DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Info War » Air Force Electronic Attacks Stymied

Air Force Electronic Attacks Stymied

The sit­u­a­tion isn’t too bad right now, fight­ing a low-​​tech foe. But Air Force plan­ners are deeply wor­ried about the future, and the service’s abil­i­ties to take out enemy radars. The fly­boys’ air­borne elec­tronic attack (AEA) efforts — zap­ping oppo­nents’ air defenses, with big bursts of radar energy — are in dis­ar­ray, reports Air Force mag­a­zine.
AIR_F-35B_JSF_STOVL_Landing_lg.jpg“Last year, the Air Force can­celed its cen­tral AEA pro­gram, the B-​​52 Standoff Jammer.” Then, the Air Force was taken off the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System killer drone project, which the Air Force was plan­ning to use “as a radar jam­mer loi­ter­ing directly over enemy air defenses. It is no exag­ger­a­tion to say that the Air Force AEA roadmap, which was years in the mak­ing, vir­tu­ally collapsed.”

The Air Force faces a hard dead­line for bring­ing on new oper­a­tional AEA capa­bil­ity. Since 1999, it has been shar­ing the Navys four-​​seat EA-​​6B Prowler escort jam­mer air­craft, but the Prowler fleet begins retir­ing in 2009… For some time, plans have called for USAF by then to be out of the Navys pro­gram and field­ing its own sys­tem.
The air­borne elec­tronic attack busi­ness com­prises five pri­mary dis­ci­plines, each tak­ing the action pro­gres­sively closer to the tar­get… [From long-​​range, stand-​​off strikes to point-​​blank jam­ming to cyber attacks which] cause an enemy radar to think its a wash­ing machine and go into the rinse cycle.

The prob­lem is, these are all very dif­fer­ent jobs. No sin­gle air­craft is going to be able to han­dle them all. Not a revamped B-​​52 or F-​​15E, not the Navy’s Prowler $100 million-​​per-​​plane replace­ment, and not even the new F-​​22 fight­ers, equipped with next-​​gen radars.
So now the idea is patch together lots and lots of dif­fer­ent types of air­craft, includ­ing the Joint Strike Fighter and “the Miniature Air-​​Launched Decoy… a small­ish mis­sile that emu­lates the radar sig­na­tures of other air­craft and, it is hoped, will draw the fire of enemy air defenses.“
There are “so many dif­fer­ent com­po­nents and pieces and parts,” one Air Force offi­cial tells the mag­a­zine. “It gets very com­plex. … Its just a mat­ter of what we can afford and what kind of risk will we assume if we dont have all the pieces together.”

Share |

October 27th, 2006 | Info War | 21953 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/10/27/air-force-electronic-attacks-stymied/Air+Force+Electronic+Attacks+Stymied2006-10-27+14%3A41%3A50jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Army Reshuffles for Long War | Iraqi Forces Don’t Suck … Entirely » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    October 27, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    GoodMorning Guys,
    I know this post has noth­ing to do with the above story about Radar, but I’ve been wait­ing a week or so for a fol­low up on North Korea’s “nuc” here and it hasn’t hap­pened so, sorry Noah, I will change the sub­ject.
    I’ve read over on other sites the post many of you have made in regard to the North Korea’s recent weapons test. Many of you have posted very impres­sive “facts” that only can come from peo­ple involved on a daily basis with these types of ques­tions. Some of you have gone to great efforts to try and deter­mine exactly what hap­pened and as usual our national media has droped this story like a hot rock.
    So here is my ques­tion. There is inter­na­tional court that is try­ing to deter­mine if the DPRK did in fact touch off a Nuclear Event. All of you out there are sit­ting on the jury, you have seen the evi­dence and have con­sid­ered the “facts”, did the North Koreans set off a Nuclear Explosion or not?
    Besides an up or down yes or no and unlike in a real court I would like your ratio­nal for how you reach your con­clu­sion.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. Noah (the other one) says:
    October 28, 2006 at 11:45 am

    The US con­tin­ues gear­ing up for high-​​tech engage­ments when there is a utter lack of high-​​tech oppo­nents. It’s as if nobody noticed that the Cold War has been over for more than 15 years.
    The pri­mary con­vern seems to be with with defeat­ing sys­tems orig­i­nally devel­oped for the US that are now widely exported … a twist on the con­cept of planned obso­lence, with no win­ners except mil­i­tary con­trac­tors.
    As to Byron’s query, it is entirely irrel­e­vant. The DPRK event will be played up or down by var­i­ous gov­erne­ments and agen­cies accord­ing to their own spe­cific agen­das. The truth is entirely sub­jec­tive and actual events will never be pub­licly disseminated.

    Reply
  3. JhawkR says:
    November 3, 2006 at 12:00 am

    North Korea — Nuke or Not ?
    From the reports that I’ve read & heard, North Korea had a very low yeild explo­sion with nuclear emis­sions.
    This would seem to indi­cate that they did in fact have a plu­to­nium nuclear bomb con­structed like “Fat Man” (the 2nd atomic bomb that the US dropped on Nagasaki) that did not implode sim­i­u­ta­neousily, result­ing in a low yeild “dirty bomb.“
    Resulting in North Korea get­ting noth­ing more than the effec­tive result of using X-​​ray cobalt waste and high explo­sives to cre­ate a “dirty bomb.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage