EW makes a comeback — again

Six years after the airborne electronic attack system of systems (AEA SOS) concept really got started — and nearly three years after most of that grandiose strategy fell apart — electronic warfare (EW) is back on the drawing boards.

The first draft of a new investment strategy based on a capabilities-based assessment now in progress is due on 1 April. (This information came out last Friday at a media roundtable with the DOD’s EW leadership hosted by the Association of Old Crows.)

AEA is a touchy subject with the US Air Force. This is not least because the enduring need to jam or destroy enemy air defense systems seems to conflict with the huge investment in low observable technology over the past two decades.

So when the two biggest pieces of the AEA SOS — the standoff B-52 core component jammer (CCJ) and the stand-in joint unmanned combat air system — both got axed from the budget in 2006, few were surprised.

Neither technology is expected to make a comeback now even though the USAF loses its USN-supplied escort jamming force of EA-6Bs after 2012.

“They havedecided to — I don’t want to say accept risk because that’s a bad way to putit — they’ve just taken a look at all their needs,” Greg Torba, deputy chief of USAF EW and cyber requirements, told us. 

“I think where theair force chose to go down the road of LO — low observable – technology, and whatwe can do with that against the cost of the CCJ,” Torba added.

Strangely, the apparent lack of support for a CCJ revival didn’t seem to bother anyone in the room. Instead, the group is “very pleased with the discussion so far” on the fiscal 2010 budget request that will be unveiled in February, said James “Raleigh” Durham, director of joint advanced concepts for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Click on the link below to read my transcript from the media roundtable.

Associationof Old Crows (AOC) Journalist Series Roundtable


James “RaleighDurham,Director of Joint Advanced Concepts (OSD AT&L)


CAPT BrianHinkley (USN), Head of the Electronic Warfare/Spectrum Dominance Division, NavyNetwork Warfare Command


Col Laurie Buckhout (US Army), Chief ofthe Army EW Division


Mr. GregTorba, Deputy Chief of USAF EW and Cyber Requirements


LCDR JDMcCreary (USN), Joint Electronic Warfare Center under USSTRATCOM


Jay Kistler (OSDAT&L)


Brig. Gen.Andy Dichter (USAF, ret.), former Deputy Director for Joint Integration,Directorate of Operational Capability Requirements, Deputy Chief of Staff forAir and Space Operations



Durham:My focus primarily and the subject of the talk at AOC will be the strategy tomaintain USelectromagnetic dominance. Where I am is primarily at that strategy andorganization level. Jay, as you said, is the technical director and he knowsthe technical terms and everything else feeds on that. Andy Dichter is bothsupporting me and other customers as well but primarily supporting me in gettingthe organizational construct right to create the environment where EW canflourish. So that’s really what we’re trying to do here.


We’ve hadsome — I think you’ve all seen several of our discussions about our ElectronicWarfare Joint Analysis Team that we’ve had going for the past close to a year.


It wasformed in response to a request from US PACOM — I might add persistent request– that we actually have a single — I hate to use the word bellybutton becausethere’s a better term — scratch the term bellybutton if you would please — a singlepoint of contact for the many electronic warfare issues that they were raising.

And so thepoint was that the issues ranged a full gamut of capabilities and no one serviceor DOD entity really was responsible for all of them. And so the point was thereneeded to be someone to coordinate activities.


The discussionabout digital RF memory is one that we have all the time. It’s a — I don’tknow if it should be a moot discussion — but it’s certainly has been a part ofthe electronic warfare toolkit, and always has been. And how you’re able tomanage all of the aspects, everywhere from the requirements side, to acquisitionto testing to joint testing and so forth, and who was pulling all of thattogether.


And afterabout three years of visiting PACOM on joint requirements oversight council hubtrips, and PACOM pointing out, “Every time [our] people [ask] something, [your]people respond. Thank you very much. But [you're] not responding in anintegrated manner.”


