Air Force ISR and EW Stay Separate, B-52 Jammer Dies
|
Posted
by David A. Fulghum at
10/22/2009 2:29 PM CDT
|
Electronic warfare and information operations – including cyber attack – are destined to remain un-integrated for a while longer because of the schisms between operations, intelligence and technology communities.
“As we look across the information operations (IO) and electronic warfare spectrum (EW), how do we tie it all together” as both the technology and battlefield become more complicated? asks Maj. Gen. David Scott, Air Force director of operational capability requirements. “There are a lot of things out there that we are standing up. We’re in the infancy of understanding IO and cyber warfare. [Yet many things are not understood, like] what is the effect, what is the capability – we’re not there yet.
"Cyber threats are increasingly pervasive, and several key adversaries have drastically expanded their computer network operations for intelligence collection and military use," the report said. "Moreover, the techniques used and the growing computer globalization made it increasingly difficult to detect and prevent intrusions."
Scott predicts that the changes will be instituted by Pentagon and service leadership rather than creating new organizations.
In late Sept., a summit of U.S. Air Force four-star generals rejected establishment of a major Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) command that could coordinate operational planning for the emerging arsenal of non-kinetic and asymmetrical weaponry. That decision stopped any talk of a cross-discipline command that could speed development, rationalization and use of ISR, UAVs, information operations, electronic attack, cyber-warfare and other non-kinetic weapons.
“I don’t think we’re going to do an ISR command,” Scott says. “I don’t think the chief sees that. The way I’ll [explain] that is manpower. When you start standing up another command, it takes people and manpower costs a lot of money. What we’re trying to do in the ISR realm is to pull that – GMTI, EO, full-motion video, manned and unmanned – all together to give the warfighter the right tools. You’ve got to normalize it.”
Would it be better for integration and interoperability if the world of electronic warfare (EW) were brought under a single command instead? That answer also appears to be no.
“We’re working hard with Air Combat Command on where we’re going,” Scott says. “We understand that in the [world of the electromagnetic] spectrum there are a lot of gaps and seams and we’re figuring that out. I’m not sure that a command will fix that. I don’t see us going to an EW command or an ISR major command. Will we ever make it a Numbered Air Force – we could, but we’ll have to work on that.”
Even the basic requirement for an airborne electronic attack and jamming capability does not appear to be any closer to a solution. The Air Force has twice offered programs for a standoff jamming system to be carried by the B-52 and twice been rejected. The effort how appears to be taking a new direction.
“The USAF believes we need to have stand-in capability,” Scott says. We need to get into a place, persist, fight, kill things and get out. We need to go places in a conventional campaign and stay around with conventional capabilities and stealth doesn’t do that completely. You need a capability in the EW realm that allows you to stand in. We believe we need that and that it is one of our missions.”
The Air Force, without Scott offering any detail, will not duplicate the Navy, Marine Corps and Army electronic attack capability.
“We’re looking across the spectrum [with the Navy] to determine how we do electronic attack so that we’re not redundant,” Scott says. “We’re going to do electronic attack jointly. We are looking at pods for the USAF. Are we bringing back the B-52? No, I don’t think so.”
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Wow. This is like really bad. This is yet another example to those that think that the USAF will get some kind of new long range bomber. They will not. Why?
The dream of steak on a hamburger budget is the reality. If USAF can't field solutions like JSTARS upgrades and a whole host of other upgrades like the B-52 jamming effort due to lack of funds, there is no next gen long range bomber. The USAF will struggle to find funds for the replacement tanker AND trying to pay for more than 48 F-35s per year when F-35 full rate production starts up.
But back to the B-52 stand-off / broadband jammer. Have Maj. Gen. David Scott explain to us the difference between a self-defense, and escort, and a stand-off jammer. Add broad-band jamming to that. I wonder if he or others have a clue. His statement, The USAF believes we need to have stand-in capability, doesnt inspire confidence.
I would wager that we have PowerPointed most of our USAF old crow corporate knowledge into oblivion. USAF jamming efforts are what ever few nickels can be scrapped together given what a vendor says USAF can buy with those few nickels.
A stand off broadband jammer is still needed. And wasn't a previous killing of B-52SOJ a negative affect on funding and development for the next-generation jammer of which the Navy is interested in?
Confine the Compass Call/Prowler roles to unmanned platforms and let the stealthy Gen-5.0 F-22/-35 plug the holes, and you have a fine alternative to the raw 'zorch' power of that B-52 belly-jammer.
I humbly do believe however, that there should be some form of joint-service ISR command.
Just as current army units have to be proficient in both 'hearts and minds' COIN and classic armored warfare, future EW assets will have to be able to switch between intercepting and jamming mobile phones and IED triggers, and be able to spoof S-300 fire controls or other 'high value' electronic assets.
With the enduring COIN conflicts now and in the future (Somalia?), larger USAF EW platforms must be able to support the grunts on the ground and cannot be relegated to hangar queen status forever waiting for the Chinese to invade Oklahoma.
Sferrin is dead on right and Solomon isn't too far off either.
On Soloman's comment, note that the Navy is already looking at other jobs that the P-8 airframe ( a militarized B737 ) can do besides its origianal maritime/asw thingy.
While decoys like MALD are important, it isn't going to fill all the special team needs.
Note also that for the most part, the best work a stealth aircraft maker can do is to make an aircraft able to minimize the 1-20 GHZ range. Add vertical tails and that band range is even less. Add export friendly stealth and you have a little extra risk against high end IADS in the coming years.
We have the B-2, and even though big flat wings like that can reach down to VHF somewhat and are true all aspect stealth ( as opposed to the weak "bow tie" of the F-35 (with a good front end) or the stronger "bow tie" of the F-22, Where the B-2 has no airframe perfromance of any worth. But hey the original design of the B-2 was to do a one way nuke mission and find a hole in a very broad then Soviet territory to deleiver nukes.
And don't forget What LM said about the F-117 shootdown; that a simple turn could increase one's RCS by a factor of 100 or more.
So without broadband standoff jamming, we have some problems. And I wouldn't look at the C-130 Compass-call or any C-130 or really anything to fill in the blanks until we get a serious next gen jammer family of equipment. The good General above needs to think that the Next Gen jammer was the first step to "jointness". Broadband Standoff jamming platforms make the stealth aircraft we have so much more effective. SOJ is IMHO vital toward the idea that some have-that the F-35 is able to face first team IADS.
Oh well. Pauper USAF and all that.
And sferrin -
A quick summary of major elements within procurement portion of budget:
Total Defense wide R&D/T&E is $20.5b.
Some various elements of procurement portion of budget:
$13.1b for total USAF aircraft buy, modification, maint, support including:
$2.05 billion for 10 F-35A (reduced from planned 12 F-35A)
$1.8b for USAF airlift
$1.9b for 'other' USAF a/c including Global Hawk
$800m for USAF rocket/bombs/cannon ammo
$640m for USAF missiles/SDB (including 219 AIM-9X)
$4.5b on space related/support projects.
$850m for classified USAF missile and space projects.
$15.3b for USN shipbuilding (6 new)/ship projects
$820m for USN/USMC bombs/rockets/cannon-bullet ammo
$18b for total USN aviation procurement including:
$1.6b for 22 EA-18G
$2.2b for 30 V-22
$4.0b for 20 F-35B/C ($200m ea.)