The Navy has recently awarded a $6.8 million contract to Northrop Grumman to upgrade another three EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, with a $2 million option for a fourth. The firm has already upgraded 12 Prowlers with the Improved Capability III kits that provide a new crew workstation display and new radar threat detection receiver, among other hardware and software improvements.
These modifications are expected to extend the aircrafts usefulness to 2018. By that time the Navy will be flying the Prowlers replacement, the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas EA-18G Growler, developed from the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter. Significantly, the Marine Corps will continue to fly the EA-6B in the electronic attack role after the Navy has shifted completely to the EA-18G. Rather, the Marines appear to be waiting for an electronic attack variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), recently named the Lightning II.
Today the EA-6B is the only electronic attack aircraft flown by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Navy and Marine Prowler squadrons provide Electronic Warfare(EW) support for the Air Force, with Air Force crewmen flying in those aircraft alongside naval aviators.
(The Air Force is believed to be resurrecting a proposed standoff jammer/EW program centered on the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. The last specialized, electronic attack/countermeasures aircraft flown by the Air Force was the EF-111A Raven, which was phased out of service in May 1998. While their EW threat and countermeasures capabilities were similar, the EA-6B was a slower aircraft, but carried three systems operators compared to one in the EF-111A, and could launch anti-radar missiles, which the EF-111A could not.)
The EA-6B Prowler was derived from the Grumman A-6 Intruder all-weather attack aircraft, flown by the Navy and Marine Corps from 1963 to 1996. The specialized, enlarged EA-6B entered Navy-Marine Corps service in 1971. Although the attack and tanker (KA-6D) variants of the Intruder have long been retired, the services continue to operate, support, and upgrade the EA-6B variant, which is flown from all 11 Navy aircraft carriers as well as from land bases. (Marine EA-6Bs have periodically flown from carriers.)
While there could be an electric attack variant of the F-35 JSF, some military officers as well as aviation industry specialists predict that the next-generation electronic countermeasures/attack aircraft will be unmanned — an EUAV unmanned aerial vehicle that could penetrate and attack enemy air defenses.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I sincerely hope that they are doing more than just packing better electronics and software into these planes, because they are O-L-D. I do not understand why, if they really want to keep using the old B-52′s, don’t they replace those eight fuel-guzzling, polluting hogs they call engines with some up-to-date modern versions? They could probably replace those eight engines with four, and have a lot less maintenance problems trying to find parts as well as using less fuel. I think it’s a great idea to extend the lives of these planes, but they shouldn’t be penny-wise and pound-foolish while doing it.
Let’s hear it for the queers!
I think the real problems with BUFFS lies in getting sertifications for the B-52(I) It takes a lot of time and money to re engine the aircraft and do all the maintenance/aircrew training, updating the manuals and getting approval from the FAA etc.etc. Money now being spend on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same is now with the old EA6B. a good aircraft but really old and SloooowW.
Regards Joris
Question: Who are we jamming these days?
The Air Force continues to use the BUFFs because they don’t have anything else that has the conbination of range and payload. This situation occured because nuclear weapons continued to shrink, the Soviet Air Defenses got better, and CONGRESS kept cutting the defense budget and with it the Air Force budget when they needed to develop/purchase new aircraft. I thought the readers here would have some knowledge of history. But like the liberals, I see, don’t.
Interesting enough, Dale Brown, a former B-52G pilot, has authored a series of books based on an upgraded B-52. He named them a EB-52 Mega-Fortress.
Here is a wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_military_aircraft#EB-52_Megafortress
“Dale Brown has used various modified variants of the B-52 Stratofortress, which in reality is used by the US Air Force as their heavy strategic bomber. These variants are usually referred to as the B-52 Megafortress. The Megafortress first appears in Dale Brown’s Flight of the Old Dog and is expanded and upgraded in all his later books. It has all the latest technology (such as an advanced on-board computer and detailed HUD) and carries all the latest weapons, such as the AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, along with various anti-ship missiles, anti-tank guided missiles and even more fanciful weapons such as plasma-yield warheads. It also uses an advanced layout, having a long SST nose and twin V-type tails. In later books, the eight engines of the B-52A-H are replaced by four larger and more powerful turbofans. Coincidentally, this is an upgrade that has been considered for the real-world B-52H fleet.”
And here is Dale Brown’s website:
http://www.megafortress.com/index02.htm
What’s with that “Let’s hear it for the queers!” comment?
The F-22′s been mentioned as a jammer, too. Don’t know if we have enough B-2′s for it, but an EB-2 might be an interesting alternative to a re-engined EB-52. Ditto for an EB-1.
Other countries are packing the electronics gear necessary into converted airliners or business jets.
Don’t know if an EF-35 makes sense or not. If you can take power off the engine shaft and/or use the lift fan bay area for part of the electronic attack package, or a back seat, it might make for a good platform.
I know a guy whose company built an EM exposure meter for the Prowler crew cabin. It was supposed to tell how much of the power radiated outward was leaking in. That sort of thing might be an argument for EUAV systems. Don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but in making UCAVs into flying wings for stealth purposes, they end up being a pretty good shape for a phased/electrically scanned receiver/transmitter array. UCAVs might be better jammers than bombers.
Max,
“Queer” has long been an affectionate(?) appellation for the Prowler. I can’t say for certain that it’s finally fallen out of use, but I can say for certain that no Prowler aviator I ever met used that term.
As for who they’re jamming, they’ve been doing yoeman work in both OEF and OIF, mostly doing counter-IED work but also- ’twas rumored- still jamming the odd communication network. I wish the EB-52 hadn’t been killed off- apparently it was yet another victim of feature creep. Why does this keep happening? Honestly, pick a design and stay with it.
I tried to avoid posting an off-topic post, but my e-mail to you got kicked back. Sorry.
Here’s what I wrote:
Found this at Breitbart. http://player.clipsyndicate.com/view/1805/377942?cpt=8
Is she saying “Tumera” rocket? I’ve searched for the name and can’t seem to locate it.
Check Breitbart here: http://www.breitbart.com/detail.php?ch=BNVideoAll&catnum=0
Thanks,
OregonGuy
Please, let me know.
The A-6 airframes were at the Grumman factory in Florida awaiting new wings when a previous President ordered them turned into fish reefs. So the number of airframes in the pool from which possible EA-6 conversions or mods (or parts) can be drawn has been limited.
Hmmm,A-6 frames turned into artificial reefs,B-52s cut up into little pieces,don’t forget crushing up F-14s.Please forgive me for continuing to bring this up but doesn’t anybody else notice the systematic disarming of our nation by our government.The Russians are planning to start building again a turbo-prop bomber(Tu-95 Bear) while our government is seducing us with the promise of modern new weapons that they just waste billions of dollars on & cancel anyway because of,among the other refrains,”the cold war’s over” & “there is no ‘existing’ threat to justify the building of these weapons.”
I have no problem with our government saying that we don’t need a certain weapon system due to no existing threat,I just hate that they make this decision after pouring 10s of billions of dollars or more down the money pit & then say “oh we didn’t need this after all.” Hey,how about you pay me to build a house for you & you give me maybe $600,000.00 or more.I tell you to keep giving me more money & then in the end I tell you that it wasn’t the house you wanted anyway,keep the money & leave you with nothing to show for what you “supposedly” paid for?
A comment about Roy Smiths views about Russia’s build up of aerial forces…and a good point I may add; The Soviets have been increasing their “patrols” into or at least very near Alaska’s airspace, which should be noted by anyone concerned about our Russian “allies”. These incursions should be of concern to all of us who worry about a re-newed cold war. Mr Smith is right on the money that we should keep up our guard, keep as much air-power as possible available to safe guard America. And being that AK is just a stones throw from Russia, it is a noteable concern when they re-new their aggressive stance against America’s borders. Our air power is the spear against our enemies, and should be kept alert, ready, and available in over-powering strength so we don’t relive Pearl Harbor, “9/11″, and the like. Vigilance and power is the key to America’s security. Period.