So that’swhy we formed the electronic warfare joint analysis team [EW JAT] primarily toaddress those capability needs identified by the combatant commander, echoed bymany other combatant commanders, and, of course, agreed to by the services thatthose were, in fact, needs. But no one was coordinating those. So we’ve been operatingbasically for a year as what Mr. Young has commissioned as joint analysisteams.


But the jointanalysis teams, however, are really formed to do some specific activities andthen go away. And so we were primarily formed to respond to the combatant commander-PACOM’srequest for assistance in the electronic warfare area. We have done that. We havetaken our issues throughout the program review cycle. I can’t tell you anythingmore than we’re very pleased with the discussions so far. The secretary willannounce his decisions in his budget.


But we’rehaving a very good dialogue, and very good success, I believe, in keeping all ofthe balls in the air and together in the same area relative to this importantarea. And so that’s primarily what we’ve been doing.


In responseto calls saying essentially, well, what happens after the joint analysis teamshave completed its job? We have coordinated a charter. We’re looking seriouslyabout a long-term vision for what a group like this could be. We’ve learned howto work together. I’ve got to tell you tremendous, tremendous support from allthe services, the combatant commander-STRATCOM and other components … all theway across the board. Tremendous ability to work together is what we’ve shown,and solve problems together.


So we’veused that experience in moving on to the next level and — proposing to move onto the next level — we’ll see what forms that takes as we go on. Our combatantcommander at PACOM led the charge in asking for us to stand up a group likethis, and they suggested that the task force would be an appropriate level ofinvolvement at the department level. We might try that name for a while but anorganization … [inaudible]


But basicallyI think that’s what we’re about here and we’ll talk a lot more about it at theconvention. We wouldn’t want you guys to skip the convention based on gettingtoo much stuff here now would we?


Dave Fulghum:Do you think the lack of information coming out of the air force about whatthey’re going to do with Cyber Command is waiting on some sort of decision likethis?


Durham: No. no. Certainly, the air forceis certainly not waiting on the decision about what we’re going to do with theelectronic warfare JAT transition to decide cyber.


Fulghum: Imean there’s a lot of overlap –


Durham: There’s very similar, very similaroverlap.


Fulghum: Andit needs to be coordinated, right?


Durham: That discussion, I believe, isbest held in a discussion about cyber, not about electronic warfare. Electronicwarfare like several other areas is a supporting and an enabling agent throughout,across the spectrum. So I don’t think they would wait on us necessarily.They’re going to expect us to be there.


Fulghum: Ithought EA would sort of wrap all of this, bring all of this together. When youhave a sensor that is turned into a weapon that is turned into a communicationsdevice that is turned into a network penetration device. I mean that sounds tome like –


Kistler:  I think the answer is cyber is still emergingand we’re doing a lot right now just to define cyber. And we’re working on therelationship between that -


Fulghum: That’swhere I was wanting to get to –


Kistler: It’snot just cyber. People call it information warfare. Counter-IED, that’s EW; aircraftsurvivability, that’s EW. We tend to bin these things into pots according tomission and that’s what we’re talking about. Because those pots represent a lotof money.


The issueis to bring all that together to see what the total investment is and what thetotal benefit for the warfighter is what we’re always talking about. My job iskind of to take the core strategy and push it down into the differentactivities. And, vice verse, to bring those technical activities back up tohave top-level visibility.


We’reworking through that right now. We work with STRATCOM, we work very closelywith the joint staff and USDI and other players who are trying to get our armswhat do we mean by cyber, who’s going to control cyber.


That’s adebate that’s still going on. There’s a recognition that EW overlaps withwhatever we do in cyber. You’re exactly right.


Durham: It’s an enabler of all of thesecapabilities … Is it, do you lead with any one of those? Probably not. Thediscussion is ongoing, but you’re point was, ‘are they waiting on us’? No, theyare not waiting on us.  


Fulghum: Ithink actually the point was, are you guys getting any sense of where the debateis? And what has caused the dissolution of the effort to make an organizationlike that functional and then the decision to back away from it and are yougetting any sense of — ?


Durham: First place, Dave and I are notinvolved in that at all … if some of the other services or perhaps STRATCOM wantsto comment on that, that would be separate. We are not tasked with that at the OSDlevel.


Chaisson: Kindof along these lines one of the recommendations and things that they’re talkingabout when you’re talking about consolidating things, talking about a single kindof EW czar – say, at OSD level, AT&L or something like that. I think thatkind of follows in here … I think this would be an opportune time to say — isthat a feasible idea? And, if so, with the election coming up, change ofadministration, how quickly kind of timeframe are we looking at before things ofthat nature would happen?


Durham: Let me take you back to the letterthe  [inaudible] congressional delegationsent to the secretary and we staffed a response back. Mr. Young signed it outfor us. That really said –. And I had a — I’ll tell you — a delightful discussionwith Congressman Pitts of the … [Electronic Warfare Working Group, or EWWG] … CongressmanLarsen had had a — what I’m told — with the Deputy Secretary’s office — hada delightful conversation with him on several of these things. We reallybelieve that right now the key to the JAT, or whatever this new organization willbe, could function as that single entity, integrator.


The term “czar”I think really doesn’t fit in our terminology very well. It’s very hard tointegrate in our structure. But if you were to see how well –. And I’ll ask ColBuckout and Ryan — they’re both on the EW JAT and been part of it for sometime — to tell you about how well people are working together.


Sometimesyou need a single as you say oftentimes “bellybutton” because you can’t getpeople to work together. Right? You need the decider. Well, perhaps we havefound a way to get people to work together for a common good. To share and toshare well. And thus far we’ve done that.


I will tellyou [inaudible] has certainly led the charge in sharing [inaudible] army EW vision[inaudible] right behind that [inaudible] came through and shared theirs. We’vegot pretty good stuff from the navy as well, and the marine corps.


We areworking well at sharing. And so I don’t know why we would have to have a czar,per se, that would replace what we’ve had in the EW JAT, and probably will haveas we transition to our new structure.


So if youcan say the function that you asked for out of an EW czar, I think we have thefunction in a more enduring form.


Because whenczars leave the czarina gets killed, right? And the whole czar’s family, andeverybody goes off and creates a new organization.


So really andtruly if you’re looking for something that’s enduring, then I think this – again,the EW JAT or the task force structure is enduring — and its enduring becausewe create a common vision, a shared need and we allow that each service hastheir own unique applications and so forth of common technology, common knowledgeand so forth. We all build on an electronic warfare reprogrammable database right?That was one of the things we were all talking about. We’ve got to make thisthing robust and really worthwhile. There’s something that everybody needs, andwe all joined together to encourage the department to really fix that.


So I thinkif you say the function of EW czar — and were to look at Mr. Young’s letterback to the congressman on that — I think it says we will perform that function.


It’s actuallybureaucratically more expensive on us but it’s also more enduring.Bureaucratically more expensive? More meetings. I mean more energy. Scratch theword expensive, [in terms of] money. But it is expensive in terms of meetings,schedules, people doing things and coordinating with each other and things likethat, that you wouldn’t do if you were a czar. If you were a czar you wouldjust lay down the law and move on. It’s a more enduring structure


Trimble: MayI ask, how does it directly influence the requirements process and thebudgeting process?


Durham: Well, the first thing in making agood decision is understanding. I’m a firm believer that well informed peoplemake good decisions.


I think a lotof times we make decisions that are sub-optimized or are less than the oneswe’d like because in the press of time and of course we’re all driven by certainclocks around here and the budget cycle is one of those, other cycles aredifferent cycles. We’re all driven by those. And so if in the press of timesomebody has to make a decision based on the information in front of them, they’regoing to make it.

So, if wecan broaden the base of information and make sure that good, jointly-agreedupon information is brought forward, we get good decisions. And I think youwill see the results after the president announces his decisions in his budget.


MCCREARY: CanI comment on that?


Durham: Please.


MCCREARY: Andthese comments really go to the last two questions. As STRATCOM –  General Chilton was tasked by GeneralCartwright to examine what the gaps are, look at the DOD force structure, bothmaterial and non-material, you understand that one of the demand signals that cameout of all the leadership at the COCOM level and also the services is, yes, notonly do we need an enduring organization and team leadership to engage all ofthis.


But, to thepoint, we need essentially to articulate how this relates to our nationalmilitary strategy across all of our domains, all of our warfighting functionsboth material and non-material.


And whateverenduring organization moves forward — whether its [inaudible], or a czar, or ifit’s an executive steering committee — I don’t know if we know the exactsolution yet. We will work through that.


But just thefact that I believe the nation now recognizes where we need to move forward to… We will have the enduring organization, the leadership roles, the people understandthe problem, and are committing both intellectually and resource committing tosolve those problems and maintain our qualitative technology advantages I thinkthat’s the most important thing.


Durham: Let me just echo. We’ve spent alittle too much time, started off with just EW JAT. Because a very importantforce — and what we’re doing right now – is the capbilites-based assessment that?? on behalf of the vice chairman for the services.


So that’swhat JD is speaking of and I will take those two points there — the fact that OSDis attempting to form an organizational construct that can take all of that. That[organization] can actually act on the warfighting assessment is good news. Buteven better news is the fact that this capabilities based assessment is asbroad and as deep and as joint-participation as you can imagine.


Fulghum: Isthis any reason on why things seem to have slowed down in CCJ and ACS? They’regoing back saying we need to reassess what those products are going to be. And sowe seem to have actually lost ground rather than gained ground with those capabilities.I know navy seems to be going along with ICAP-3 and next generation jammer.


Torba: Well,that’s a loaded question. I think it’s a process question and based on twothings: fiscally-constrained ends against risk and capabilities and what do wedo and where do we get the biggest bang for the buck? And I think where the airforce chose to go down the road of LO — low observable – technology, and whatwe can do with that against the cost of the CCJ, which at the time it was givento us was a $7-plus billion bill. Industry just needs to help us out with COTS andGOTS better as opposed to —


Fulghum: Yeah,but industry said from the very beginning that those numbers were not their assessmentsof what the charge were. That those were pretty formulaic and that they wereactually looking at a system that was actually half that price. So I’m surprisedyou’re still saying it’s – well, I suppose $2.5 billion isn’t a low numbereither. But you’re saying the air force hasn’t progressed past that?


Torba: No Idon’t think so. I think this goes back to the start 2002. Then another report cameout in 05. And the JROC said this is a validated requirement but the DAWG decidedthat – hey, how are we pay for this against all the other things that we’re tryingto do – recapitalization, modernization. We still have fourth generation aircraftthat need survivability things. And against all the things that we’re trying todo, including standing up the cyber command . They have decided to — I don’twant to say accept risk because that’s a bad way to put it — they’ve justtaken a look at all their needs.


Fulghum: Myunderstaning is the navy isn’t going to be able to give EW support to the expeditionaryair forces so that’s a big-time risk isn’t?


Torba: We’redoing risk mitigation. MALD, MALD-J. Those are definitely standing things up tohelp reduce, mitigate some risk.


Butler: I had a question not about the airwar. I don’t know if you guys can address it. Given the increase in alarmingrhetoric about the vulnerability of our assets in space to jamming and also, Iwould assume, a commensurate increase of our capability to jam should we wantto in space, what’s being done in OSD and the services to address the EW situationin space?


Buckout: Iknow that STRATCOM has some efforts that we really can’t talk about in thisroom for starters. There are some considerable efforts.


Fulghum: Younever got around to ACS.


Durham: Well that’s because you used upall of your time.


Butler: I’m interested in ACS, too, if I canget my space question answered in some fashion. I saw Mr. Kistler lookedinterested in this.


Kistler: Well,it is difficult. I guess the best thing to say is directed energy, jamming,physical devices, the department is clearly aware of the risks that we face inthat –there is activity not largely that we deal with. But it’s clearly beingpursued by STRATCOM as well the joint staff ..


