Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today announced that the Government had decided to acquire the Growler electronic warfare system for the Super Hornet, at a cost of around $1.5 billion.
Unfortunately, the facts of a tepid Growler "capability" don't allow for much of a future.
---UPDATE---
Industry sources hawking obsolete product say Growler is obsolete. Competition for available cash and all that. LOL. The bad decision by Defence to waste $1.5B on the Growler takes money away from the ultimate bad decision; the Joint Strike Failure.
35 comments:
Like the C27J, how do we get to $1.5 billion for 12 sets of pods+spares.
More than the cost of the Aircraft.
Perhaps AD/Bonza can enlighten us once again.
With sort of money, you could start you own program, and hook up with Elta et al and actually own the IP.As well as starting a new industry.
Memo, must contact DMO to see what they think.
Why are we buying Growlers if everything is ok with the F-35 and the SH fleet is considered still relevant into the short to medium term at least? Exactly what is the stated need, do we even get an explanation for laying out $1.5 billion during tight budget times and a (supposedly) trimmed defence budget?
I dont get it.
...Actually on that thought, maybe we should start writing to Ministers Smith and Clare and ask them why they are needed?
Is not everything meant to be fine with the current airpower roadmap THEY preside over?
It's a bit unfair to criticize the Growler's "tepid" capability when it has been planned from the beginning to equip the aircraft with the NJG system, which is currently in systems development. The ALQ-99 jamming system which currently resides on the Growler is still the most capable type in the US inventory, being constantly upgraded to deal with new threats as they emerge. That said, the ALQ-99 system is rather inflexible and bulky - which the NGJ design will alleviate. Furthermore, achieving stealth through shaping and materials is a perishable technique, whereas masking via waveform and other electromagnetic techniques is a dynamic approach to "stealth" that evolves as new technology is fielded.
..."most capable type in the US inventory,".... Which just shows how much U.S. ECM capability has eroded since the end of the Cold War... "being constantly upgraded to deal with new threats as they emerge.".....
Which ones? Because since the early 2000's the Navy has stated the opposite: that the current system won't stand up to emerging threats. That and you are putting it on a pudgy, draggy, and this very tanker dependent airframe that is only an escort-jammer. As for NGJ...yet again a sign of the rot of industry. Back in the day when it wasn't OK to field something in over a decade this would have been done by now. Yes it is in development but was canceled once before over funding issues. Maybe they will get it right this time. But still even then it will be on the Super Sloth. As for Australia, maybe the Growler with the dud jamming gear will find some use as an overly expensive-per-flying hour red-force training aircraft to do aggressor work vs frigates and the Air Warfare Destroyer.
What are the limitations of the ALQ-99? What techniques does/doesn't it employ? What's its ERP?
Of course you could Perplexed.
You could also develop your own HARM / AARGM missiles and integrate them onto the airframe for that sort of money too couldn't you?
Of course, Elta et al would have to start from scratch as they have no corporate understanding of the Super Hornet, they have no offensive airborne electronic attack program, being a self-defence jammer specialist, but hey, I'm sure with the intellectual "know how" available around here, I'm sure creating a world beating AEA capable EW aircraft would be a straight forward matter for under $1.5b. Oh btw, you've got less than 5 years to deliver it.
Off you go then Perplexed. Show us all how it should really be done mate?
Cart before the horse.
First we need sensible procurement thinking in the entrenched defence bureaucracy.
That does not exist.
Thanks Bonza.
I am aware Harm etc is part of the package, spares, training etc etc.
Integration, what integration? The US Navy already uses the gear. The F18 is already wired. Wow remove the 20mm canon, that would be a major project.
Anyway if you were honest you know it is obsolete.(refer US Navy for confirmation and if you dare APA)
However my suspicion is that DMO has got it's grubby little hands involved and a lot goes into Admin, when all work has already been done by the US Navy.
However having an accounting background the figure is crap.
And yes Israel demonstrates time and time again that these things are possible.
And er, Israel has no understanding of the F18, well they have successfully integrated all sorts of systems on US aircraft,(F16 springs to mind), and the F111 sported various pods successfully, and will on the F35 if it ever eventuates.
