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.
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
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.
Yeah, that would be awesome. Let's build a stealth aircraft and then negate all that stealthiness. Brilliant.
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.
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.
Do you happen to have a link to this, I'd be interested to see it.
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.
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.
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.
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
Why take an expensive stealth aircraft and eliminate its stealth ability by sticking jamming pods to it? We have other aircraft that can handle that. What the Marines need is a cheap upgraded Harrier with all of that gear attached to it.
Like this: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?page=38
Or maybe like these: http://www.scribd.com/doc/91040787/Fighter-Concep…
We can build a drone to do the Jamming mission. Let “tinman” clear the Sams out the way.
Let's go back to the old EWified Ryan Firebees.
Not to mention that jamming will let them know that something is coming which is kind of antithesis to the whole stealth concept.
Not always in the same place. You can Use the jammers as a faint move. Then your Stealth planes come in the back door…..
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.
This is Geraldo Rivera…I'm here on this CVN, and they just launched JSF's towards City B…
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.
A stealth EW…….isnt that like a ninja with a siren.
A ninja with a siren and the flashing lights
With LMs sterling record an EW variant ought to be finished at the end of the F35s projected lifespan—if they start now.
Comes down to the same thing over and over: the F-35 at all costs mantra means eliminating capability after capability to pay for it.
– F-14 long range intercept role? Eliminated. No replacement.
– A-6 long range heavy strike role? Eliminated. No replacement.
– A-10 WVR CAS role? Eliminated. No replacement.
– EA-6 / EF-111 role of EW aircraft? Eliminated. No replacement.
– A-4 / A-7 low mix strike role? Eliminated. No replacement.
– F-16 low cost fighter/strike role? Eliminated. No replacement.
Lot's of people who want to talk about how shiny and pretty the new F-35s are don't want to talk about everything that has been given up to get them.
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.
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.
Jack of all trades, master of none is the what the Super Hornet is. It can do many things. Can it do them as well as the planes it replaced? No. It's a compromise of design. It carries less payload, Is slower, & lacks the range of the F-14D it replaced.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/595147/pos…
http://veritasetparatus.blogspot.com/2008/11/f-14…
But what need is there for a F-14 really? We've not needed a dedicated interceptor in quite some time, so it makes more sense to let a multi-role airframe fullfill the need and save budget and carrier space.
You skiped A decent Tanker & ASW platform from the list.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So the Marine Corps is blatantly going to give up Prowlers and replace them with nothing.
Lookup "Growlers"
The USMC does not fly the "G" Model.
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?
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.
Look at the article posted right before this one.
As good as the F-35 is or will be. . . Sheer numbers of enemy aircraft can overwhelm the systems. I believe that we are headed for some rude awakenings when the rubber meets the road. We are asking to few numbers of airmen to do too much, with to little. We may have a gun that never misses; but the other guys are going to keep coming until we run out of bullets, and then they are going to kill us. I wish that this wasn't true; but the facts remain. Our defense budgets are being cut more and more. Pretty soon we will be doing so much, with nothing; that we'll have to survive with sticks and bows and arrows. They tried this kind of one shoe fits all crap in the 60's with the F-111, the F-14, A-7 etc. etc. There are too many needs for the different services to put one system into all of them. But then the defense pros want to make one Special Opps group to handle everything. IDIOTS.
Nuff Said,
Cheers
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.
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…
The US still accounts for roughly 50% of the worlds defense expenditures. Of the top 10 defense spenders, only China and Russia are not considered staunch allies. Neither of them is a real threat for war breaking out between us and them. People like to talk about US vs. China, but we're so financially dependent on one another any war would tank both our economies…not likely to happen.
The US military, especially the navy & air force as vastly superior in size and capability to any potential adversary regardless of who it is.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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).
So why develop the x-47b?
Unmanned. Noting wrong with that.
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.
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.
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".
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…..
Do you think before you post?
Yes, I do…
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?
1. To spend the $$$$ they are asking, I want a plane that at least equals stuff we built 25 years ago.
2. The Mig 25 was a Bomber interceptor. Does have to be that fast? No. But not being able to even break Mach 2, sucks.
3. Range matters. If you don't have it, you can not hit targets you need to. Tankers are a over used resource. they may not be there all the time.
4. It would be nice if the AMRAAM's were not faulty…. The AIM-120 has a problem with defective motors. Raytheon has not delivered any more for 2 years. Rocket failures have led to Taiwan removing all their Aim-7's from service. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/… http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Missiles…
5. The gun only has 180 rounds. A few secs worth. The B & C models need pods for guns.
6. Rules of engagement make your long missile shots rare.
…and your reasons for saying this are??? (cue the APA/Bill Sweetman nonsense parroting of stuff learned from the internet. Never gets old.)
Smart CHOICE! 3 variants is already enough drama for the JSF project.
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?
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.