Durham: I think [inaudible] what we’reprepared to speak about here is not central to those kind of questions.


Kistler: It’sa difficult question because of the strategic nature. It’s very hard.


Butler: I’m curious with respect to theair force decision to go to a stealth aircraft fleet. Obviously that was a strategicmove on the air force’s part — not shared by all the services equally. But isit logical to think there would be similar thinking in terms of satellites? Ifyou could mask a satellite’s capabilities or location or the signals they emit,is that a similar logical step for the air fore on its satellite fleets?


Durham: I don’t think we’ve got that anybodyhere is prepared to give —


Kistler:  I couldn’t give you a really authoritative answer…


Durham: So if we can’t give you anauthoritative answer, we shouldn’t give answer.


Fulghum: Noone ever takes advantage of Amy Butler.


Kistler: There’sprobably other forums where we could review these things.


Butler: ACS question, share that [inaudible]


Fulghum: Anythingwe say will probably end up in a joint byline anyway.


Buckout:I’m not the ACS SME. The last discussion I had are about three or four monthsold. You know one thing we want to talk about as we talk about roadmaps. Ithink all the services are retooling roadmaps right now. The army is in themiddle of that because we’ve been fighting this war for about seven years now, andas we go along we are seeing these enduring programatics are not necessarilysupporting where we need to go, where we need to be today. JCIDS isn’t fastenough. The requirements determination process is not moving fast enough.Programs need to be spiraled out sooner.


That’s thevice chief of staff of the army’s primary push for FCS is to pull out spiralsfor ISR, for self-protection, for mobility for self-awareness sooner so we havea more netcentric capability. But along with that netcentric capability, bothon the ground in the air and in any variety of platforms — be it manned or unmannedvehicle or manned or unmanned aircraft — that we have in our own battlespace.  


You’regoing to have programs that need to be developed, or are going to be pulled outof existing ones, the ones we have today — like ACS — may not be entirely supportiveof the ISR needs that we see developing right now.


So a lot ofthe roadmaps are changing. A lot of the programatics are shifting. And I can’tsay that you’re going to see good solid stability in a whole lot of  army programs. Does that make sense?


Fulghum: Howabout the new systems that are coming on? My understanding was you guys havesort of pitched everything out the window and gone back to industry and said let’stry this again. Let’s look at it again. Are you going to try where it’s a dualdownselect followed by a set of demonstrations?


Buckout: Idon’t think so. I think — as I’ve said, there’s a lot of programs out there thatbeing are retooled to meet the mobility, asymmetric, unconventional aspects ofthe current war so we’re better poised for different scenarios that support the  tings coming at us rather than just the coldwar scenario from which many of these programs sprang.


But I don’tthink we’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think for instancewith prophet. Prophet is sprialling into newer, more mobile capabilities. It’sgot an electornic attack capability going into it, a SIGINT system. That’sgoing into something that’s more streamlined and more capable. We’re not just throwingthe program away, and saying, “Well, okay, let’s scrap it and start over.” Ithink ACS is the same thing.


We do havenew programs starting up. We do have some spiraling our early. We’re looking atour CREW capability, and spiraling those into our first family of integratedelectronic warfare systems, IEWS. That’s where the army needs to go. Havesomething better than SIGINT and something better than CREW. CREW does onething: it goes after radio-controlled IEDs. You need to have an electronic attackcapability added to that, so we’re calling on some of the current technologies turnout to be old already … current technologie s??? You say what’s old is newagain but I think it’s capitalizing on current resources, current investment, currenttechnologies, driving towards a better system rather than scrapping the wholething. I don’t think in this age of fiscal reality you can afford to scrapstuff. You improve on what you have as much as you can …


Fulghum: Themarine corps is doing an interesting job by linking their radios to ICAP-IIIs, gettingyou real time delivery of electronic fires


Buckout: [inaudible]


Fulghum: Ah,so that’s where that expeditionary E-6s are going to go? They’re going to go tothe army then?


