Jump to content

USN trying to decide on more Growler


Recommended Posts

New Growler construction may depend on upcoming Navy exercise

The Navy’s Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group will conduct three days of exercises to see whether eight Growlers on an aircraft carrier — rather than the five currently assigned — would provide better support for attacks from fighter jets and ground forces.

Navy Vice Adm. Paul Grosklags told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee this month that the Navy is trying to determine whether to ask for the additional 22 aircraft, based on future needs, because Boeing was nearing the “end of the production line” of the planes already approved.

Grosklags, who is the head of research, development and acquisitions for the Navy, said a study last year showed that “the ability to increase the number of aircraft in one of our carrier air wings deployed on the carrier from five to seven represents a significant improvement in capability not only in defending the carrier, but also supporting our strike packages as they go forward over the beach.”

After the upcoming carrier exercise testing of the coordination and performance of eight Growlers on the Carl Vinson, the results will be combined with the “paper analysis,” and the Navy “will see if the two line up,” Grosklags said.

“Ideally, they will, and then we’ll have to come back to Congress and have that discussion” about future funding, he said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I know the Navy, I would say you're absolutely correct.

I'd say they should, just budget for them, since IIRC the Growlers are also, needed to run ECM for the USAF strike packages in such cases, since the Raven's have been retired to the Boneyard, with no replacement, unless they depend on the stealth of the Lightning II :whistle: , to cancel the need for a dedicated ECM aircraft, and we all know how long that lead balloon is going to float. Maybe they could have the USAF order some Growlers with USAF specs, but what would they change...eliminate the bar for the shuttle, take out the wing folds. Look how well the Phantom and Corsairs worked..so why not, Unless they want to convert some Vipers into EF-16D's :woot.gif:

Edited by #1 Greywolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say they should, just budget for them, since IIRC the Growlers are also, needed to run ECM for the USAF strike packages in such cases, since the Raven's have been retired to the Boneyard, with no replacement, unless they depend on the stealth of the Lightning II :whistle:/> , to cancel the need for a dedicated ECM aircraft, and we all know how long that lead balloon is going to float. Maybe they could have the USAF order some Growlers with USAF specs, but what would they change...eliminate the bar for the shuttle, take out the wing folds. Look how well the Phantom and Corsairs worked..so why not, Unless they want to convert some Vipers into EF-16D's :woot.gif:/>

Uhh the key to the future awesomeness of the Growler is the Next Generation Jamming pod in development now. The USMC already has plans to put NGJs on its F-35s (I read about this in my 2007 USMC systems and program book way back when). So claiming that you need a Growler to do jamming with these pods, is a bit dodgy. Once the F-35 gets that capability, there is no reason to buy a whole new aircraft type just to jam.

Assuming the US government does all the leg work to get the pods certed for the JSF, all the other JSF countries and services can just buy the pods outright and get all the benefits without having to buy a separate aircraft type. in 6 or 7 years when F-35s are flying with NGJs its going to seem kind of odd that one service insisted buying Growler and tried to paint it as the only platform that could perform the mission.

according to Raytheon they plan on making the pod availiable to more aircraft than just the Growler. Thats called smart business considering the Growler is only operated by the USN and RAAF. the difference between selling hundreds of pods and thousands

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh the key to the future awesomeness of the Growler is the Next Generation Jamming pod in development now. The USMC already has plans to put NGJs on its F-35s (I read about this in my 2007 USMC systems and program book way back when). So claiming that you need a Growler to do jamming with these pods, is a bit dodgy. Once the F-35 gets that capability, there is no reason to buy a whole new aircraft type just to jam.

Assuming the US government does all the leg work to get the pods certed for the JSF, all the other JSF countries and services can just buy the pods outright and get all the benefits without having to buy a separate aircraft type. in 6 or 7 years when F-35s are flying with NGJs its going to seem kind of odd that one service insisted buying Growler and tried to paint it as the only platform that could perform the mission.

according to Raytheon they plan on making the pod availiable to more aircraft than just the Growler. Thats called smart business considering the Growler is only operated by the USN and RAAF. the difference between selling hundreds of pods and thousands

Last I heard NGJ was not exactly running on time / budget. Given current fiscal issues, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that these things will survive the budget axe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if pods are needed for effective jamming, does that also mean said pods being hung on pylons too?

