Home » Air » No plans to build F-35 EW variant

No plans to build F-35 EW variant

by Mike Hoffman on August 24, 2012

The Marine Corps has no plans to pursue an Electronic Warfare variant of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos at a Pentagon roundtable Thursday.

Amos said the AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar installed on the F-35 already sets the fifth generation fighter apart as an electronic warfare platform.

“The airplane itself … with the AESA radar and sensors and information sharing capability is a pretty significant EW platform right now,” said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos at a roundtable meeting with reporters in the Pentagon Aug. 23.

Aviation analysts have questioned why the Air Force and Navy have not focused more heavily on modernizing their electronic warfare capabilities. The Navy has started to phase out the EA-6B Prowler with the addition of the FA-18 Growler as the military’s pre-eminent electronic warfare platform to take suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) missions.

The Growler carries up to five ALQ-99 jamming pods as well as AIM-120 AMRAAM or AGM-88 HARM missiles to attack air defenses. Of course, these ALQ-99s are three decades old and the Navy continues to build its Next Generation Jammer that will fool enemy radars with false returns. Amos said he didn’t see any reason the F-35 couldn’t carry these pods too.

The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps are having a hard enough time finishing and paying for the development of the F-35 fleet without adding an extra electronic warfare variant. Amos said he didn’t see the need to make the job harder with the budget pressures the Pentagon is already under.

“I don’t see that there’s a need right now to segregate the F-35B aside and then say ok now we’re going to apply an EW capability on this thing so let’s generate a program and pile that cost on top of that. I don’t think there’s a requirement to do that right now,” Amos said.

Share |

{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }

Pilgrimman August 24, 2012 at 4:48 pm

As awesome as an EW F35 would be, I have to agree with this decision in light of the budget stresses this nation is under already.


guest August 24, 2012 at 5:49 pm

Yeah, that would be awesome. Let's build a stealth aircraft and then negate all that stealthiness. Brilliant.


Pilgrimman August 27, 2012 at 11:34 am

Have you considered the possibility that the military understands the nuances of this plane and EW better than some message-board armchair general on the internet? I'm sure they had a very legitimate case for designing an EW variant.


tmb2 August 25, 2012 at 2:22 am

I remember seeing a Marine Corps powerpoint slide from 2009 with a cutaway of the F-35 (B or C can't remember) showing it being used as an EW platform. Glad they took a appetite suppressant on that one.


William C. August 25, 2012 at 7:07 am

Do you happen to have a link to this, I'd be interested to see it.


tmb2 August 25, 2012 at 2:03 pm

Afraid not. I was just in the audience during a presentation. It was early 2009 and the Marine one-star was gushing about how the F-35 was going to be able to do everything imaginable.


pts August 25, 2012 at 8:05 pm

An EW F35 is one of the worst ideas ever for the following reasons:_1. None of the Jamming Pods available now or in the near future are stealthly. In fact they highlight an aircraft's position. Once a jammer comes on EVERYONE knows it._2. Space, even with all of the weight saving methods that have been going into the F35B, there is not the space to put in the receivers and computers needed to process the info. The EA-18G replaced the gun and several other parts from a straight FA-18F._3. Absolutely no space for an EWO/ECMO. The AOA for the EA-18G indicated a crew requirement of 2.5 crew members for high intensity ops ._4. Time on Station… the F35B has the shortest endurance of any of the 3 F35s….A jammer requires hefty legs because it is the first on station and the last one to leave.


guest August 27, 2012 at 10:18 am

Interesting, to your points: 1) You obviously don't work in this field, or can't comment on it, 2) There is room 3) The AoA also said you could do EA with zero EWOs/ECMOs from a UAV (so why not with one pilot?) 4) Why limit this technology to the B model? If it works there, it will work on either of the other tw.


PTS August 27, 2012 at 10:29 am

Guest, Sorry almost 1000 hours in an EA-6B and one ground EWO tour. While not at JATO, CRANE or Mugu, I have spent time around them!
2. The JSF-B just celebrated getting 300lbs under weight! 3 The AOA also had EB-52s, EF-15s and a biz jet concept, the problem you run into is size and power requirements. MALD-Js are a good system for some target sets just not everyone. 4. The Marines want the B and only the B so it can fit their future plans for the MAGTF. The AF and Navy are using the EA-18 so no big driver to make and EW A or C version


Guest August 24, 2012 at 5:52 pm

Not to mention that jamming will let them know that something is coming which is kind of antithesis to the whole stealth concept.


Tiger August 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Not always in the same place. You can Use the jammers as a faint move. Then your Stealth planes come in the back door…..


