Sunday, March 02, 2014

F-35. The Navy's plan is beginning to crystallize.



via Chicago Tribune.
He said the Navy and the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office were "very seriously" studying the need for more electronic attack capability, and Boeing could eventually land 50 to 100 more Growler orders.
&
But others say the Navy remains skeptical about the carrier variant of the F-35, which is due to start sea trials this summer. The Navy plans to defer orders for four F-35s in fiscal 2015, and a total of 33 jets over the five-year planning period that runs through fiscal 2019, said one source familiar with the plans.
Yep.

This issue is starting to crystallize.  How does the Navy convince the US Congress that it needs to maintain F-18 production?

You go after the holy grail.  You talk electronic warfare!

That bugaboo that is only discussed in closed sessions...that expertise that the USAF long abandoned but has been proven necessary in every air campaign...

And the fact that electronic warfare has evolved into electronic attack is sauce for the goose.

The Navy is looking to bail and the EA-18G is the plane that will give them the soft landing they're looking for.

8 comments :

  1. Somehow I don't see it happening.

    If the Pentagon's that worried about electronic warfare, they're simply going to sink more money into developing the Next Generation Jammer. Something that can (supposedly) be used by the F-35, and possibly other fighters, like the Strike Eagle.

    If there's one thing the Pentagon has demonstrated, is that they have NO PROBLEM ditching the tried and true in favor of the new, complicated, and expensive. All in the interest of "preparing for future threats" of course. The fact that it keeps the LockMarts and Raytheons in the world fat on R&D dollars is purely coincidental, I'm sure. It's not like those companies ever give cushy jobs to former military decision makers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boeing is preparing to slow production down and hopefully extend the line out to mid-2017 to give themselves time to get more orders if the USN can't get anymore. We'll find out tomorrow I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. They can't even finish the F-35C. To talk about a F-35E is almost a joke. The Growler is a proven and complete Electronic attack platform, double crue, and much more than just a jammer carrier.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Growler approach is an excellent by the Navy. They get more bang for their buck, while extending the Super Hornet line allowing more block iii upgrades to come into service.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Putting the next generation jammer on the F-35 "Albino Elephant" utterly defeats the purpose of stealth.

    You can't emit and be stealthy at the same time. Anti radiation missiles home in on emitters. So what you need in a top end jamming platform is agility, combination of active/passive countermeasures, and speed, all areas where the ASH beats the F-35.

    The EA-18G pushed the performance from the ALQ-99 pods beyond what the highly capable EA-6B could. And in sensor warfare, jamming beats stealth because now you can fill the sky with cheaper aircraft carrying more ordnance than fewer aircraft who can't emit and have to rely on intel feeds or passive sensors.

    And as far as the Next Generation Jammer goes, it will be platform independent, but still the aircraft that can produce the most power will get to jam the most. The ASH is the right platform for jamming, the F-35 is not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By keeping the Super Hornet line extended along with a push for more ASH growlers, this will also make the adoption of conformal fuel tanks, and conformal weapons pods for the entire fleet of Super Hornets more capable and relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If they built 100 more Growlers and transform the rest of their Super Hornets in to the advanced version, they will have a combined force of 600 unstoppable day one attack fighters for the price of few new F-35C. The USAF and the Marines will have to spend a fortune to have something similar.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQZBDVmuH1M
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7RQ50gwFY

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.