Buckout: …Now it’s all about expeditionary brigade combat teams that can go and fight,JTFs, etc. Being able to have that full control of the battlespace with a UAS-basedasset were you can maneuver, mobility electronic fires, etc, at the platoon bringsa whole lot of capability to fires.


Fulghum: Howquickly will you have airborne delivered electronic fires?


Buckout: Ican’t give you a date because we’re still working the JCTD, still working with JCIDSand the requirements processes.


Fulghum: I’llsettle for next two years, next five years?


Buckout : Iwould say that by the next three or four years, and some of that will be in thetechnology demonstration process. Let’s say — I’ll tell you what, let’s tossout a date. I’ll do it. I’ll commit. I’ll say 2015.


Trimble: Letme ask, you had brought up the CBA. What can you say about where that — howthings look for airborne electronic attack, and where the gaps are and what theneeds are?


MCCREARY: Youwant to know specifically what the gaps are?


Trimble: Well,I guess, however you can describe what the CBA determined about state ofairborne electronic attack and what the needs are going forward.


Hinkley: Iseverybody just concerned about airplanes electronic attack?


Trimble:I’m Flight.


Navy: Isthere any concern about surface or ground electronic attack. I’m just curious becausea lot of — … A year ago, if you asked in the navy who was in EW centre, everybodywould turn to the EA-6B platform, and you run navy EW. But EW is far more than– I’m an EA-6B guy but I’ll take my wings off and put them on the table here becauseelectronic warfare isn’t just aviation eletronic attack. So, it’s moreencompassing than any of that, but I’ll let JD answer the question.


MCCREARY: FromSTRATCOM’s perspective, the CBA, as pointed out, looked at all of the domains. Wedid in particular look at airborne electronic attack as one of those things butprobably not in the context that you were thinking.


We’re tryingto get rid of the term airborne electronic attack because it creates such anarrow focus. I mean it actually is one of the indicators of how we have fallenin the trap of describing electronic warfare the way we have: very platform-centric,very technology-, mission-centric. Typically, when people say airborneelectronic attack, they think Compass Call, counter-IADS mission. We’veexpanded that a little bit to something of e asymmetric mission ..


What we’re reallytrying to describe is there are EA, ES, EP functions across the military. Some ofthem are offensive EA. Some of them are defensive EA. That could be in a land-basedenvironment, and it could be in air-based environment.


To getspecifically to your question, though. In the airborne arena we certainly find –no surprise, lots and lots of studies have been done about what we’re at withEA — the department has not come up with their final answer yet.


But, one ofthe great things about where we are, is now I think we have a much morecomplete understanding of the things that we need to do with our electronic attackcapabilities both offensive and defensive. And so as we look at, is it CCJ, isit unmanned, is it a stand-in component/stand-off component, how does it playwith space-based, how does it support not only counter-IADS, but defense of a carrierstrike group, the defense of forward-based infills … [inaudible] in urbanenvironments, in a high-end warfare context.


We can nowlook at it and work with industry to really come up with a more efficient approachthat will answer the true gaps not just one particular set of beliefs that we’veheld onto for some time.


Trimble: Andwhat’s the timeline for the department to come up with the answer to thoseissues?


MCCREARY: Well,we’re actually on a very definitive timeline. The chairman has tasked STRATCOM towork with PACOM, all the services and interagency in the next six months. So by1 April we will have done a comprehensive analysis of where we stand from materialand non-material investments across all of the capability gaps, which areclassified and I can’t go into any of the details of those. But it’s pretty — itwouldn’t be hard to figure out what they are. It’s pretty logical. Noincredible surprises.