4FingersOfBourbon August 25, 2012 at 7:48 am

With the way the news is now-a-days they already know we are in the AOR before wheels go up…Jamming is part of stealth.


blight_ August 25, 2012 at 8:16 am

This is Geraldo Rivera…I'm here on this CVN, and they just launched JSF's towards City B…


Jeff August 27, 2012 at 6:18 am

Here's an idea… you only turn on the jamming once your aircraft are near enough that it doesn't matter that they know you're coming… since you'll be in the process of pulling the trigger on conventional weapons.

I have no doubt this is why the standard EW package on the F35 is enough, since because of the stealth portion of its mission it doesn't need to emphasize range as much.


Belesari August 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm

A stealth EW…….isnt that like a ninja with a siren.


guess August 25, 2012 at 12:06 am

A ninja with a siren and the flashing lights


Chops August 24, 2012 at 10:38 pm

With LMs sterling record an EW variant ought to be finished at the end of the F35s projected lifespan—if they start now.


William C. August 25, 2012 at 7:16 am

It doesn't have to be an F-35 providing the jamming support, but such coverage can still be very beneficial to VLO aircraft in many scenarios. If trying to detect and track an F-22 or F-35 is hard, doing so while a jammer aircraft is causing a lot of interference is much harder.


P.C. or die August 25, 2012 at 8:57 am

So the Marine Corps is blatantly going to give up Prowlers and replace them with nothing.


SMSgt Mac August 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Lookup "Growlers"


tiger August 26, 2012 at 6:42 pm

The USMC does not fly the "G" Model.


blight_ August 26, 2012 at 8:37 pm

I'm a little perplexed at the choice of calling it the G, since it already carries a modified prefix for electronic warfare (EA vs FA). Perhaps it refers to wiring upgrades to the F?


Mark "x" Farmer August 27, 2012 at 4:27 am

I’m sure the Growler’s will see both seats filled in myriad inter-service and inter-alliance ways. Figure USN, Marines, USAF, ANG, an Army weirdo or two, RAF/RN, RAAF, RCAF and perhaps unexpected allies, buddies and spooks. On bad days add buddy refueling gear and a mail pod. As a civilian (mil ret.), I could wish for a fast, low-down combat training mission in the Pacific Northwest — won’t happen due to the sumptuous data flowing about those big, beautiful backseat displays. One can hope.

tmb2 August 25, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Look at the article posted right before this one.


Capt Ahab August 26, 2012 at 11:00 am

How about a jammer & missile truck to accompany the stealth aircraft, operating on the periphery or moderately inside of the late generation SAM's WEZ from either a high end business aircraft or the B-1R concept?

If from the business jet concept, either the Falcon 7X or Gulfstream 650 would be an excellent choice and the B-1R would really add a long range Pacific theater friendly asset. It is 2,900 NM one way from Guam to Taiwan and 650 NM one way from the now defunct Clark AFB, Philippines (assuming they would let you operate from there). Any proposed jammer / missile truck will need great range unrefuelled to not use up air refuelling slots (or too many) from the shorter range F-22s, F/A & E/A – 18s, F-35s, etc… which will need them ingress from their relatively distant and safe bases…


Luchian November 18, 2012 at 10:01 am

There is no Vegetarian Law. You do what you think is ethical and live by your own marols.Personally, I don’t eat meat not because I think it’s wrong to eat meat, but because I can’t stand the conditions the animals live in, and how they are slaughtered. I consider it more of a life-time boycott of the industry.So, I would certainly wear leather if it was something that I found in a thrift shop or something. I wouldn’t put my wallet behind supporting the industry or the byproducts of the industry but I also believe that if that animal died regardless I would rather see that all of it is used than just to have it go through that torture only to be thrown away.Anyway you decide what you think is right. It doesn’t matter what I think or what any of these posters think. Consider all opinions, sure, but the bottom line is that you should be able to live with yourself.


Tattertot August 26, 2012 at 12:36 pm

Yes, these are all great responses to what was discussed at the round table but letd face it we are in debt up to hair lines. To incorporate the jammer would be rather costly especially if it’s to be done after it hits our fleet it will be in a down status on the front line while the TD to put a jammer in place which is no easy task or quick. Ask yourselves that question do you really want to have a new bird that is strong in other areas be a “turkey” for a long period of time while their in the fight? I think not and as maintainer with years of aviation avionics tech skills under his belt I would say it’s a bad call. If it is to be done do it at depot level to save us the man hours.


