via Reuters.
Nov 15 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is looking at possible additional orders of Boeing Co's EA-18G electronic attack planes, or Growlers, as it shapes its fiscal 2016 budget request, the Navy's top uniformed officer said Saturday.Keep an eye on this one.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said the Navy was reviewing its inventory of tactical aircraft, including Growlers and strike fighters, to ensure its electronic attack needs were met.
Congress, responding to an "unfunded priority" list submitted by the Navy earlier this year, is poised to approve orders of 12 more EA-18G Growlers in the fiscal 2015 budget, which will help Boeing extend the production line for the jets in St. Louis through 2017.
The Navy had not requested funding for the jets in its fiscal 2015 budget, but did add 22 EA-18G jets to its unfunded priorities list.
Greenert did not comment specifically on whether the Navy would request funding for the jets in its fiscal 2016 core budget, or a new unfunded priorities list, but said the Navy's electronic attack capabilities were being evaluated as part of the overall tactical aircraft budget.
"Before we close the books and call it quits on Growlers, we want to make sure we've got the electronic attack right," Greenert said.
The USMC has a carrier mission and is part of the US Navy's electronic attack capabilities. Additionally the cost of the F-35C is prohibitive and the USMC will not be able to abandon the effort like the USAF has.
Long story short? I have no visibility on inside Navy/Marine discussions but it would not surprise me to see a squadron or two of Growlers with USMC decals on the side.
Sidenote: Greenert is a slick son of a bitch. He's inching his way toward the Advanced Super Hornet and at the same time emphasizing his philosophy....payloads over platforms...add to it the budget deficit, the need to increase ship building, the delayed maintenance on ships we have, the need to replace the current ballistic missile subs and the idea that the USMC needs more amphibs and you have the perfect scenario for Super Hornets forever.
Sidenote 1: There must be some fascinating developments in Electronic Attack. The only Squadrons that are increasing in size are those involved in this field. How the USMC and USAF can continue to ignore this area when the US Navy appears to be all in, is beyond me. The most interesting part of this? The Russians appear to be following the Navy's lead and are satisfied with partial stealth...with an emphasis on payloads!
The USMC was given all the EA-6B "Prowlers" in the Naval inventory. Lower cost to fly and maintain, keeps the Electronic Attack USMC core competency alive while the Navy argues for a Growler pure EA solution later on to upgrade the USMC EA capabilities and provide a common platform between the services. That's my guess anyways.
ReplyDeletehttp://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-navys-ea-6b-prowler-completes-its-final-carrier-cru-1659101419
It is only speculation that the Prowler flew cover for the Raptor during the initial air strikes in Syria, but given what I know about Syrian ADA assets, a Prowler would be very capable against the hodgepodge of European, Chinese, and Russian tech the Syrians have.
But, for those Old Crows out there, the Growler is an extremely capable platform, and the NGJ system should be intentionally designed to not have full capabilities on the older EA-6B aircraft (power generation limitations).
I know the Super Hornet can be "cabled up" to become dual-purpose, i. e. primary role is traditional fighter/attack but secondary role as the Growler. So the question is USMC trying to buy as many Growlers as a hedge against F-35? Meaning, when USMC need more airframes, strip out the Growler component and you've got a SH ready to do combat (instead of electronic warfare).
ReplyDeleteJudging in the past few purchases or wish-list, 12 Growlers isn't much, ain't it?
The Navy is trying to keep the Super Hornet line open to 2017 to give them options, whether it be F-35C or ASH. The cost of F-35C needs to be drastically decreased before the Navy can afford 260 of them. My view is that it won't happen, and the Navy will reduce its F-35C buy to one squadron per CVW. That leaves the door open to some flavor of ASH, and whatever N-UCAS becomes. N-UCAS is very attractive because you don't have to buy as many as a manned platform (no training backend / FRS workup) - you simply rotate the air vehicles to whatever carrier is deploying. Infinitely cheaper than F-35C, with better range and payload.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I'm saying, Charley. Navy brass can't openly say "we want to buy 24 Super Hornet" because someone might say "no you won't. You'll buy F-35C". So, instead Navy says "we want to buy 24 Growlers" and (in later date) strip out the Growler components and add in SH/ASH components.
DeleteRussia made a version of the Su-30MKM Flanker outfitted with wingtip jamming pods and the SAP-14 standoff jammer (the Russian equivalent to the ALQ-99). Malaysian blogs are calling it the "Growlerski."
ReplyDeleteSupposedly India is looking at buying the this same outfit for their Su-30MKI Flankers: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/8276-sukhoi-pak-fa-fgfa-fifth-generation-fighter-aircraft-121.html
Admiral Greenert is a boss. He knows what's up and knows what he's doing. Glad to have him as the CNO.
I couldn't agree more with your thoughts on this. It would be an act of insanity to let the Super Hornet go out of production. Qatar and Kuwait are both in the market for new fighters. If Obama had half a brain he would twist their arms to buy 60 or so each and keep the factory open into the early 2020s.
ReplyDeleteAn act of insanity to let both the Super Hornet and Eagle lines go out of production. The USAF should be rebuilding some of their EW capability. As per the "Commanche and the Abatross", by Lt Col. Pietrucha USAF, the USAF should be procuring 60 F-15G Wild Weasel variants. This along with more USN Growler purchases would at least keep the lines open through the 2020s while things get sorted out.
Deleteis it possible to turn a F35 airframe into electronic warfare aircraft ? yes the stealth willl be compromised by all the radiation and the jammers blasting full bore, but at lease it is a far more modern platform than F18
ReplyDeleteIn theory yes, but placing all of those tasks on a single pilot is a big job. A two-seater F-35 is not out of the question but we won't be seeing it anytime soon, the priorities for the aircraft are elsewhere.
DeleteSpeaking of EW warfare, have someone on Facebook that swears this is true, even after a few of us tried to explain to her all the reasons we believe it's BS:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html
The EA-18G will be very useful to all services as long as NGJ is successful. On the downside the airframe doesn't have particularly great range or loiter capability, making it more useful as an escort jammer instead of being used in a more stand-off role. The EA-6B and the EF-111A both had the endurance to be on station for long periods of time and I don't see how the EA-18G could match that. Improvements are possible however, the Navy should seriously consider upgrading the EA-18Gs with CFTs, improved engines, and other features Boeing is offering for F/A-18 family.
ReplyDeleteThe USAF needs to get back in the jamming business too with their own aircraft. Perhaps an EF-15?
Oh and this "cost of the F-35C is prohibitive" stuff is tiring at best. The Navy is going to have to deal with some on their decks despite how much it will pain those poor pilots forced to fly a state of the art VLO fighter with excellent sensors and performance at least on par with the F/A-18.
ReplyDeleteIs it the aircraft the Navy should have gotten? No, but that aircraft isn't anywhere in sight, so they'll make do as they've done with the Super Hornet.
Except it isn't on-par with the F18 in many things, manoeuvrability for instance, reliability, I mean even ignoring its safety record it is clear a single engine plane is less safe.
DeleteSafety record? One engine failure in 20,000+ flight hours? Not exactly a record. That won't even be a risk for the engines in the F-35C by the time the aircraft reaches IOC with the Navy. The Navy also used to operate single engine aircraft in the past such as the A-7 Corsair II or the F-8 Crusader.
DeleteWhere did you hear this claim about maneuverability? High AoA testing isn't complete on the F-35 but it has already showed great performance in that area. The F-35C has poor acceleration compared to the F-35A and F-35B but it still matches a "clean" (no pylons or external fuel tanks) F/A-18E.
If the Navy was as savvy as they claim they would have torn up the TAMP the day after it was written.
ReplyDeleteAs is, we will have full-function nuclear carriers in the Nimitz Class (far better shape than the Kitty Hawks) as Fords come online and yet we will be /retiring/ those CVNs in favor of more...LHA-6.
Derp.
With no well deck on the first hull, and _no big helicopters_, the America can accommodate, maybe, 25 F-35B. A little more than half the airwing strength of the CVN-68 class which is itself operating at less than half strength overall (40 vice 85 airframes).
In order to retain functionality in the true Marine missions of embassy rescue, SPOD capture and humanitarian crap (OCO), we will have to have two gator freighters, only one of which is going to be capable of deploying enough air to maybe hold a FORCAP and escort a couple STOM Osprey.
But only if we tie up most of the CVN-68 class at dockside and shift to a six-deck surge force of real carriers, a decade after the last CNO promised 'never again' would there be a Gapped ocean basis when we needed real power projection in a hurry.
The F-35B itself will be operating at less than 14,000lb fuel state in most hot and high environments (perversely, this includes high humidity sea level conditions in the SWAPR areas) which, together with the .9lb/lb/hr F135 TSFC (the F402-RR-408 is a mouse wheel driving a windmill and thus has superb efficiencies at lower Mach points) means that you will be _lucky_ to get a 250nm combat radius from the aircraft. Add in 'principle external ordnance carriage' (500lbs per activated pylon station) to, get this, 'save weight' and the F-35B will never come close to the 460nm promised radius /or/ the 'joint' operations condition which the F-35 was supposedly designed around.
Now, with that as a given, the Marines have only a cobbled together system for gas pass out the back of the V-22 (low and slow, right were you don't wanna be), no AEW&C, no EWF (even as a preprogrammed pod like the Kaiman) and no COD (because the Osprey is not capable of carrying half the F-35B widgets and spares, let alone a full engine, from anything like the distance that the S-3 and C-2 could).
It's a racket I tell you. And if the economy implodes, the Marines will NOT be getting any of it.
DeleteWhereas, if they operated the F-35C, they would be stuck being the Navy's RAG which they desperately don't want to be.
Indeed, the whole push for becoming this nation's third air force (more F-35B and Navy F-35C, by 2:1) is quite simply the Marines were canny enough to realize that no ground war = no money. And airpower sucks down a lot of bucks as the romantic vision of U.S. military projection.
Again, if Greenert were all that and the chips, he would be looking at dropping the FBM requirement or at least merging it with a much smaller loadout on a modified Virginia. He would be TELLING the Marines to look at Nimitz class decks as a better solution (JBD and skiramps, forward, helo spots aft = concurrent flight ops, much bigger hangar and potentially retention of a single EML for every support mission in a USN airwing 'as needed' rather than through internal development).
Assuming the Corps just /have to have/ the Bumbled-Bee.
And begin to look seriously at cost trades (number of shots taken to reduce GBAD) for missiles over Airpower. Not just because lasers and hunting weapons are the future of Air Defense. But because I frankly don't see us replacing the Nimitz completely with Fords.
In a crisis mode of trying to save a company from bankruptcy or selloff after hostile takeover, you adopt a policy of 'from three, ditch two, keep one' as a core business capability which you believe has the most applicable merit to the economic situation at hand. Greenert needs to start planning for a similar crash-neckdown situation if the dollar fails.
The JSF as a whole is the obvious 1.5 T-rillion dollar target, the loss of any one variant element of which will cause the program to death spiral out on costs. Big Decks are the next obvious 'high value = low presence' option though you can put them into intermittent training cruise (partial mothball) condition with rotating crews if need be.
A huge sub fleet is only useful if it comes with a dominant first day of war strike mission to essentially bypass most of the air and missile ICD. Otherwise, the existing threat ASW requirement for which the SSN fleet is sustained is just not there and particularly 'Win-Hold-Win', likely will not be to the extent that we need a huge Atlantic = land based SWA -and- Pacific = SWAPR Air Sea force.
The SSBN only needs stay if it is combined with a drawdown of half the landbased force (dual replacement = 200 land + 50 sea in a common missile) with a return to primary MIRV carriage. If Ohio replacement is to be guaranteed, then it should be with a conventional SSGN role, out of box. Using High Speed Strike Weapons (Mach 8 to 800nm) and C-SLBMs (Mach 15 to 2,500nm) as alternatives to Brown Shoe navy commitments.
Otherwise, develop the fatbelly insert for Virginia and alternate cruises with 2-4 SLBM or 24+ next-gen cruise (HSSW still seems like a good, TCT reactive, idea here but C-SLBM may not be practical).
The Spartans had a saying: "Never fight the same enemy too many summers in a row, lest you teach them how to best beat you."
We need to seriously rethink the naval forces as both strategic and tactical warfighters because too much 'synergy' of layered approach has made the current system too dependent on multiservice 'jointness' of operations (tanking, strategic bombardment, ISR etc.) and is unaffordable on it's own.
M&S
DeleteThat sounds like you know a lot about real world fuel burn on a aircraft.
Don't suppose you blog yourself do you?
The Marines are planning to add a second crew station to the F-35B? To hang some jammers is not a big deal, to flight, fight and jamm several radars, communications and improvised devices is a different story for a solitary pilot flying during 10 hours missions.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way an F-35 could do the same job as a Growler.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UN5zeDpFtA8/SZcXkaq9YNI/AAAAAAAAARI/n522hkol70o/s400/Super+Hornet+Rear+seat+-+Cockpit.JPG
In my opinion, it would be further prudent for USN to contemplate supplemental F-18E/F buys (via, unfunded priority) in FY16, as stopgap to augment increasing capability gaps created by delayed and uncertain F-35C procurement and operational worthiness. As reported, USN leadership has cautioned that much heavy-lifting is yet to be completed in testing and evaluation of the F-35C's software and performance. And all assumptions remain that operational F-35C units being delivered in 2018-2020, e.g., will be significantly more affordable than current FY14-FY15 buys. Those assumptions should be be re-evaluated as highly uncertain with still no evidence pointing to that reality (forward estimates being miscalculated continuously since production started).
ReplyDeleteBesides, early delivered operational LRIP F-35C block 3F will not be able to employ even half the different munitions able to be taken into actual combat by F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets! That's a further loss of capability to the already unexpected capability-gap created thus far, by USN staying the course on the unsustainable F-35C acquisition process.
USN: should in my opinion make decisive re-evaluation and decide to acquire both EA-18G + F-18E/F ASH-lite-roadmap Supers in FY16 and FY17 per strategic stopgap and hedge. Go from there according to evolving requirements and acquisition strategies, as potential alternative-plans/restructurings/contingencies become better assessed.
USMC: consider FY16 F-18 ASH-lite roadmap buys as stopgap and hedge in the interim against uncertain and unreliable F-35B acquisition process. Also, augment with modified A-29 (single and twin-seat) Super Tucano with LHD/LHA operation capability -- similar to how Skyraider was employed by USMC on smaller Essex class flat decks. Complement with mix of new class UCAV/UAS per revised recap strategy as solution to delayed and uncertain F-35B needing to replace geriatric, uncertain and retiring Harrier B and F-18A/B/C/D, ASAP.
Hey, sol, Israel is looking at halving it's order of F-35s: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/israel-halve-second-order-f-102844483.html
ReplyDeleteWhenever someone says "stealthy jammer" i laugh. You can't have a stealthy jammer. You can have stealthy emitter using frequency hopping and directional antenna shaping for low probability of intercept, but jammers have to pour out the power on specific frequencies.
ReplyDeleteEver wonder why the F117 was never used as an Electronic Attack Platform? Why no one is talking about strapping jamming pods to the F-22? Why no one is talking about putting a broadcast radio station in the belly of a B2 for IO broadcasts? It is because those ideas are fracking stupid, just as stupid as slapping jammers on an F-35.
And before someone says, "Stealth planes don't need jammers." Let me tell you that grunts on the ground do need jammers. The Army couldn't get enough support from the USMC, Navy, and USAF combined in Afghanistan and resorted to creating our own airborne EA platforms, CEASER and NERO platforms. Whatever the battlefields of the future are in the sky, on the ground there will only be more demand for Electronic Attack.
Even if the F35 could do everything they claim, we should never put all our procurement in one basket. If the EA-18 goes out of production we will have ONE fighter manufacturer....a monopoly. Those aren't great things. In WW2 we had Thunderbolts, Mustangs, Corsairs, Wildcats, and Lightnings all rolling off the assembly lines at the same time.
ReplyDeleteEver since the worst SecDef ever-MacNamara--tried first shoving the F111 (good bomber, pathetic fighter), then the F-4 (which was great but not very manuevarible) as a single answer we've kept trying to cut it down to a single source supplier. Stupid. We should be encouraging multiple manufacturers. Every plane has advantages and disadvantages, with variety we can make up for deficiencies. I'd even entertain the idea of making Griffin's under liscence here. And if the Chinese can reverse-engineer the -35 and make a copy close enough for Lockheed to sue, then anybody should be able to make one.