years, these pieces evolved through multiple blocks as threats improved, with the jammer and decoy working in tandem. The towed decoy acts like a bright lure, hanging aft on a long fiber while it imitates the aircraft’s radar signature. The onboard jammer then floods a missile seeker with the right kind of confusion. ADVEW, as RTX brands the new system, is meant to take over this job set with faster signal processing and a design that welcomes tech insertions rather than resists them.
The review centered on software maturity and its integration on flight-representative hardware. RTX also highlighted a Test Plan Working Group, a coordination step that matters later when government testers grade detection ranges, reaction times, and endgame effectiveness. The process is simple: mature the software in the lab, deliver prototype shipsets, then march into government integration testing with the instrumentation ready to capture results.
The value proposition is about speed, agility, and openness. Modern threat radars are not static, they hop frequencies, shift pulse patterns, and cooperate across a network. To counter that, a self-protection suite needs wide instantaneous bandwidth, agile receivers, and classification algorithms that can make an initial decision fast and refine it on the fly. RTX says the prototype aligns to a government reference architecture. It means the avionics suite is a modular, open-systems approach that allows the Navy to slot in new digital receivers, different exciter or amplifier modules, or a refreshed decoy interface without deeply modifying the aircraft.
The hardware picture is still guarded, as expected at this stage, but some features are safe hypothesis for a modern suite. It is expected to be have a digital radio frequency memory techniques for coherent deception, a rapid geolocation and sorting of multiple emitters with improved sensitivity to low probability of intercept waveforms and also the ability to coordinate effects with an attached towed decoy so the jet can manage its own signature. The path likely includes hooks to talk with the aircraft’s mission computers and data links, because electronic protection works best when fused with the rest of the jet’s picture rather than acting in isolation. The U.S. Navy wants a defensive core that does not fall behind its sensors, weapons, and networks.
A Super Hornet executing a maritime strike or a suppression task will approach the envelope of modern integrated air defenses. The aircraft has to detect emitters quickly, classify them with enough confidence to act, then choose from a menu of options: jam, deceive, break lock or stay quiet and let the decoy flash bright at just the right moment. A more capable suite shortens the detect-identify-react loop and makes those choices more precise. In mixed strike packages, better self-protection reduces the burden on EA-18G Growlers. The escorts can concentrate on standoff effects and corridor opening instead of guarding every shooter at close range.
The Navy is keeping Block II Super Hornets in service longer and continues to bring Block III jets online with upgraded mission computers and networking features. A refreshed electronic warfare suite fits next to those upgrades and helps avoid a mismatch where the jet’s offensive and sensing gear leap ahead but its defensive shell lags behind. Partners will take notice, such as Kuwait and Australia, which operate Super Hornets or closely related types. A U.S. Navy validated replacement path for legacy components tends to become the default refresh option for foreign fleets that want to keep up with evolving threats without creating their own architecture.
In the Western Pacific, U.S. and allied aircraft face dense anti-access networks with overlapping surveillance and fire control radars. In Europe, Russia has adapted its air defense practices in war, and new emitters or tactics show up faster than peacetime cycles predicted. Maritime security missions from the Red Sea to the Arabian Sea now contend with cruise missile and one-way attack drone threats launched from shore or small vessels. In all of these scenarios, the Super Hornet is asked to show up and survive while larger next-generation air dominance programs mature. Incremental and open-architecture upgrades are the pragmatic bridge, allowing the current fleet to be credible. If the prototype continues to perform in government integration testing, the Navy will gain hard data on the system’s detection speed, classification accuracy, and endgame effectiveness against representative threats.