Tattertot August 26, 2012 at 12:42 pm

Putting in a jammer in no easy task or quick task. Ask yourselves that question do you really want to have a new bird that is strong in other areas be a “turkey” for a long period of time while their in the fight? I think not and as maintainer with years of aviation avionics tech skills under his belt I would say it’s a bad call. If it is to be done do it at depot level to save us the man hours.


RunningBear August 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm

The basic F-35 is the EW variant, it's built in. As the Marine Corp. has stated, repeatedly, the F-35 has more capability than the EA-6B, F-18C/D and Harrier; combined. The Navy E/A-18G is replacing the Navy EA-6B as an interim until the F-35 is IOC. Then the E/A-18G wil be upgraded to carry the NGJ in pods as replacements for the "updated, state of the art" AN/ALQ-99 in pods. The NGJ will share the latest EW database that is being used to develop the EW for the F-35. The NGJ can be carried by the F-35 (and other a/c) and empowered by offsetting the integrated antennas and transmitters with the existing onboard EW computers. NGJ pods can be VLO, also (they are only a pod). Growlers are funded separately under their own EA-6B replacement program. The Next Generation Jammer NGJ is funded separately under the AN/ALQ-99 replacement program. The F-35 program is not burdened by expanded scope (creap) but enhanced by these additional (related) programs. The E/A-18G wil make an excellent Missle truck than can integrate tightly with the F-35 (aesa to aesa).


tiger August 26, 2012 at 6:53 pm

So why develop the x-47b?


blight_ August 26, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Unmanned. Noting wrong with that.


Marcellus Hambrick August 26, 2012 at 4:00 pm

The F-35 is a vastly overrated airplane. It is suppose to be a master of various missions but it is a master of none. Its critics are far more correct about its capabilities than its supporters.


Running Bear August 27, 2012 at 12:02 am

Ha!, Ha!, Ha! I like your specifics. Of course the F-35 is no master of anything being in both develop and test (SSD) and early production (LRIP) and the total in flight todate is less than 50. So….what is your great flying machine? or are you another flightless critic. We're waiting…….not.


Jeff August 27, 2012 at 6:43 am

The main advantage of the F35 is democratizing technologies that were previously restricted to specialized aircraft by making them available to a greater percentage of aircraft.

The people that want the F-35 to be a "master" of anything are missing the whole point of a general purpose fighter. "General purpose" means the intent is to make moderate capabilities a broadly available as possible. So while the "combat performance" is generally similar with the F-16s and F-18, where it shines is by providing a broader variaties of capabilities. Its advantage is that the respective services will have to worry less about the distribution of specialized aircraft and will always have some capability present, as opposed to potentially having none, even if it isn't the "best".


tiger August 27, 2012 at 3:31 pm

That will give a F-35 driver little comfort when a better bird is on his 6 o'clock. It does not fly faster, higher, farther,carry more firepower or outmaneuver anybody. But great, it's a flying Swiss Army knife…..


Pilgrimman August 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Do you think before you post?


tiger August 27, 2012 at 8:20 pm

Yes, I do…

Curt August 28, 2012 at 11:09 am

Why would it need to do any of those things.

1. No fighter can fly faster or higher than a MiG-25, does that make the MiG-25 a great fighter?
2. How much firepower does one aircraft need? Isn't 6 AMRAAMs in pure fighter mode enough? Maybe if they could carry 2 AIM-9Xs and 10 AMRAAMs using internal and external stores that would be enough? Oh wait… Or do you think your strike aircraft need to carry 6 AMRAAMs and 4000lbs of other ordnance for some reason?
3. With all aspect weapons, why do you need to outmanuever someone? Not that an F-16 is unmaneuverable, but wouldn't it be better to see the other guy first? Say with a integrated LPI Radar and all aspect IR detection system?


Richard Crankwell August 27, 2012 at 1:17 pm

…and your reasons for saying this are??? (cue the APA/Bill Sweetman nonsense parroting of stuff learned from the internet. Never gets old.)


Ken August 28, 2012 at 8:03 am

Smart CHOICE! 3 variants is already enough drama for the JSF project.


Tiger August 24, 2012 at 5:51 pm

We can build a drone to do the Jamming mission. Let “tinman” clear the Sams out the way.


William C. August 25, 2012 at 7:11 am

The original F/A-18 Hornet replaced the A-4s and A-7s decades ago and did a good enough job despite some range issues. The E/F model Super Hornet is what replaced the F-14 and A-6. The EA-18G will eventually replace the EA-6.

I don't know how you're managing to lay the blame for all of this at the F-35.


Anlushac11 August 26, 2012 at 1:30 am

What a surprise, another F-35 hater rants, now with 50% MORE incorrect statements.

F-14 replaced by the F/A-18 E/F. F-18 E/F has better radar and almost same combat radius

A-6 replaced by F/A-18 E/F. F-18 is considerably improved platform with almost same payload.

A-10. Boeing is digitizing A-10 fuselage and making new build wings to keep A-10's flying. Once digitizing project is done Boeing will have ability to build brand new A-10's

EA-6 / EF-111 – EA-18G Growler cleared of defects and is active duty. About 96 in service.

A-4 / A-7. A-7 replaced A-4. A-7 was replaced by F-18 back in 1980's. F-18 has much better CEP, better accuracy, and better ACM ability.

USAF looking at F-16 upgrades similar to UAE Block 60's, USAF upgrades will have AESA, improved electronics, and possibly ugraded engines. F-16's to be around til at least 2025. F-35 replacing most F-16 roles and many F-16 pilots now retraining to fly armed drones.


Tiger August 26, 2012 at 6:24 pm

You skiped A decent Tanker & ASW platform from the list.


Jeff August 27, 2012 at 6:29 am

Its because when you look at an airfleet from the administrative level it will always sound cheaper and easier to manage to have fewer types of aircraft doing the same basic jobs. Does it mean potentially losing capabilities and developing tactical and strategic weaknesses?-Yes…. but consideration should be to considered in light of adequecy. Do you need long range intercept when you have missiles that can cover the difference in ground distance while being launched from a more ubiquitous platform?

In the case of EW, its just a judgement call that a sizeable number of aircraft with better than average EW packages will be more worthwhile than a small number of the "best" EW capabilities. This is likely based on assessments that the more extreme capabilities are only utilitzed a percentage of the time and that the more easily utilized capabilities are needed so much more often.


blight_ August 25, 2012 at 8:17 am

Let's go back to the old EWified Ryan Firebees.


David August 25, 2012 at 2:02 pm

I have a feeling the people in the pentagon know something we don't. For instance an f22 and f35 can probably kill planes by targeting them with their asea radars by focusing the energy to burn out the target's electronics. If you can do that, which past news clippings have pointed to, then the number of missiles and bullets a plane carries are not limiting factors.


blight_ August 27, 2012 at 11:26 am

Figured you would need a bigger radar set, like one on a ship for that kind of thing.

Perhaps things have changed…

If aircraft could do that, it might even change some paradigms of SEAD. It won't just be jammers and HARMs anymore…


blight_ August 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Korean Air 007 was shot down even though eyes on target confirmed it was a civilian aircraft. Though it can be argued that some officers knew and some didn't, but in the fog of war it didn't really matter….and at some point, they just didn't care.

Re Vincennes, I'm more of the opinion that because Bandar was a dual purpose civilian/military airport and the commander perceived other USN vessels to be under attack, plus the lack of response by the Iranian aircraft, that he was primed to shoot first.

In the future someone is likely to pull a Squadron Fenix from the Falkland Islands War…and use civilian aircraft for military reconnaissance.

What it boils down to is a lack of confidence in ability to identify an aircraft solely based on radar readings. You can spoof an IFF, and methods like tracking velocity or measuring RCS are somewhat indirect and orientation dependent.


Tiger August 27, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Rules of Engagement makes having eyeballs on target a priority over BVR ability. The infamous USS Vincennes shoot down of a Iranian airliner is prime example number one.


Curt August 30, 2012 at 12:49 pm

1. You realize a F104 was faster than a F-16 right? And a F-117 couldn't even fly supersonic? The value of an airplane is more than its numbers. But, the F-35 pretty much outflies everything it is replacing anyway.
2. Why does it need to fly mach 2, to waste more gas? To make it more complex? So what? And a F-35 is a strike fighter, as in it is really an attack plane but no one wants to hurt the pilots ego and call it such.
3. Range does matter, and in a typical loadout, you know like with ordnance and stuff, the F-35 can fly further than a F-18 or a F-16, so what is the problem? How much is enough?


Curt August 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm

4. AMRAAMs have a demonstrated greater than 50% combat success, so if that is faulty, I wish everyone was faulty! Who cares about the AIM-7, it isn't even on the F-35.

5. So kill the bad guy with the 180 rounds you have. And with SA superiority, 6 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9Xs, and a 180 rounds, how many times do you figure your going to run out?

6. In Vietnam and your dreams maybe. In Bosnia and Iraq, the majority of Air to Air kills were made at BVR, or at least started there.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: