Comments on: Growler Day

By: Doc

Doc — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:35:11 +0000

Bravo Zulu to all who posted… great comments!
Just one point, and in not meaning to debate present or future air doctrine, but at some point in the future there will be a time, place or terrain (open ocean?) were we wish or need the jamming aircraft to arrive on station without being detected before lighting off. Well, maybe.
Have a great one!

By: Macaca

Macaca — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:41:27 +0000

Jammers also dont need stealth because they broadcast enormous amount of signals. It looks a bit silly to spend big money on stealth (to avoid bouncing back radar waves) when at the same time sending out masses of multispectrum waves.

By: Torch

Torch — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:40:33 +0000

[quote]The need for stealth even for a jammer isn’t really so difficult to grasp. A first-day-of-war strike package of F-22s and B-2s would be easily compromised on early warning radars by their own escort jammers if they lack basic low-observability characteristics.[/quote]
News for you mate,
ECM puts an umbrella around the attack aircraft. Early warning radar won’t see them and as one poster put it, it’s an oxymoron to think stealth would be necessary for the ECM aircraft. :}

By: coolhand77

coolhand77 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:26:56 +0000

Heres to evolution!
Now if all our military procurment toads and defense industry manipulators would take notice from this. Evolution in systems leads to progress on time and on budject…waiting for the next revolution is a losing proposition because while you are waiting for your revolution (army not wanting to upgrade till they get their man portable rail/laser/guided rocket gun?) your enemy has been evolving and exceeding your current capabilities with more units fielded for less money (Chinese 5.8mm rifles with high BC/SD bullets and similar ballistics to maybe the Grendel? guessing and projecting, no actual knowledge).
I’m tired of seeing them waiting on the ray guns. and transatmospheric stealth STOVL rockets.

By: Old Sailor

Old Sailor — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:33:52 +0000

I second what you said, Chief! Anchors aweigh!

By: Old Crusty Chief

Old Crusty Chief — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:14:42 +0000

Re: Coolhand77
Growler is an on-time, under-budget bird probably because it is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
We’ve been to the fanroom about this here on DT, oh, about a thousand times. Requirements-creep is the other side of the spiralling costs problem. For whatever reason, the guys in uniform who write the specs for systems just can’t seem to resist the temptation to fiddle with things. We can not expect any builder to deliver aything on time or on budget if the buyer keeps adding, removing, or modifying what’s being built. Ya don’t need an MBA to fathom that one.
A clean sheet EW bird would today still be just a bunch of CAD drawings… with the NAVAIR boys twiddling them every time Mikoyan burps. Much like the NAVSEA boys have done with the erstwhile DD(X) and CG(X) programs. For what we’ve flushed in designing these hulls we could have reactivated, modernized, crewed, and steamed two BBs. Including all the whizbang all-electric propulsion. But I digress…
I suspect that the kids making mushy-balls in their Huggies today, will be flying an evolved EA-18 many moons from now. Much the same as are the daring young folks flying the Prowler today; a fine aircraft birthed from pedigreed stock.
But hey, we’re all just preaching to stones. Ain’t nobody in DC listening… and they probably wish that we’d shut up, too.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: Torch

Torch — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:09:16 +0000

The EF-111 Raven was about 10 years newer than the EA-6B Prowler, but both were developed from 60s airframes. The Prowler proved a more economical aircraft, using the same jamming system.
During the Cold War, three EF-111s could jam the entire eastern front. The EA-6B has that same ability; as well, the Growler is also capable.
The need for an immediate replacement brought the EA-18G to the forefront, with advancements in developing for a future jamming aircraft already in development. The biggest advantage of the Growler is, it will be armed and able to protect itself.
Jammers don’t have a need for stealth, because they don’t have to fly in harms way to accomplish their mission.

By: Old Crusty Chief

Old Crusty Chief — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:11:58 +0000

Re: Old Sailor
Shipmate, the beam in our collective eye is not that any of the programs, systems, and super whammydynes COULD be brought to the Fleet less expensively, it is that they WILL NOT be.
You wouldn’t believe it if a whore told you she loved you, so why do we believe the procurement wanks and the contractors when they whisper sweet things in our ears about… well… anything.
There is just far too much money flowing through the Pentagon’s teats for it to be any other way.
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: Theecmo

Theecmo — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:56:07 +0000

The Marines are all ready planning on an F-35 jammer. As for stealth, jamming is not necessarily just brute noise screaming through the ether and giving away your position. There are other ways to mess with enemy systems that would be in sympatico with a stealth aircraft. Finally, if they ever get around to fielding a better systems with say phased array and more sophisticated capabilities (read expensive) then this should be even less of a problem.
To me the real drawback of any of these (EA-18 or EF-35) is the reduction in crew members. I learned a long time ago that the more complex the environment (or task) the more likely the automated systems are to lie to you. With only one dedicated operator working the entire EM spectrum while relying on the system to catch the important stuff, we’re setting ourselves up for failure.

By: Steve Dixon

Steve Dixon — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:28:24 +0000

“Active Jammer on a Stealth Airframe“
If that isn’t an OXYMORON then there truly is “Army Intelligence”.
Snicker … snicker.