And if that is correct does that mean compromising stealth capability as well blink.gif ?

Like I've stated, this apparent overlook of needing serious ECM just seems either suspicious or possibly evidence of short-sightedness/incompetence.

I have blind faith and hope it's just budget maneuvering/jockeying rather than the above mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I heard NGJ was not exactly running on time / budget. Given current fiscal issues, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that these things will survive the budget axe.

Might be time to re-exam the Growler purchase then.

So if pods are needed for effective jamming, does that also mean said pods being hung on pylons too?

And if that is correct does that mean compromising stealth capability as well blink.gif ?

facepalm.gif

Like I've stated, this apparent overlook of needing serious ECM just seems either suspicious or possibly evidence of short-sightedness/incompetence.

It hasn't been overlooked. An F-35 stealth or not is going to have a massive advantage in EW capability just coming off the assembly line compared to the teen series planes it is replacing, and the plan even years ago was USMC would retain its EW capability, just like it has with the Prowlers-- using NGJs on F-35s. So the capability would be retained.

We aren't debating about whether EW stays or goes, it just how many Growlers we will be getting to do it along with when the F-35 gets it too

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say they should, just budget for them, since IIRC the Growlers are also, needed to run ECM for the USAF strike packages in such cases, since the Raven's have been retired to the Boneyard, with no replacement, unless they depend on the stealth of the Lightning II

I always find it odd to see this statement so widely proliferated. This isn't how we fight anymore....there are not "USAF strike packages" and "USN strike packages." The JFACC owns all airpower not retained for USN CVN defense or USMC organic force support. And in both of those cases, any excess sorties are usually chopped to the JFACC for employment. So the Growlers provide the EW support to JFACC MAAP (Master Air Attack Plan) ATO fragged sorties, which are put together typically by a Mission Planning Cell/Center at an AOC. There are LNOs from all services and force providers at the AOC to help this process and ensure the right capabilities are in the mission package to support the desired objectives.

This is how Joint warfighting is accomplished. I realize in Desert Storm we still had USN and USAF strike packages, but we've come a long way since then. We still have a ways to go, and it would be nice to eliminate redundant capabilities...it would allow us to be more efficient and avoid wasting precious acquisition dollars on replicating other service capabilities.

*BREAK*

Something I think a lot of folks are missing is the evolution of capabilities in modern sensors and systems. Modern electronic warning systems are much more capable, and far more fully integrated into an aircraft's tactical systems. We no longer need dedicated operators to manually listen to a signal and classify it based on how it "sounds." Fully automated systems can sniff a wide range of frequencies, identify them, catalog them, and display the relevant prioritized systems to the aircrew. They can also automatically select a tailored, optimized counter-signal as desired. Modern AESA radars are inherently able to operate across a much wider range of frequencies, with much higher power and greater frequency agility, allowing them to provide significantly greater jamming capability than some of the old school, externally carried pods.

In short, with modern computing systems, radar warning systems, and AESA radars, practically EVERY aircraft in the fight has the theoretical ability to provide part of the jamming solution. Most of the time, the only limit is the processing power and what's coded on the jet in question. In many ways, this makes the EWO's job more difficult, because he has to carefully synchronize those effects vs. the threat array, ensure we're not wasting excess trons jamming the same threats with too many assets, and ensure we're achieving desired electronic effects on the adversary IADS. He also needs to ensure we're not self-spamming, and shutting down portions of the friendly electronic spectrum which are required for our own operations, or actually cancelling our own desired effects out through misapplication of EA from platform to platform. The EW guys' job has gotten a lot harder, it just requires more pre-mission planning and less of the "in cockpit" interpretation and art (although that is still definitely required, and thorough knowledge of exactly WHAT the automated systems are doing is priceless).

A good EA planner is better than gold. A bad one can seriously hurt the entire strike planning's efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K.; I give up.

How does this response suppose to inform those who don't know the answer?

I asked a question because I don't know the answer. This kind of condescending response is not very helpful.

If one of the F-35s is jamming the beejesus out of the enemy systems its stealth even if slightly compromised more than makes up for it. Imagine an invisible man holding a flash bang grenade. Yes you can see the grenade moving toward you, but then its thrown at you and you are blinded. You never saw the man, barely detected the grenade but then it went off in your face and blinded you anyway. And once again an F-35 will always be more stealthy with pylons than an Super hornet/growler with pylons.