What isgoing to be terrific about this is working very closely with the services, COCOMsand all elements of OSD, we can look across all of our portfolios and figureout, how does the spectrum read through all things we do in DOD from cradle tograve across DOTMLPF? What’s our top-down strategy, national military strategy,and national investment strategy — with our industry partners — and moveforward with a comprehensive view of how do these things in a singlebattlespace. What are the technology enablers that will allow us to scale up asCOTS advances? …


Trimble: Iguess this is also where the JAT comes into play to be that clearing house ofinformation


Durham: Well, put the notion of time backinto it. The capabilities-based assessment will complete in April, as JD said. Andthen everybody’s going to have to react everybody’s going to have put all thepieces together. And that is going to take some time to do. One of the thingsthat we’re attempting to do is both participate with them as they support themas they are developing these capability requirements and then the solutionswill take time to implement and so we want to implement them in an integratedmanner. Let me go back to where Brian started the discussion I think correctly …and point out … I think all but one of us here wears wings … And has been apart of the airborne electronic attack discussions for so long that — in asense — I will almost say we have neglected the full spectrum of electronic combatand that’s really a lot of what this is about. It is getting ourselves backinto balance such that these platform — which are expensive platforms, we allunderstand that — are best aligned to the capabilities we need right now and thenwe’ll move forward. So back to the question about is this assessment takingaway from current decisions and so forth and so on — I think those decisions thatneed to be made are being made. I think those decisions that can wait, arewaiting. I think that’s about all we can tell you right now But I do think … isthat pretty fair?




Durham: I think that’s really what we’relooking at. The discussion about whether or not the platform was $7 billion or$3 billion or whatever it was — they’re all expensive. CCJ — they’re all multi-mission.These are all multi-mission things and they need to be. To essentially get ourlegs underneath us, so to speak, figuratively for the department, and make surewe know exactly how and where to share right now, both in terms of technologyand in terms of platforms — most of these discussions are about platforms — Ithink is a very good thing, and I think will be very good for the department.


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

, ,

26 Responses to EW makes a comeback — again

  1. John S 23 October, 2008 at 4:01 pm #

    The USAF’s AEA solution is sitting right under their noses. Boeing developed the EA-18G growler, and can do the very same with the F-15E Strike Eagle.

    An EF-15E would be a dual role aircraft, capable of conventional strike roles when required, and able to load up with jammer pods for the escort or standoff jammer role when necessary.

    Sharing the A/ALQ-99 jamming system with the EA-18G would also by extension also allow the sharing of any future upgrades or threat libraries.

  2. Stephen Trimble 23 October, 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    F-15 Wild Weasel has been proposed in the past by Boeing, to the USAF’s complete disinterest.

    The USAF’s point is that it does no good to put a non-LO aircraft in an all-LO strike package, even for jamming purposes. The logic is not without its merits.

    The USMC wants the F-35 to serve as its stand-in escort jammer, replacing its really old EA-6Bs. The USAF may play along with that. Even better, the USAF doesn’t have to pay for the jamming pod, which may soon be starting development with USN funding.

    But there’s still no solution for the standoff jamming need that the B-52 CCJ would provide.

    The problem with stealth is that the kind used by F-22 and F-35 is oriented at X-band fire control radars. But long-range early warning radars use the low-frequency UHF-band (And yes, I know what UHF means. But even ultra-high frequency is low frequency compared to L-, S-, X- and K-bands).

    So the LO strike package can be compromised unless protected by a standoff jammer, or so goes the theory anyway.

  3. playtech casinos no deposit bonus 4 August, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.

    I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but
    other than that, this is wonderful blog. A great read.

    I will definitely be back.

  4. microgaming slots casino 10 August, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

    Valuable info. Lucky me I found your web site accidentally, and I’m surprised why this accident did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.

  5. link 11 August, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

    I will immediately snatch your rss as I can not to find your
    email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service.
    Do you have any? Kindly let me understand in order that I may just subscribe.

  6. casino royale Full Movie english hd 18 August, 2013 at 2:38 pm #

    Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your
    weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact enjoyed account
    your blog posts. Anyway I will be subscribing to your feeds and even I
    achievement you access consistently rapidly.

  7. casino royale blu ray digital copy 18 August, 2013 at 8:31 pm #

    Greetings! Very helpful advice in this particular post!
    It is the little changes that will make the most significant changes.
    Thanks for sharing!

  8. Horsebox Manufacturers 21 August, 2013 at 4:57 am #

    Thanks for some other great article. Where else may just anybody
    get that kind of information in such a perfect manner of writing?
    I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m at the look for such information.

  9. second hand horse boxes uk 23 August, 2013 at 11:29 am #

    Somebody necessarily help to make seriously posts I might state.
    That is the very first time I frequented your website page and to this point?

    I amazed with the analysis you made to create this particular submit amazing.
    Fantastic activity!

  10. microgaming poker rake 30 August, 2013 at 4:16 am #

    Cool blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download
    it from somewhere? A theme like yours with a few simple tweeks
    would really make my blog jump out. Please let me know where you got your
    theme. Bless you

  11. seo ranking software for mac 3 September, 2013 at 8:32 am #

    It’s very easy to find out any matter on web as compared to books, as I found
    this paragraph at this web site.

  12. faniq.com 3 September, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    Hello There. I found your weblog the usage of msn.
    That is a really neatly written article. I’ll be sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your useful information.
    Thank you for the post. I will definitely comeback.

  13. All In one seo tools 5 September, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

    naturally like your web site however you need to
    take a look at the spelling on several of your posts.
    Several of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell
    the reality then again I will definitely come again again.

  14. extreme seo tools promotional code 5 September, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

    What’s up, all the time i used to check webpage posts here in the early hours in the dawn, since i like to
    learn more and more.

  15. seo services company in india 7 September, 2013 at 1:58 am #

    Wow that was strange. I just wrote an incredibly long comment but after I
    clicked submit my comment didn’t appear. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again.
    Anyhow, just wanted to say fantastic blog!

  16. best seo services in gurgaon 9 September, 2013 at 10:00 pm #

    It’s in fact very complicated in this busy life to listen news
    on TV, thus I just use internet for that reason, and get the hottest information.

  17. instagram followers hack 2013 10 September, 2013 at 8:23 pm #

    For most recent information you have to pay a quick visit internet and on internet I found this web site as
    a most excellent web site for newest updates.

  18. playtech progressive 13 September, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am
    impressed! Extremely useful information specially the last part
    :) I care for such information a lot. I was seeking
    this particular information for a long time.
    Thank you and best of luck.

  19. playtech no deposit bonus 15 September, 2013 at 9:37 am #

    Howdy! This post couldn’t be written any better!

    Looking through this post reminds me of my previous roommate!

    He always kept preaching about this. I will send this post to him.
    Pretty sure he’ll have a very good read. Thank you for sharing!

  20. Una 17 September, 2013 at 1:52 pm #

    Thanks , I’ve recently been searching for information about this topic for a long time and yours is the best I have found out till now.
    However, what concerning the conclusion? Are you certain concerning
    the source?

  21. Virgil 24 September, 2013 at 5:30 am #

    Every weekend i used to go to see this site, because i wish
    for enjoyment, for the reason that this this website conations in fact fastidious funny
    data too.

  22. Alan 24 September, 2013 at 9:03 am #

    Hi, I do believe this is an excellent website.
    I stumbledupon it ;) I will come back yet again since i have book marked it.
    Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may
    you be rich and continue to help others.

  23. www.2cellos.com 26 September, 2013 at 1:12 am #

    Hey There. I found your blog using msn. This is an extremely well written
    article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info.
    Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.

  24. is playtech ps3 controller rechargeable 5 October, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    It’s not my first time to visit this web page, i am visiting this
    website dailly and obtain pleasant facts from here every day.

  25. playtech mobile casino no deposit 7 October, 2013 at 8:21 am #

    What a stuff of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious experience concerning unexpected

  26. playtech game controllers 9 October, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    I was excited to discover this web site. I need to to thank you for ones time due to this wonderful read!!

    I definitely appreciated every bit of it and I have you saved as a favorite to check out new stuff
    in your web site.

Leave a Reply