AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/JANUARY 3, 2005
EA-35 Assessment
U.S. Marines realize time is short
to draft EA-6B follow-on plan
ROBERT WALL/WASHINGTON
The U.S. Marine Corps is about to embark on a study to determine
whether and how the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might serve as a
replacement for aging EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft.
The Marine Corps plans to fly its EA-6B until at least 2015, long
after the Navy has started transitioning to the EA-18 Growler. However,
Marine Corps officials realize that they, too, have to start crafting a Prowler
replacement plan.
In fact, although the prospective replacement is still a decade from entering
service, the development time and slow pace at which the Pentagon buys
systems add a sense of urgency to the Marines' deliberations. "I think this
[study] is timely, if not late," says Maj. Richard Bew, an aviation electronic warfare
requirements officer at Marine Corps headquarters.
The study the Marines plan to put on contract soon is relatively modest. It will
cost about $1 million and run approximately a year. However, its effect could
be far-reaching. The study could cause the service to shift near-term research
and development spending to bolster initiatives identified as critical to the future
electronic attack system. However, the full force of the findings will probably be
felt first in the Fiscal 2008 budget.
The so-called Electronic Attack-Joint Strike Fighter trade study (EA-JSF) is
focused on the short takeoff and vertical landing version of the stealth fighter,
which the Marine Corps already plans to buy. Bew acknowledges that using the
Stovl version imposes on the electronic warfare version constraints that are more
severe than if the conventional or carrier-suitable F-35s were used.
BUT OPTING FOR the Stovl configuration offers benefits the others don't, Bew
argues. Primarily, it assures the EA-35 could operate from the same airfields
as the rest of the Marine Corps' JSF fleet, thereby providing a presence that
otherwise would not exist, he added. The Stovl configuration effectively
dictates that the EA-35 would be a single-seat aircraft, forcing a significant
change in the way the support-jamming mission is performed by the four-seat
Prowler. Earlier design considerations included using the space currently reserved
for the Stovl lift fan to accommodate an electronic warfare officer.
Bew notes that the electronic attack JSF would have to deal with missions
different than the Prowler, not only because of the change in crew size, but also
because threats are morphing. At the same time, the number of emitters on a
battlefield is exploding, so any future electronic attack aircraft will have to rely
far more on automation and other approaches to the mission which, to some
extent, aren't well understood yet.
The precise EA-35 configuration is still not defined, although some preferences
are already clear. For instance, while the Navy is basing its EA-18 on the Improved
Capability (ICAP-3) equipment now being fielded on the EA-6B, the Marines
believe an entirely new approach to devising a receiver and jamming suite would
better suit their system.
Still uncertain is whether jamming payloads can be mounted internally, preserving JSF's
stealth signature, or whether external jamming pods will be required.
A modular jamming suite that can be tailored to different missions is seen as a potential
solution. Military and industry officials have long said JSF's active electronically scanned
radar will provide a jamming capability, with relatively high power, albeit in a narrow bandwidth.
Bew indicates that the Marine Corps wants to preserve JSF's low-observable
signature and avoid compromising stealth performance through the use of
jamming equipment. That is complicated by the fact that once the system starts
jamming, it is easily detected.
One of the study goals is to clearly define obstacles to the EA-35 vision in order
to best devise a funding plan.
As the Marines consider future jamming needs, they are also trying to examine
the problem more broadly.
Rather than just looking at replacing the Prowler, Bew says the goal is to assess
what other electronic attack capabilities will reside in the larger Marine Air Ground
Task Force, the operational foundation for the service. The desire is to create "a
balanced and integrated approach," he notes.
Also part of the equation could be what electronic warfare capabilities the
Air Force and Navy will feature and how they may affect what the Marines would
need in a new electronic combat aircraft. Moreover, the assessment could delve
into larger role and mission questions at the Pentagon, specifically who may
be responsible for electronic attack over the long haul.
Marines Corps officials realize that whatever the solution, asking for additional
force structure for this mission isn't likely to be an acceptable path.
<b>"You got me all wrong Mudd...i don't like anyone.</b><img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>"
<img src="http://worldaffairsboard.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=862&stc=1" border=0>
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