Bonza have a look at history. Elta et al have already done it.
A country of less than 4 million, and a GDP a fraction of this place have an export success of over $8 billion a year in sophisticated products in all spheres.
With the current regime what do we achieve?
A investment in conjunction with Israel provides a long term solution, where the economy benefits and IP is enhanced. I know, a bit advanced.
With the current regime what do we achieve?
Hang on another Memo to DMO.
And this:
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Australia_12-27.pdf
No mention of any weapons, only a price of $1.7 billion.
In addition, Australia has amazing talent in the fields of engineering and science.
Foster it in the long term. I know, a difficult concept for some who do not have real jobs in the real world.
For example not many know that a graduate of Qld Uni in Physics headed the team in the US who designed and built the backbone of the fibre optics and systems in the F18.(family friend)
How quickly we forget. I know many on here are very much in favour of the US Department of Defence - Department of Operational Test and Evaluation Annual Report 2011.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/
Eric, you have quoted it yourself as an authoritative source on many occasions, particularly in relation to the F-35.
And so, given this report's remarkable weighting, shall we see what it says about the EA-18G?
This is what is says: "Emerging 2011 FOT&E results suggest the EA-18G remains operationally effective, while operational suitability has notably improved." (p.122).
This is what the best military testers available in the United States, think of this platform and it's capability, in their most recent published report on the matter.
If only they had the knowledge and insight, available within this blog.
Or maybe they just all want Boeing jobs...
I suppose it had to say that didn't it? Because any other result would be a disaster for the Navy. Well, not the Navy exactly but flag-ranks who can't deal with negative news (LCS being the most recent example). This isn't the first time an OPEVAL has been pencil whipped. Your argument isn't with me. It is with those in NavAir which stated (twice) that the legacy gear in he Super G won't be able to stand up to emerging threats. My mentions were mostly the early 2000's. Consider this from just a few years ago.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/us-navy-alq-99-pods-no-match-f.html
Want to re-fight ALLIED FORCE 1999? Great. A mixed force of E/F/G Block IIs would do very well there if they were sent back in time.
Lieutenant Colonel Bonza.
How correct you are, effective against the Libyans on its first outing. I am amazed.
You continually demonstrate a limited ability to look at anything in an analytical way.
Anyway, look, we not only budget an inexplicable figure, but they are also buying second hand.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-to-supply-australia-with-refurbished-jammers-for-ea-18gs-375792/
So if it the report puts down F-35 it's authoritative, but if it speaks well of EA-18G then it "had to say that"?
Your link only infers that the alq-99 is ineffective against only the SA-21 at an unclassified level.
Bit like suggesting JASSM is useless because it doesn't have a 1950s era celestial navigation system for clear sky nights with effective GPS jamming of its receiver over 200nm and a purpose built INS drifting enough in 30min that its seeker can't figure out where it is.
There's never a golden plated solution, but there are measures and countermeasures for every situation.
That sounds like the amusing NACC "so what?" brief.
Well no Eric, that's the point. DOE&T doesn't have to say "everything's fine", just as they didn't say that "everything's fine" about the F-35.
In fact if you read the report in full, you'll see that they don't say that everything is fine about many major DoD programs, not only the F-35.
The EA-18G however gets a comparatively good tick against it's name, which is rather different than your claims of "tepid" or "obsolete" capability.
Sure ALQ-99 has an LOT that is rapidly approaching, but even the USN states it won't be retiring the low band pods til the mid 2020's and the high band pods to the late 2020's.
The urgency in that system is therefore in the mid-band EW pods, which is why NGJ is focussed on delivering mid-band first.
The other major systems on EA-18G are all state of the art (AN/ALQ-218, INCANS, IDECMS etc).
Perplexed, yes the RAAF's ALQ-99s won't be new-build pods, which is hardly surprising giving that production of them ended many years ago. Thank you for contributing this astonishing insight.
AS for your accountancy days, did you do your accountancy work based soley on public press releases? Or did you do your work based on actual invoices, receipts, bank statements and the like which actually detailed costs in full?
I know I prefer that my accountant actually looks at my income, expenses, deductions and rebates in full, before working out my net income, but maybe that's just me.
So it is with the Department of Defence. They send a detailed letter of request for FMS sales, identifying everything they want. If you haven't seen that request, then I am not surprised, you are having trouble working out the cost.
In any case Perplexed, only the mid-band ALQ-99 pods are to be refurbished.
The low band are still in production and will be brand new.
""We will be teaming with Cobham, Lansdale, Pennsylvania, to deliver low band transmitters to the RAAF [Royal Australian Air Force]," says the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). "The remainder of the transmitters and ancillary equipment--radomes, hardbacks, ram air turbines and universal exciters--will be provided as refurbished out of USN/USMC [United States Marine Corps] excess inventory."
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-to-supply-australia-with-refurbished-jammers-for-ea-18gs-375792/
Ah, the apologists rise again.
No critical thinking, part of groupthink.
Nothing new there.
How about examining the continuing failure of DMO and Defence to get anything correct.
And,regaring incomprehensible figures,exactly, there are no details, which is exactly where I come from.The figures given are garbage.It would appear that there are probally other programs hidden within, very prevelant in the public service.
Perhaps in your expert opnion explain to me how we get to a figure of between $1.2 and $1.7 billion for such a limited amount of hardware, and include spares and training?
And in addition the costing of the C27J is incomprehensible.Still await any snesible ideas in relation as to how we get there.
In additon would you like me to once again list the failed efforts of the DMO over the last ten years again?(and the cost to achieve very liitle.)
Defending the indefensible, again.Congrats.
Still second hand and bypasssed by developments in Asia and elsewhere.
Memo:Must get the second hand Hyundai down to garage for refurbishment before entering it into the next racing season.
Perplexed,
What specific systems have bypassed it?
Flasheart, I know all wisdom only resides in the USA, so I will leave this one to you.
If you need lessons on google,I am sure someone can help you and you agenda.
Perplexed, not once have you put a single fact into any of your posts. At least your consistent as well as illiterate.
Pot to kettle... "you're".
Gross over-optimism. The money wasted on the Growler could better be used somewhere else. Interesting as a Block II E/F can handle legacy threats.... without the G. Contempt of engagement and all that, for surface-to-air threats. JDAM and JSOW negate all legacy surface-to-air threats.
.... SA-5? That was handled with no problem... back in 1986... Operation:PRARIE FIRE etc.
Which brings us back to emerging threats, which, out-match Growler gear.
NJG has to actually be fielded and pass an OPEVAL etc. and even then, for the Growler, it will be a pudgy, slow, draggy, escort jammer that can be defeated and killed.
Even the NACC's Lord and Savior, Jesus H. Tom Burbage says Growler is a waste of money. LOL.
Flasheart, very sensitive are we not.Poor didums.
Facts, please try google, because everthing on google is correct.
Will help you.
And Eric, read that comment by Burbage, very interesting.
Ahhh... If everything is fine then why dont we wait until the NGJ comes on line in 6 or 7 years time instead of spending around 1.5 billion now? Wouldn't it be prudent to wait a few years if there is no immediate threat and get the next generation as it comes on line?
And while we are at it Bonza, the Flight Global article reports that we are buying not just the pods as secondhand but a number of the supporting components as well, which even more so puts a question over the price tag.
Sorry once again I dont get it, if the roadmap is sound and the F-35 fine with the Super Hornet being more than capable, why are we rushing to buy a system that is acknowledged by all to be in the last 5-8 years of it's life? is there something we are not being told?
That's an interesting point of view you have there Perplexed.
So refurbished ALQ-99 pods are no good, but refurbished Caribous, Iroquois, F-111 (including presumably, the EW 'Raven' variants proposed by Dr Kopp so not very long ago featuring the very SAME ALQ-99 capability as the Super Hornets are getting) are perfectly fine?
Tut, tut, tut. Now you are stating to get inconsistent...
Goldeel, if the ALQ-99 was the only capability inherent in the Growler, you may well have a point. However they are not. We are getting ALQ-218, INCANS, HARM and AARGM launch capability and so on as well.
Moreover, NGJ is being delivered in a rolling fashion, with a focus on the most urgent replacement need, the mid-band jamming pods. The US Navy has already confirmed the low and high band pods are fine until about 2025 and 2030 respectively.
I would suggest that RAAF are already looking at mid-life upgrade plans for this capability which will probably include NGJ as it becomes available and operationally proven.
Lieutenant Colonel Bonza, staggering intellectual dishonesty once again.
I am amazed at the costing, more than the fact that they are second hand.
And yes I believe we are also purchasing obsolete equipment.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/09/us-navy-alq-99-pods-no-match-f.html
Even the Us navy apparently agrees.
Then taking into account the success of the DMO and Defence in the last 10 years, I have little hope of them purchasing the correct equipment or even getting the price right.
Should I list all their projects again, seeing you have blind faith in their ability?
It even appears that your knowledge of the maintenance and rebuilding of aircraft is totally deficient. All mentioned have been subject to proper engineering studies regarding type of life and upgrading of systems.These aircraft are all capable airframes. Modern avionics and systems do exist.
Huey 2, Penn Turbo Caribou exist, and even studies by DSTO, of all the biased organisations, have investigated the structural life of the F111.Let us not not forget the excellent work done by Airpower Australia .
Even the C130H can be flown beyond your stated figures.
You have further shown dishonesty regarding Dr Kopp. The article you refer to is dated 1999.I know you believe the world stands still, but it does not. Even in that article he mentions the problems with the unit, with the potential introduction of the SAM 10 and 12.
Further articles written by Dr Kopp, whose credentials no doubt match yours, indicate that things have changed.
One extract for example; " Support jamming aircraft have been a priority target since the Soviet era, and the S-300V/SA-12 system had specific angle tracking capabilities designed in for this very purpose during the 1980s. Current Russian thinking is to employ very long range SAMs to kill support jamming aircraft in their standoff orbits. By extending SAM kinematic range past 120 nautical miles, the Russians have driven aircraft using the extant ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System (EA-6B/EA-18G) outside of the power-aperture envelope where this system performs most effectively .
The Next Generation Jammer, if at all implemented, will need to be designed around the realities of long range missile attacks against standoff jamming arc"
As you well know, recent Russian products far exceed that range.
There are other articles, which talk about the problems now posed by evolving modern radar systems which negate the use of the ALQ99 and suggest you read some real information rather than glean information from the kiddies site.
APA is also not the sole source of such information.
As far as I know the ALQ 218 is a receiver, not a jammer. The ALQ 99 is a system.
" By extending SAM kinematic range past 120 nautical miles, the Russians have driven aircraft using the extant ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System (EA-6B/EA-18G) outside of the power-aperture envelope where this system performs most effectively."
All well and good, but in reality Dr Kopp has no idea what the 'extant ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming Systems power-aperture envelope' is.
Anon ,I believe he would probably have a better idea than you.
Yes, the ALQ-218 is a receiving system and you are absolutely correct. The ALQ-99 most certainly is a system.
In fact it's made up of 3 distinct major components. Those being low, mid and high band jamming pods. The low and high band pods are "so" obsolete, that they are in fact still in production, today.
It is only the mid-band pods that are to be refurbished and will come from USN / USMC stores.
Excellent insight once again. Your ability to cut and paste appears second only to APA themselves...
As to Dr Kopp's understanding of classified electronic warfare systems, let's just say I'll take the US DoD's Department of Operational Evaluation and Test's opinion rather than his over how capable the EA-18G is, just as you will undoubtedly take their opinion on F-35, so long as their opinion remains the same as yours...
Even if NavAir also points out the fact of being obsolete.
This may give some sort of a clue as to the waste generated by Defence.
They spend $872,000 a year on media monitoring and employ 175 full time media staff.
What for?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/departments-splurge-10m-on-monitoring-the-media/story-e6frg996-1226458460098
The likes of Bonza et al yet again displaying, in real time, the flawed thinking of those suffering under the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
He really needs to read the latest Senate inquiry report into defence procurement.
Then let's see if Bonza can figure out where he is going wrong.
Post a Comment