So compromising stealth and a small number of aircraft is a slightly small price to pay for the jamming mission the USN/Boeing (included the two here because the USN's pitch was essentially parroting Boeing talking points that were presented to the Navy earlier) they say is so critical. and that they are now "experimenting with" in the OPs article there. This is one of those funny cases where we drew the conclusion first, and are now running the experiment. I bet we come up with "proof" that supports the foregone conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if pods are needed for effective jamming, does that also mean said pods being hung on pylons too?

And if that is correct does that mean compromising stealth capability as well blink.gif ?

Like I've stated, this apparent overlook of needing serious ECM just seems either suspicious or possibly evidence of short-sightedness/incompetence.

I have blind faith and hope it's just budget maneuvering/jockeying rather than the above mentioned.

To answer your question flat-out. YES, the NGJ will be a pod-mounted system, like the current AN/ALQ-99's are.

Here's a Wikipedia article about it. I know Wiki isn't the greatest, but it does talk about AESA capability like Waco suggested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Jammer

Aaron

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if pods are needed for effective jamming, does that also mean said pods being hung on pylons too?

And if that is correct does that mean compromising stealth capability as well blink.gif ?

Yes, the F-35 cannot be stealth and carry the jammer at the same time. The old EA-6B carries up to 5 AN/ALQ-99 jammer on pylons. There was plan for 5 NGJ's on a single EA-18G too. And this thing is HUGE. The USN and Marine both understand that it makes no sense to use the F-35 for this.

No plans to build F-35 EW variant

“The airplane (F-35B) itself … with the AESA radar and sensors and information sharing capability is a pretty significant EW platform right now,” said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos at a roundtable meeting with reporters in the Pentagon Aug. 23 (2012).

Amos said he didn’t see any reason the F-35 couldn’t carry these pods too.

“I don’t see that there’s a need right now to segregate the F-35B aside and then say ok now we’re going to apply an EW capability on this thing so let’s generate a program and pile that cost on top of that. I don’t think there’s a requirement to do that right now,” Amos said.

Now, it is an entirely different argument whether the war fighters need broad spectrum electronic attack in the next decade. Boeing Builds the Navy an F-35C Exit Strategy It is about the role of stealth in attack missions, nothing to do with air battle. The F-22 is not going away anytime soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one of the F-35s is jamming the beejesus out of the enemy systems its stealth even if slightly compromised more than makes up for it. Imagine an invisible man holding a flash bang grenade. Yes you can see the grenade moving toward you, but then its thrown at you and you are blinded. You never saw the man, barely detected the grenade but then it went off in your face and blinded you anyway. And once again an F-35 will always be more stealthy with pylons than an Super hornet/growler with pylons.

So compromising stealth and a small number of aircraft is a slightly small price to pay for the jamming mission the USN/Boeing (included the two here because the USN's pitch was essentially parroting Boeing talking points that were presented to the Navy earlier) they say is so critical. and that they are now "experimenting with" in the OPs article there. This is one of those funny cases where we drew the conclusion first, and are now running the experiment. I bet we come up with "proof" that supports the foregone conclusion.

Ah; Your points makes sense.

Thanks for explaining it.

I'm still trying to play catch-up with how our military has evolved since 1999 (When I started my model-building hiatus).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a semi-related comment - the AESA radars used by the latest US fighters give them a significant edge but also open up a significant vulnerability. Reports indicate that a tech-savy opponent can transmit viruses that will be picked up by the AESA. These viruses can be used to disable the host aircraft's radar or just simply change what is shown on the pilot's display.

Supposedly China has made significant advances in this field, to the point that the US is trying to implement a rush program to minimize vulnerabilities to this type of attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the F-35 cannot be stealth and carry the jammer at the same time. The old EA-6B carries up to 5 AN/ALQ-99 jammer on pylons. There was plan for 5 NGJ's on a single EA-18G too. And this thing is HUGE. The USN and Marine both understand that it makes no sense to use the F-35 for this.

No plans to build F-35 EW variant

That Article is about not creating a separate F-35 Variant In other words there are no current plans to create a specific "EF-35A". there are Plans (on the backburner now) to put the pods on standard or slightly modified (an EF-18 is much more than slightly modifed SH) F-35s in the future.

