Thoughts on the Air Force's Electronic Warfare Sustainability

[Clark Griswold]

I heard the G650 has a good possibility of replacing JSTARS.

Remember reading that (AF wanting a biz jet replacement for the JSTARs) also.

USAF Eyes Business Jets As Possible E-8 JSTARS Replacement

Just playing armchair general, I would go with a partnership with the Israelis for their G550 family of AWACS & ELINT aircraft, developing an EA variant jointly. But the IAF is thinking way outside the container on a lot of ways to use existing biz / commercial aircraft for tactical support, not sure the Big AF could / would handle that kind of shift in the way to develop a major MDS.

IAI brochure on their concept of 767 MMTT -AR-ISR-ELINT-C2 & Small Smart Tactical Tanker.

Combine this SMTT concept with EA like the old EKA-3B Skywarriors, gas and jamming all in one, done.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[HU&W]

Come to think of it, we've already got a new baseline MDS in the KC-46. Shouldn't be too difficult to make an EC-46, an RC-46, and whatever else is needed for the next 30-40 years.

[joe1234]

IMO it makes more sense to go the biz-jet route for a lot of those things, if it's possible. They are incredibly fuel efficient, more inconspicuous, and much easier to support and maintain than a I imagine a 767 would be. If we could find a way to make the systems suites smaller, then it makes more sense.

Putting everything into one platform just puts all of your eggs in one basket that is insanely expensive to acquire and maintain, and will be constantly overtasked to support 500 different mission priorities. If you have one jet take 5 different roles, you can't split it into 5 airplanes and task them in different parts of the world, or even the AOR, which pretty much kills your ability to field it effectively. Keep the roles simple so that you can actually put multiple jets where you need them the most, and keep the big jets for the things that need it, like cargo and gas. Also, putting a boom on a business jet is just plain retarded.

[drewpey]

But according to our definition of Cyber.. it includes EW.

But the Cyber bucket-o-money doesn't get spent on the shiny EW platforms we all know, love and want. Don't get me wrong...I like cyber, but I love the warm fuzzy feeling of being radiated by an EA platform when I most need it.

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

Don't tell Hostage that...

[Clark Griswold]

IMO it makes more sense to go the biz-jet route for a lot of those things, if it's possible. They are incredibly fuel efficient, more inconspicuous, and much easier to support and maintain than a I imagine a 767 would be. If we could find a way to make the systems suites smaller, then it makes more sense.

Putting everything into one platform just puts all of your eggs in one basket that is insanely expensive to acquire and maintain, and will be constantly overtasked to support 500 different mission priorities. If you have one jet take 5 different roles, you can't split it into 5 airplanes and task them in different parts of the world, or even the AOR, which pretty much kills your ability to field it effectively. Keep the roles simple so that you can actually put multiple jets where you need them the most, and keep the big jets for the things that need it, like cargo and gas. Also, putting a boom on a business jet is just plain retarded.

Valid point on all the eggs in one basket and possibly being over tasked but will part company on the idea of a boom on a biz jet being a bad idea. IAI would not have proposed it if it was too heavy and cumbersome when installed to deliver an operationally relevant offload. Would that jet hang out for the post-strike RTB? Probably so, could it remain on-station for a follow on AR? Doubt it.

Assuming (i know about assuming) the boom system weighs about 5,000+ lbs. (fairly realistic) then a modified G550 could probably hold around 45,000+ lbs while burning about 2,500 an hour.

Decent offload for a small footprint jet.

But the Cyber bucket-o-money doesn't get spent on the shiny EW platforms we all know, love and want. Don't get me wrong...I like cyber, but I love the warm fuzzy feeling of being radiated by an EA platform when I most need it.

Don't tell Hostage that...

I would tell Gen Hostage that stealth alone is not favored in the long run. Some 20-lb. brains think it may take a while but it's decline (not demise) but decline as the dominant trait in aerial warfare is inevitable.

A COLD WAR LEGACY: THE DECLINE OF STEALTH

From the Hart-Rudman Commission report in 1999:

The age-old interaction of capabilities and counter-measures will continue, of course, and physics probably favors detection and the ultimate demise of stealthy systems and large platforms. But “ultimate” can mean a long time, and, as opponents try to defeat existing U.S. technologies, new technologies and ways of employing these weapons will abet the continuation of current U.S. advantages.

Now that is not necessarily gospel and they just said probably but a ground based IADS can scale up as required to make LO assets so painted by overlapping sensors that even given their small signatures it will be enough to be targeted when they are all combined for a solution, that necessitates another asset to degrade the EM environment to "smooth" the road for an LO to remain difficult to detect / target.

[BFM this]

IMO

Putting everything into one platform just puts all of your eggs in one basket that is insanely expensive to acquire and maintain, and will be constantly overtasked to support 500 different mission priorities. If you have one jet take 5 different roles, you can't split it into 5 airplanes and task them in different parts of the world, or even the AOR, which pretty much kills your ability to field it effectively. Keep the roles simple so that you can actually put multiple jets where you need them the most, and keep the big jets for the things that need it, like cargo and gas. Also, putting a boom on a business jet is just plain retarded.

What Air Force are you living in? This is our exact vision going forward, up to and including service chief/secretary testimony to congress.

Get on board.

[Fuzz]

Come to think of it, we've already got a new baseline MDS in the KC-46. Shouldn't be too difficult to make an EC-46, an RC-46, and whatever else is needed for the next 30-40 years.

Or we could steal the Navy P-8, which is already tested and approved for a similar role.

[Breckey]

737 type ratings for all!

[Fuzz]

737 type ratings for all!

And suddenly the new E-3/E-8/RC-135 moves from the bottom of every UPT dream sheet to #1

[SocialD]

And suddenly the new E-3/E-8/RC-135 moves from the bottom of every UPT dream sheet to #1

Why?

[17D_guy]

Why?

Ask Butters

[Fuzz]

Ask Butters

I think its sad when the comm guy (no offense 17_D) gets an airline joke before a pilot does.

ETA: Misinterpretation of SocialD's comment.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Fuzz

[SocialD]

I think its sad when the comm guy (no offense 17_D) gets an airline joke before a pilot does.

No, I got it. I have just never understood the obsession, among active duty types, with getting a 737 type. I met guys who weren't even planning on applying to SWA that were getting that type.

[dvlax40]

No, I got it. I have just never understood the obsession, among active duty types, with getting a 737 type. I met guys who weren't even planning on applying to SWA that were getting that type.

Ditto. Id be more stoked if they switched to a 777 platform and got a type rating for that. Cha-ching! $$$

[hindsight2020]

No, I got it. I have just never understood the obsession, among active duty types, with getting a 737 type. I met guys who weren't even planning on applying to SWA that were getting that type.

For those of us with scarlet letters, the real value has more to do with the fact I can guarantee not to fail the ATP ride via a type rating course, whereas I can't say that going the semenhole route. I can't afford any more feigned contrition stories about what essentially amounts to wrong place/wrong time snapshots in ancient time. So I pay the extra 3k over the semenhole route and go on my way, lest I feel like giving the Shawshank version of how I feel about events in my life that predate what I had for lunch last week...

[aspec]

But the Cyber bucket-o-money doesn't get spent on the shiny EW platforms we all know, love and want. Don't get me wrong...I like cyber, but I love the warm fuzzy feeling of being radiated by an EA platform when I most need it.

Don't tell Hostage that...

"Growlers are not front-line aircraft for the first week of war, Hostage argues."

He actually has a valid point, for highly contested scenarios. We definitely need more Growlers though.

"But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft."

That, however, is a bad arguement. I've heard people use this statement to justify why fighter aircraft no longer need to be as maneuverable. PK miss...

It would really be unfortunate if they decided not to put a gun on the F-35 in the highly likely event that a pilot finds him/herself at a merge... oh wait, they did (F-35B/C).

[SurelySerious]

He actually has a valid point, for highly contested scenarios. We definitely need more Growlers though.

"But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft."

EW aircraft are part of a synergistic approach in more than one level of contest.

And isn't "missiles will take care of everything" the same stupid argument they made with the Phantom? Did they not watch Top Gun?!

[drewpey]

"Growlers are not front-line aircraft for the first week of war, Hostage argues."

He actually has a valid point, for highly contested scenarios. We definitely need more Growlers though.

"But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft."

That, however, is a bad arguement. I've heard people use this statement to justify why fighter aircraft no longer need to be as maneuverable. PK miss...

It would really be unfortunate if they decided not to put a gun on the F-35 in the highly likely event that a pilot finds him/herself at a merge... oh wait, they did (F-35B/C).

I don't think anyone is advocating growlers lead the charge into a battle, but my concern is the attitude of a "one plane solution". I just feel that the gain per dollar is better spent beefing up the EW capabilities versus building a jack of all trades, master of none stealth machine. I'm sure it's got amazing capabilities I'll never know about, but at the end of the day enemy technologies will improve and down the road it will be cheaper to fix software limitations of EW rather than hardware limitations of stealth.