Jump to content

USN trying to decide on more Growler


Recommended Posts

How the heck did that happen and where is the money coming from? At the expense of other Navy programs or from a separate source?

Just to be clear, are some/all of these from previous contracts that are just being finalized or are they truly new purchases?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The USAF weighs in, shockingly they say the Growler is not as important as the Boeing Navy says:

The other side of the cyber conflict is what is usually called electronic warfare, though separating cyber and electronic warfare becomes awfully difficult in the F-35. The AESA radar plays a prominent role in this arena too, allowing sharply controlled and directed energy attacks against enemy planes, surface to air radar and other targets.

While Growlers, Boeing’s EA-18G, have extremely powerful, broadband jamming capabilities, the F-35′s combination of stealth and highly specific electronic beams is a better combination, Hostage tells me during the interview.

“If you can get in close, you don’t need Growler-type power. If you’re stealthy enough that they can’t do anything about it and you can get in close, it doesn’t take a huge amount of power to have the effect you need to have,” he says.

One of the keys to spoofing is, I’ve heard from several operators, being careful to avoid overwhelming the enemy with high-power jamming. That’s another problem with the Growler approach.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,’” Hostage says.

Much of this electronic warfare, as well as the F-35′s intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) capabilities, are made possible by a core processor that can perform more than one trillion operations per second. This allows the highly classified electronic warfare suite made by BAE Systems to identify enemy radar and electronic warfare emissions and, as happens with the EOTS, recommend to the pilot which target to attack and whether he should use either kinetic or electronic means to destroy it.

In our interview, Gen. Hostage points to the plane’s ability to gather enormous amounts of data, comb through it and very rapidly and simply present the pilot with clear choices as a key to its success....

First, let’s tackle the standard arguments offered by F-35 critics, especially Growler-builder Boeing and its surrogates. The Growler, officially designated as the E/A-18G, is an advanced electronic warfare version of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Boeing, some Navy experts, and others point to the F-117 shoot-down over Serbia and to the F-35′s “targeted” electronic warfare capabilities and argue that the Growler’s broadband, high-powered jamming make it a natural partner for the “vulnerable” JSF as it goes to war.

The F-35′s jamming isn’t powerful enough and only works as one is flying forward, they say, while the Growler can blanket an enemy’s systems and the back-seater can adjust the Growler’s jamming with more finesse. For example, if an enemy radar is changing frequencies, the Growler can react faster and more effectively because the weapons officer in the back seat can adjust the electronic warfare response. Boeing and other Growler advocates say the F-35′s reliance on a data “library” to make recommendations to the pilot leave it less responsive.

Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. ”We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”

Growlers are not front-line aircraft for the first week of war, Hostage argues. They will be useful against a high-end opponent for the same reason that other fourth-generation aircraft such as F-15s and F-16s will be: for “volume” in the face of superior enemy numbers....

Stealth Is Not Invisibility

“But in the first moments of a conflict I’m not sending Growlers or F-16s or F-15Es anywhere close to that environment, so now I’m going to have to put my fifth gen in there and that’s where that radar cross-section and the exchange of the kill chain is so critical. You’re not going to get a Growler close up to help in the first hours and days of the conflict, so I’m going to be relying on that stealth to open the door,” Hostage says.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/gen-mike-hostage-on-the-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/

This is LONG and best read at the source, I parsed some here but it really needs to be read in its entirety

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hostage labels as “old think” those critics who point to the F-117 shoot-down and the presumed supremacy of high-powered electronic-magnetic warfare. ”We have one F-117 shot down in 78 days of flying over that country, thousands of sorties. They shot down one airplane,” Hostage says. “And they shot down one airplane because we flew across the same spot on the ground for weeks at a time. It took them multiple weeks to figure out how to shoot the thing. Then they had to get four or five systems to do it. It took them weeks to take it out. I can accept that kind of attrition rate. I obviously don’t want to lose anyone, but good Lord, one airplane over the course of 78 days, that’s pretty impressive.”

That's all well and good to minimize the loss of that F-117 but what Gen Hostage seems to have forgotten was that the -117 was lost to a 2nd-world country using weapons and radars that were (at the time) 20 years old. How well would the USAF have fared if the bad guys were using SA-300s instead? I wonder if the good General would have felt the loss rate in this scenario would have been equally "impressive".

Also, am I forgetting my history or did the USAF not also lose a couple of F-16's to Yugo SAM's during that conflict?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe NATO a/c were flying somewhat similar routes repeatedly and the Serbs set a trap and waited for a/c to fly directly overhead.

When a formation of F-16s flew directly overhead they launched two SAMs with one SAM scoring a direct hit on Scott O'Grady's F-16.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[

[

That's all well and good to minimize the loss of that F-117 but what Gen Hostage seems to have forgotten was that the -117 was lost to a 2nd-world country using weapons and radars that were (at the time) 20 years old. How well would the USAF have fared if the bad guys were using SA-300s instead? I wonder if the good General would have felt the loss rate in this scenario would have been equally "impressive".

I think he explained the rather unique nature of the shoot down and the kind of effort that went into shooting a single aircraft down... which is what you want believe it or not. Throwing large portions of your force to shoot down a single aircraft while other aircraft have free reign to bomb the beejesus out of you is just fine with me. what the General is trying to say (I believe) is that one loss of a stealth aircraft doesn't spell obsolescence to the concept of stealth which what people try to spin it as. espeically when you are looking at the number of sorties flown vs loss.

I see your point though, We should probably retire the F-117s (keep the A-10s though-- they'll be fine)

Also, am I forgetting my history or did the USAF not also lose a couple of F-16's to Yugo SAM's during that conflict?

He is talking about stealth aircraft, and the need for EW for it. Its not a secret that Legacy airplanes require EW, going back to Vietnam. :deadhorse1:

O' grady was shot down in 1996, Stealth fighter lost in 1999.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point though, We should probably retire the F-117s (keep the A-10s though-- they'll be fine)

O' grady was shot down in 1996, Stealth fighter lost in 1999.

??? I was more trying to point out that the good General seems incredibly optimistic about the ability to the F-35 to single-handedly jam their way through anything the bad guys can throw up at them. It's interesting to see the differences between the USAF and the USN on this subject. Apparently the USAF doesn't have any concerns while the USN appears to be hedging their bets just a bit. Maybe the USN is just a pawn of Boeings or maybe they have a more realistic view of what it will take to survive against a tech-savy foe?

Regarding losses from Kosovo, I believe another USAF F-16 was shot down during Allied Force. I wasn't counting O'Grady's earlier shootdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

??? I was more trying to point out that the good General seems incredibly optimistic about the ability to the F-35 to single-handedly jam their way through anything the bad guys can throw up at them.

I wonder why a guy with access to all the classified data who heads the USAF Air Combat Command would come to that conclusion?

probably saw it on a fortune cookie, and just ran with it.

It's interesting to see the differences between the USAF and the USN on this subject. Apparently the USAF doesn't have any concerns while the USN appears to be hedging their bets just a bit.

You really need to read the entire article John, the question isn't about stealth =yes/electronic warfare= no. Its a debate about the trade offs, and what each service feels will be more effective EW in the future. For example the USAF is trying to make the point that just slamming the battlefield with electronics can get in your own way of more precise jamming and spoofing techniques while also pointing out that the Growler may not be something that can be thrown at the tippy point of the spear. In fact Hostage flat out says he wouldn't send it.

Maybe the USN is just a pawn of Boeings or maybe they have a more realistic view of what it will take to survive against a tech-savy foe?

Or maybe they don't? Maybe you should read the article? If you already did, then read it again. They have a different view, maybe the USAFs view is more realistic/modern? Maybe throwing a heavier, modified super hornet with fat pods on toed out pylons deep into the fray isn't realistic and the F-35s end up on their own anyway and the USAF is planning on that?

Its not one or the other. its complex, and the USAF has a different view than the navy. (stop if me if you've heard this one.)

Been eating a lot of red meat lately? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why a guy with access to all the classified data who heads the USAF Air Combat Command would come to that conclusion?

As opposed to all those admirals with access to presumably the same classified data and who apparently have come to quite a different conclusion?

No time to elaborate, my filet is cookin' on the grill...

Bon appetit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to all those admirals with access to presumably the same classified data and who apparently have come to quite a different conclusion?

Keeping in mind:

the US Navy is the US service buying the fewest amount of F-35s, plans on keeping the Gen. 4.5 Super Hornet around for the foreseeable future, and as we have established the Super Hornet is not an F-35, and does not have the same advanced EW capabilities, thus requiring Growlers in order to keep a large portion of their airwing, thus carriers relevant.

Boeing/USN was smart enough to take a shot at the F-35 saying it needed growlers, thus making it a USMC and USAF issue as well while pissing LM off to no end, and it preserved the Super Hornet's marketing because you don't want "balnaced survivablity" to become "oh you have to buy our Growlers too or its toast in the future, this isn't an F-35 after all"

So the USMC and USAF are saying "The F-35 can handle itself and we are going full on replacement" And the Navy is saying "We had better keep the Super Hornets relevant or we are boned, as we are only getting 260 JSFs"

I hope you are sitting down for this: The services are not in agreement. and the service with the Jamming aircraft and no stealth aircraft wants more jammers, and the service with the stealth aircraft and no jammers wants more stealth aircraft. In other news Democrats and Republicans agree that "something must be done" disagree, on what that "something" should be. news at 11.

No time to elaborate, my filet is cookin' on the grill...

I'm jelly :thumbsup:/>

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The U.S. House today approved the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill on a bipartisan vote of 340-73.

http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=385289

The bill would buy 12 Boeing EA-18Gs next year, overturning the Pentagon’s decision to mothball the production line.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-house-approves-defence-spending-bill-blocks-a-10-400655/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 8 months later...

It is not the end of story after adding 15 more Growler in the 2015 defense budget.

U.S. Navy opens door to more orders of Boeing jets

Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert told reporters after a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on defense that the Navy faced possible fighter jet shortfalls on its aircraft carriers next decade when most older model F/A-18s will be retired but the Navy will still be buying newer F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

The Navy is also starting to work with Boeing on refurbishing existing jets to improve the current availability rate of the aircraft, which has sunk to around 50 percent, he said.

Greenert told the committee the Navy had enough EA-18G electronic attack jets after Congress funded 15 more of the planes in fiscal 2015, but he said a Pentagon-wide study could result in possible additional sales to other military services.

It is no surprise that the Navy is thinking more E/F Super Hornet (fighter shortage after 2020). That will go away fast if Lockheed Martin can bring the F-35C cost to what they promised and demonstrate a combat ready rate matching the Super Hornet. But those are big "IF's".

What is surprising is that Greenert mentioned "possible additional (Growler) sales to other military services". Did the USAF change their thinking about the need of broadband jammer aircraft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should open their minds beyond the "Alpha Strike" and Schweinfurt raid mentality. The F-35, it's EW capability and the E/A-18G are apples/oranges.

F-35: Signature control and on board EW are meant to extend the life of the airframe in order to do what it needs to do. Think about the mission sets the services are saying they are doing that require the "special" capabilities of that aircraft; LO and EW just buy one time to do what they need to do...hang out in an area long enough and you'll get caught by the vaunted SA-gazillions that Sweetman and his cult worship. In the Gen Hostage comments, that's what he's saying - using a F-35 like they plan to in an environment that is non-survivable for a F-16/15/18 the Growler doesn't do much to help them.

Growler: Bringing your EA as -5 of the strike package went away a while ago. As a previous poster pointed out (and see my F-35 comments above) modern GEN strike aircraft are pretty good at taking care of themselves when used properly. What the Growler brings is the ability to characterize and prepare the battle space to enable the strike assets and "others" (from ships to grunts) to operate. This takes persistence (not just tanker-to-IP-Target-Egress-Slay DLI-Tanker)and in a large part feeds the EW planning that enables success. A great example to chew on is why have we continuously had "EA" assets operating in area's with zero air-to-air and surface-to-air threat for the last 13 years? Also in the EW field, size of our aperture does matter - hence the difference in capabilities between an F, EA and an EP/RC. Sometimes you need a bigger antenna.

HTH

Sponge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Navy, OSD study on EW

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work is overseeing a study of electronic warfare requirements across the entire military. Since the Growler carries the primary jammer for all four services, that study has particular significance for the Navy, which is worried it won’t have enough jamming capacity.

The Navy likes this two-pronged, two-plane approach. Unlike the Air Force, which has bet everything on the F-35’s ability to do both physical and electronic attacks, the Navy prefers to keep building specialized fighters like the Super Hornet and specialized jammers like the Growler.

A formation made purely of F-35s may be able to protect itself electronically, Greenert said, but that doesn’t mean F-35s can adequately protect other aircraft. While the Air Force believes the F-35’s combination of stealth and electronic warfare capability are superior to the Growler for the first days of a major war, the Navy thinks that such a high-intensity, high-tech fight is precisely where dedicated jamming aircraft will be most needed.

“When [F-35] goes out unto itself…they’re fine on electronic attack,” Greenert told reporters after today’s hearing. “When they gather together in a package” — that is, multiple types of aircraft, stealthy and unstealthy, operating together — and you need broader electronic warfare/electronic attack/suppression, then… the pods on the Growlers, they can expand that beyond what an individual F-35 will do.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...