theSituation Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-air-force-wants-to-junk-half-of-its-best-jamming-planes-3f16d164cac1 Thoughts? I personally think it's a big mistake. Does anybody else in the CAF care? Does the Air Force really understand what EW can bring to the fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaded Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yes! This is the perfect place to talk about the air Force's EW capabilities and vulnerabilities. (but seriously, find something else to talk about) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11F Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 He forgot the first rule in Fight Club... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yes! This is the perfect place to talk about the air Force's EW capabilities and vulnerabilities. (but seriously, find something else to talk about) Are you saying that talking about the Air Force attempting to retire an asset that we recognize as valuable is tantamount to treason? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSituation Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Jesus, tough crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B52gator Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Not a sexy topic/mission so people/AF dismiss it. Navy has really stepped up the EW game over the past decade or so. AF needs to do the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupe Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 EW capability is important.... but I can't see how keeping any type of xC-130H variant around makes sense with the bulk of the C-130H slick fleet in the trash heap already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 EW capability is important.... but I can't see how keeping any type of xC-130H variant around makes sense with the bulk of the C-130H slick fleet in the trash heap already. The majority of the C-130H fleet has been in the guard/reserve for years. The ARC hasn't lost very many tails lately and there are a few new H model units-MT, CT and Mansfield. So just because AD is getting rid of Hs doesn't mean the "bulk of the fleet is in the trash heap" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewpey Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The Air Force is too in love with stealth and cyber to deal with EW. They've passed the buck to the Navy, and luckily for the USAF they take it much more seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dupe Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The majority of the C-130H fleet has been in the guard/reserve for years. The ARC hasn't lost very many tails lately and there are a few new H model units-MT, CT and Mansfield. So just because AD is getting rid of Hs doesn't mean the "bulk of the fleet is in the trash heap" Haven't we at least halved the numbers of airframes at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The Air Force is too in love with stealth and cyber to deal with EW. But according to our definition of Cyber.. it includes EW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Divesting EC-130 is actually the right thing to do, but only if the mission equipment is moved to something faster and higher flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSituation Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Divesting EC-130 is actually the right thing to do, but only if the mission equipment is moved to something faster and higher flying. So, this is similar to the A-10 debate. The af is trying to cut a platform/capability before having a viable replacement. Simply wrong and short sighted in my opinion. Especially considering our history of extremely long acquisitions processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKinnear Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 faster and higher flying. Neither of which is always better to have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Neither of which is always better to have Agreed, but having the option is a good thing. I'm not talking about putting the capability on a fucking SR-71. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKinnear Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Agreed, but having the option is a good thing. Flexibility is the key to airpower, or so I've been told. If I had to choose one or the other I'd rather have something with a long on-station time over faster airspeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 You're making the assumption that you have to give up vul coverage to get faster transit time. I think that's a false assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Agreed, but having the option is a good thing. I'm not talking about putting the capability on a fucking SR-71. ...I think we should start talking about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GKinnear Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I think I'm tracking on the intent of your original post. I just want a new fat-kid EW bird that can fill the same role as the EC-130 in the SEAD triad. Something with lots of room for expansion of new capes, has a long dwell time on station, and is capable of finding it's own targets, etc. If that means putting it on a 2-eng 777, cool. If it means putting it on Js, also cool. I thought C-17 were the answer for a while, but that's gas guzzling SUV that's maybe not worth the induced fuel costs for the additional benefit. Really I just want the AF to quit dropping EW in priority. It's too important a force multiplier to be shelved. Annnnd at this point I'm putting a pin in it. We'll pick it up if we ever cross paths in a more appropriate forum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The Air Force is too in love with stealth and cyber to deal with EW. They've passed the buck to the Navy, and luckily for the USAF they take it much more seriously. 2 But if we need a platform to get the AF in the mood then I suggest something like this: Raytheon successfully tests integrated electronic attack system on Gulfstream jet Missionize this kind of a platform but if that's a non-starter then why not an EB-1B? Range, speed, generator power and capacity. Now you just need a 10 billion to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Raytheon successfully tests integrated electronic attack system on Gulfstream jet Missionize this kind of a platform but if that's a non-starter then why not an EB-1B? Range, speed, generator power and capacity. Now you just need a 10 billion to get it done. I'm a believer in modernizing the entire fatkid fleet of AWACS, RJ's, JSTARS, EC's, and maybe even a few other cats and dogs to a 737-800 or 777 baseline in much the same way as we did the 707's back in the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) I'm a believer in modernizing the entire fatkid fleet of AWACS, RJ's, JSTARS, EC's, and maybe even a few other cats and dogs to a 737-800 or 777 baseline in much the same way as we did the 707's back in the day. Would not be a bad idea either. The Navy is not so sure the F-35's LO will be enough and are bulking up EW, the AF should take notice. F-35’s Stealth, EW Not Enough, So JSF And Navy Need Growlers; Boeing Says 50-100 More Edited February 8, 2015 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I heard the G650 has a good possibility of replacing JSTARS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JarheadBoom Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I'm a believer in modernizing the entire fatkid fleet of AWACS, RJ's, JSTARS, EC's, and maybe even a few other cats and dogs to a 737-800 or 777 baseline in much the same way as we did the 707's back in the day. There's potentially a shit-ton of money to be saved long-term by having a common logistics tail across multiple MDSs. This of course means the idea is a non-starter for the AF. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Well the Isrealis already use the G550 and the Brits use the Bombadier Global Express so I don't see that being outside the realm of capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now