Its time to think about the unthinkable.
Should the US Navy release the USMC from its carrier obligation?
I don't mean it to say that Marine pilots and crews won't be part of the carrier compliment...just that they'll fly and work on NAVY aircraft.
Why even contemplate this?
Well its simple. The Navy is migrating away from the EA-6B toward the EA-18G. The USMC is not. The Navy is flying the FA-18E/F. The USMC is not. The USMC is all in on the F-35B/C. The US Navy is not.
Quite honestly the Navy might benefit from the pilots and the maintenance personnel that comes with the attached squadrons but they see diminished returns once you factor in dissimilar aircraft and their supply needs.
Fewer aircraft carriers plays a role too.
Not as many flat tops need to be filled.
Does the USMC get anything out of this? Not sure. I do know that if we have designated squadrons to go aboard carrier and everyone else isn't that our pilots will be able to focus more closely on the close air support mission....fleet defense will be an add on to the their training syllabus, not something that is primary.
We'll see. One thing is certain. If the Wing is going to become "primary" in the USMC then we need to twist it, turn it and bend it toward the needs of the USMC.
If they want to be a "joint" enabler then they need to detach from the Marines and become part of the USAF.
In the Electronic Warfare World we expect the EA-6B to be cut for budgeting purposes. It is an old airframe, and even with the upgrades to the elctronic warfare systems it is not as capable as the Growler.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side of that, the EA-6B is already paid for, and works "good enough" for supporting ground troops in contact, so it is a cheaper solution than going with the EA-18 Growler across the board. However if the USMC can retire the EA-6B and transition to the Growler, it would be the best case solution for Boeing and the Navy. It would also simplify the logistics by providing a commong airframe between.
But it will cost the USMC money, unless the Navy picks up the bill. But last I checked the USMC wasn't all that concerned about Airborne Electronic Attack as a core competency of the USMC. So expect the Prowler to be put on the sacrificial alter for the F-35 over a smarter decision.
well you're reading me. the Prowler is being retired in the USMC to justify the F-35 and the electronic warfare mission is as much about ground forces as it is about air forces.
Deletei'm seeing a bunch of capability that allowed the MEU and the Marine Corps to fight and win on the modern battlefield being tossed away and the emphasis turning to pure air missions.
that is bothering me A LOT!
There are plans to mount Intrepid Tiger II onto the F-35 at some point - that will bring a comms jamming capability for the ground force. It's an attractive option for the USMC because the cost to integrate it into the airframe is minimal since all the aircraft has to to is to provide power - the techniques are controlled from a ground station. But it's not a wideband solution like the Prowler or the Growler, and the F-35 is not currently slated to receive the NGJ, unlike the Growler.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNo one in their right mind thinks mounting a communications jammer on a stealth aircraft is a good idea. When you emit you can't hide. When you hide, you can't emit. Putting a narrowband jammer on an F-35 gives you a very expensive toy that is less capable than CEASAR (ALQ-99s on an RC-12 airframe) or NERO (UAV with jamming pods) which is also operated from the ground.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is the real kicker, the F-35 doesn't produce as much power as the EA-18G. More power means more signal means better jamming. This is one of the reasons why the Growler is a much better jamming platform than the Prowler despite using the same jamming pods.
The "Electronic Warfare" systems on board the F-35 "Albino Elephant" will be solely for the aircraft survival. Trying to turn it into a true AEA platform like the Growler will only leave it floundering in the "multi-role all things to everybody" fiasco that happened with the F-111, which was the last jet fighter that the Air Farce turned into an Air EA platform.
AM the electronic warfare systems on the F-35 Lightning II are primarily for self defense similar to the EW gear on the F-15 or F-22 but "cooperative EW" is also listed as a function and the EW suite can work in concert with the AESA radar.
ReplyDeleteDue to size and having only a single pilot the F-35 doesn't make an ideal platform for a dedicated jammer aircraft. Yet the EA-18G isn't perfect either due to limitations on range and how long it can loiter. Hopefully they'll upgrade them with CFTs and more powerful engines in the near future.
The EA-18G's long term prospects rely on the Next Generation Jammer being a success. Hopefully NGJ technology can also be spun off onto other systems like pods to replace the ALQ-131 and ALQ-184 which are often used by aircraft without internal EW equipment or aircraft flying high risk missions like SEAD.
The EF-111A was a good aircraft. It was one of the few jamming platforms that could fly at supersonic speeds unlike the EA-6B or EA-18G. It's shameful that they USAF retired it without replacement.
NukeFromOrbit, if we are talking a flying array of aircraft working together through data links to spoof enemy radar as the future of AEA, we are falling into the trap of focusing on radar. Comms EA in support of boots on the ground has been the #1 mission for all Air EA platforms in the past decade.
ReplyDeleteIf we want to talk about a stealthy fighter actively jamming an enemy radar, you have to admit that it is painting itself as a becon for RF homing missiles. You can't jam and hide at the same time, heck you can't even turn on your RADAR and hide at the same time. Passive sensors are the future of the battlefield, and frequency hopping digitally controlled antenna arrays are damn near impossible to spoof even using DFRM jammers from aircraft, so you have to shoot missiles at them to destroy them so they can't provide situational awareness.
And you don't need stealth for any of those missions. We've done it with drones, decoys, and combinations of Apaches flying below the radar horizon to fire Hellfires followed by "wild weasel" type fixed wing missions. Every time someone says that "we need this platform to do X mission" they are falling into the "silver bullet theory of warfare" which is pure wishful thinking.
You don't need the "silver bullet" right weapon system. You need the correct mix of capabilities to accomplish the mission. And we need to seriously have that conversation about what the F-35 Albino Elephant brings to the mix, because right now it isn't bringing anything new to the table. From the "M16 sucks, X weapon is better!" fanboys to the "Non-LOS" cannon program, you have to look at what bang you are getting for the buck, and how those toys will interact with the rest of the inventory.