I can't find the graphic, but I have seen the USN/Boeing images of Growlers with just a pair of NGJs freeing up the additional pylons for Fuel or ordnance. Going 5 across with draggy Jamming pods, on toed out pylons, with no External fuel is not operationally preferred to say the least. I assume that the NGJ will be more capable, and thus require fewer pods to do the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the era of budget cut, all defense departments around the world are looking for the most cost effective way to meet their need.

The USN and the RAAF both conducted their study and concluded that a combined feet of Growler and JSF is the way to go. It is based on both operational cost and reliability concern.

The question on what is needed to handle the anti-access/area denial environment in the next decade is still a new and wide open argument. A recent article on breakingdefense.com reports the USN/Boeing's position.

I (Colin Clark) reported back in 2009 that the F-35 is the only US aircraft built to the requirement that it be able to defeat the most advanced air defense systems, such as the Russian’s S-400s. But the industry source said that the F-35 would be vulnerable to sophisticated ground-based systems — unless accompanied by Growlers, who would be able to use their powerful wide-frequency emitters to blanket a wider spectrum of threats.

F-35s “can jam X-band frequencies, but once they do, that’s all they’re focused on,” leaving them vulnerable to detection by infrared, ELF and lower spectrum radar, the industry source said.

.............the basic question arises, If these aircraft are needed so badly, then why is the Navy only now going public with the arguments to justify their purchase?

Meanwhile, Boeing and Lockheed’s supporters on the Hill have drafted competing letters arguing for either the Growler or the F-35. If the Navy and Boeing are right about the Growler’s complementary capabilities, then this should not be a zero sum game for either side. Congress should consider pulling money from other programs if this really is a question of America winning in a serious wide-spectrum conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the era of budget cut, all defense departments around the world are looking for the most cost effective way to meet their need.

The question on what is needed to handle the anti-access/area denial environment in the next decade is still a new and wide open argument. A recent article on breakingdefense.com reports the USN/Boeing's position.

Did the industry source happen to work for the company that sold Growlers?

The USN and the RAAF both conducted their study and concluded that a combined feet of Growler and JSF is the way to go. It is based on both operational cost and reliability concern.

So the country and service that were alreadu operating growlers think they should continue to operate them, and the countries and services that don't have them already aren't opting for them?

This is very simple so I am going to try and im going to try and explain it.

*Jamming will aid in the survivability of stealth aircraft. F-35 has formidable jamming already built in but it will be better if it is augmented by dedicated jammers

* The USN is promoting NGJ with Growler. The NGJ part is important because the navy says that will be critical for the future.

*However the NGJ is still years away. And by the time it gets into service is highly likely it will be capable of being used by F-35 also

*The need for the NGJ pod is not in question. the question is, do you need growlers to haul it? The answer looks like it will be no. So we may want to look 5 years ahead and think about whether it makes sense to buy a dedicated jamming aircraft, or if we should let it go and put the pods on an aircraft capable of doing other things as well.

In an era of budget cut does is make sense to buy a single role aircraft or fit the capability to aircraft that can do other stuff too?

Let track the standard internet logic:

F-35 has stealth.

Stealth will fail!! Moores Law!! Russia/China/Iran/Guy in his basement has already made stealth obsolete!

Stealth will never be obsolete, Russia and China are also developing LO aircraft and even drones are looking LO. it can only become degraded but will never go away. and will still be more advantageous than an aircraft without it, but if it you are worried about it, the F-35 has powerful organic jamming and other avionics advantages.

So stealth doesn't work!! You need jamming!! That means you need dedicated jammers!!

Ok if the stealth and organic jamming isn't enough (as you say the future could get tougher and the enemy may improve) the USMC planned years ago to fit the NGJ pods on an F-35, to replace the prowlers that can't last forever

But If the F-35 carries jammers it will lose its stealth!!

insert monty python joke

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, why could we not mount the guts of the NGJ into a stealthy UAV? How critical is it to have a manned platform perform this (hazardous) mission?

Is the EWO (or whatever he is called) that critical to the success of the Growler? If the man in the loop is that critical, uplink all of the data being collected by the platform back to a human being sitting safely in his shipping container in the NV desert.

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...