The future of Marine electronic attack

[DanMa1156]

(double post format problem... see post below)

 

[DanMa1156]

"They are gonna milk those prowlers for all they are worth b/c its the cheapest solution."

Not necessarily. Since we will be the only one's flying them, and since replacement parts were used up a long time ago, we will have to rebuild every part that breaks. Much like legacy F-18's are doing right now for a majority of the flight control surfaces. Really depends on how you look at it, but it does give a greater impetus to develop the EA capability of the F-35 much faster.

Has that even been mentioned by either the government or Lockheed Martin? It really seems like Growlers will be the future force of E/A warfare, not some E/A F-35 version from everything I've read...

 

[Cron]

Has that even been mentioned by either the government or Lockheed Martin? It really seems like Growlers will be the future force of E/A warfare, not some E/A F-35 version from everything I've read...

Here's an interesting tidbit from the Feb 09 GAO report posted in another thread:

"The Marine Corps seeks a dedicated stand-off jamming aircraft to replace its aging EA-6B Prowlers. JSF aircraft of current design, or JSF’s augmented to perform the electronic attack mission more effectively are two options being considered for this mission. If the Marine Corps were to use the F-35 for this mission, it could argue for a larger JSF inventory."

 

[Flash]

"They are gonna milk those prowlers for all they are worth b/c its the cheapest solution."

Not necessarily. Since we will be the only one's flying them, and since replacement parts were used up a long time ago, we will have to rebuild every part that breaks. Much like legacy F-18's are doing right now for a majority of the flight control surfaces. Really depends on how you look at it, but it does give a greater impetus to develop the EA capability of the F-35 much faster.

Yes and no, they will have a boneyard full of old Navy Prowlers to cannabalize for a few years. They might even have a few 'attrition' birds they could rotate in and out of the fleet like the Canucks do with a few of their Hornets.

I see a lot more stuff in the press about how they might move away from dedicated EA platforms to more of a 'system of systems', with jamming pods on fighters being the way to go and not having dedicated aircraft. Having tried that in Vietnam with mixed sucess I will believe it when I see it.

 

[phrogdriver]

Yes and no, they will have a boneyard full of old Navy Prowlers to cannabalize for a few years. They might even have a few 'attrition' birds they could rotate in and out of the fleet like the Canucks do with a few of their Hornets.

I see a lot more stuff in the press about how they might move away from dedicated EA platforms to more of a 'system of systems', with jamming pods on fighters being the way to go and not having dedicated aircraft. Having tried that in Vietnam with mixed sucess I will believe it when I see it.

Network technology has come a little ways since 1973. Just sayin'.

 

[Flash]

Network technology has come a little ways since 1973. Just sayin'.

It is not just the technology that I am concerned about, it is the skills and expertise. Without a cadre of operational types dedicated to EW I think that the skill and knowledge levels overall will suffer. I think a good example is the USAF, who have seen their EW skill set atrophy since the retirement of the EF-111 and the F-4G Wild Weasels.

And it ties back into the technology piece as well. Having a magic box or pod is great but if you don't know how to operate or emply it properly it is not much more than dead weight.

 

[DanMa1156]

Just a question - why do the Marines have an EW component? I have heard all their reasons for the other wings like CAS roles, that whole "the Marines down on the ground want to know they have a Marine above them" argument, but why don't they let the Navy assume the EW role - seems more cost efficient. Or is that it - do the Marines need it to keep their aviation component that much more relevant? (Threadjack- maybe this needs a new thread?)

 

[phrogdriver]

Cost wise, it might be cheaper for the Navy to do all our air support.

Part of the Marine Corps doctrine is to be able to be self-sustaining ashore. EA is one of the capabilities necessary to make this happen, though admittedly it's the first asset to be tapped by hgigher and probably the first one to shed, if forced to make a choice.

 

[Uncle Fester]

...probably the first one to shed, if forced to make a choice.

Which it would appear that it will, because they have been. I'll eat my hat the day that an "EF-35" actually makes it to the Fleet.

Incidentally, Marine Air's been involved with EA for a long time.

 

[Sky-Pig]

Which it would appear that it will, because they have been. I'll eat my hat the day that an "EF-35" actually makes it to the Fleet.

Incidentally, Marine Air's been involved with EA for a long time.

Nice...it's hard to find EF-10B photos. And I'm guessing that's a AD-1Q on the top?

 

[JTB7]

I was wondering where the conversation went, thought someone released top secret info and and an admin deleted the whole conversation. (Making a new thread because of a threadjack always happens on AW )

Anyway, good info and thanks for the responses.

 

[KBayDog]

Network technology has come a little ways since 1973. Just sayin'.

Emphasis on "little." NMCI is only marginally better than the Mk-1 Typewriter.

 

[usmarinemike]

I hate to be a heretic here, but what about giving the EA capability to UAVs? Probably couldn't fire HARM though. Don't know if that's important or not.

 

[phrogdriver]

That's actually a COA out there. HARM shooting doesn't require a specialized platform.

 

[nittany03]

That's actually a COA out there. HARM shooting doesn't require a specialized platform.

Well . . . yes, and no. Can't get into the details here, but let's just say certain aircraft have more options in that area than others.