Today's Canberra Times points out what some of us have known for years. That is, that the idea from Defence senior leadership to field a jammer-capable Super Hornet is bad.
The "Growler" upgrade for 12 of Australia's 24 Super Hornets is a bad idea because the gear to be put on it is obsolete.
The U.S. Navy, has known this.
For at least 10 years.
$1.7B (if not more) will be thrown away on dud jamming gear.
Par for the course with Defence senior leadership's faulty air power thinking.
(Slides from U.S. Navy briefing via www.dtic.mil dated 2002-3)
13 comments:
Bet DMO does not know.
I'm a Korean.
I envy YOU!
South Korea is not permitted to buy Growlers.
Disagree. NextGen jammer doesn't exist yet and USN is unlikely to get extra funding to fast track it.
No one in the world has a capability like the ALQ-99 pod. No one has a counter-effect capability.
Unlike the SH, Growler would actually get deployed, or at the very least, the pilots could exchange with USN.
THe effectiveness of Growler was shown during the Libya campaign.
Anon 1.53pm.
Libya was a basket case, Syria not so.
China?
Libya? Two things. 1. It was a legacy threat. 2. Reports back state that for low-threat COIN-like work, the G was gross over-kill and inefficient.
The thing about legacy threats is they actually have to stop a J-series weapon user from performing their mission. Unlikely as with J-weapons, I can touch you, but you can't touch me. Also, the Block II Super E/F has enough on-board sensing and killing ability to do the job vs. legacy threats...with no Growler...For emerging PacRim threats, the Growler will be out of its depth. So, yet again, Australian Defence, doesn't know what it doesn't know but has no problem with eating PowerPoint slides, in great quantity. Well, the spigot has run out. This "capability" is a waste of money.
Here is yet another source. Australian Defence argument isn't with people like me. It is with the U.S. Navy.
http://goo.gl/liMRC
" THe effectiveness of Growler was shown during the Libya campaign. "
Err no it wasn't. Libya was a very permissive air environment with legacy IADS of various ages and capabilities but really none that were of the kind of first order high performance bracket of the later S-300 or S400 series, or later western equivalents.
As for the arguments being used by the ADF/RAAF for the Growler capability requirement and the boasts about its effectiveness, It reminds me of the following piece of popular culture...
"Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange] "
Oh dear - Anon 1.53pm clearly doesn't know what folks like France, Israel and Germany have, let alone Russia and China, let alone what is already being exported, even to rainbow states.
As for 'Bet DMO does not know', is that just like they didn't know the SPY-1 radars that were ordered for the AWD were going out of production?
Now that can't be right, 'cause the DMO CEO at the time was ecstatic he got them ordered BEFORE the SPY-1 radars were to go out of production.
It's all about schedule, don't you know!
What do folks like France, Israel and Germany, Russia and China have? what is already being exported, even to rainbow states.
What beats Growler in the EA stakes? What should we get instead? Should we have no EA capability? Wasn't it a Soviet chief in the 70s who said the next war would be won by he who controls the electromagnetic spectrum?
Maybe we should buy EF-111's... Where's my shovel?
How would you propose we "control the electromagnetic spectrum" with obsolete gear?
Eric:
Looks like one of the anonymous posters to your blog doesn't realise the PMA 234 briefing was given back in 2003!
Those in the US who understand such things are well aware they are now some 10+ years behind in the AEA stakes.
One hopes the NGJ will now (finally) be recognised as a priority as will the need for its employment on a platform with the requisite performance to be survivable.
Hey, throw Israel a few shekels and hey presto, gear that would be operational in no time, on budget and would be ahead of the rest.
Their recent achievements speak volumes.
Best solution I continue to feel, is the base F-18F block II+ platform (with enhanced type IV next-gen computer) and instead modified with an off-the-shelf AESA based next-gen ECM pod integration.
Hold a competition for next-gen solutions to include integrated all-in-one electronic attack pod system, enhanced with SoJ functions?
Requirement for placing orders beginning in FY15, with operational capability starting in FY17?
The savings vs the alternative future Growler+NGJ plan could then be applied to greater MALD acquisition and accelerated EW self-protection systems in the near-term, as well as additional stand-off munitions?
There is one perplexing point about this whole RAAF Growler nonsense I dont understand.
If we were to be dumb for a moment and take what the marketing departments say as gospel, the F-35 will be a networked, stealthy, highly survivable platform, with onboard systems able to defeat most current and near term emerging IADS as well as legacy 4th+ fighter threats. it will have significantly better range than the SH as well.
So the question is, why are we looking to buy Growlers at all?
It must mean one of four things.
1) Either we are going to keep the SH fleet for a long time and they need some force protection the F-35 wont be able to provide due to tasking commitments. So what causes that possibility?
2) There is to be such a significant delay in the delivery of the F-35 program that the current SH's are not considered survivable in their basic mission set into the future, so they need a jammer to get through. If so, then again why? Is there an emerging threat that see's them as being outclassed?
3) There will never be any delivery of any F-35's so we need to make do with what we have. Sort of the "Clayton's" back up plan we aren't supposed to need.
4) The F-35 stealth and systems performance are not all that they are cracked up to be, and will need legacy jammers to perform at least some mission sets. Were we not told that the RAAF would transition to a single airframe type? Was that not part of the rationale in dropping the F-111 earlier than originally planned? If so it begs the question why are we being told otherwise and why are we going to pay through the nose for it?
Any of these possibilities is still very much in the negative on a program we have all along been told will deliver a capability beyond anything else.
Post a Comment