Aviation Week & Space Technology
January 21, 2002

Die Is Cast For EA-6B Follow-on

By Robert Wall and David A. Fulghum, Washington

The Pentagon should buy both unmanned, expendable radar jammers and new electronic attack aircraft to replace the aging EA-6B Prowler, according to a long-term assessment of the U.S.' ability to batter down future enemy air defenses.

The Defense Dept. has taken two years to determine what its future electronic attack force should look like through 2030. But the study offers no definitive recommendations despite 2,000 pages of analysis and the examination of 27 air vehicle combinations. The final product was submitted last month and is circulating among select Pentagon officials.

The centerpiece of the Pentagon's future jamming architecture should be a reusable aircraft, or combination of different aircraft types. An expendable--potentially a missile-like system--would serve an adjunct role, intended largely to handle more complex threats such as Russia's S-300 and S-400 series of air defense systems. The air space around those surface-to-air missile systems is too dangerous to use the more expensive, recoverable, and likely manned, aircraft.

However, both the study and any high-level reaction to it may prove irrelevant. Prior to the analysis, the Navy had already decided to push for its two-seat, F/A-18G Growler for airborne jamming. Their position has only hardened. A Congressional staffer notes that the services' decisions appear to have been foregone conclusions.

WHAT COULD BE A THORN in the Navy's side is one alternative that fared extremely well--the EA-6C with the ALQ-99 jamming suite. The EA-6C option would entail building new EA-6B-like aircraft with upgrades such as General Electric F404 engines and a new radar. Moreover, an EA-6C with new jamming system is nearly comparable in price.

The Air Force also appears to have come to the table with its mind made up. Despite presenting options involving the B-52, B-1, F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, it has begun distancing itself from any program involving new spending. The change of heart was triggered by the realization that paying for new C-17s, a fleet of wide-body tanker and surveillance aircraft, and two new fighters make an EW program unaffordable.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, a staunch advocate of new technology and expanded Air Force roles, has been uncharacteristically quiet about reconstituting a support-jamming force that it gave up several years ago with early retirement of its EF-111 units.

Senior aerospace industry officials who stood to profit from rebuilding the fleet of jamming aircraft are being told that "Air Force leadership may not support this role and will leave the EA-6B replacement to the Navy and the F/A-18E/F program," said a specialist with insight into electronic warfare plans. If the Air Force fails to pursue an electronic attack version of the F-35, it would appear the Marines will be forced to buy the F/A-18 variant.

"My impression is we're running out of resources and ideas at the same time," a senior Air Force official said. "Electronic warfare is an expensive program and we're already paying for EW upgrades to the B-1 and B-2. If the Air Force backs away from any further EW missions, there may be the opportunity to buy wide-body ISR aircraft" in conjunction with the new tankers.

Another senior service official said a final decision on whether to pass on an EA-6B replacement is due in the next two weeks.

The Air Force may revisit the mission in a decade, when the F-22 and F-35 programs are well established. Meanwhile, the idea of using heavy bombers as powerful, standoff jamming aircraft will likely be left as a paper study. Rand analysts have been contracted to conduct an independent assessment of mission requirements and available technologies.

The Air Force's nearest-term option would be a B-1 electronic attack-variant with a 5,000-naut.-mi. range that could also carry weapons. Its small radar signature would allow it significant penetration and the option of attacking or jamming enemy radars.

Boeing officials also touted the B-1's ability to conduct intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, control of unmanned aircraft and bomb damage assessment. Payloads could be put in one of the weapon bays, in a canoe attachment under the aircraft's nose or in a very large structure that involved both a weapons bay and a structure extending outside the aircraft. It was also seen as a possible ploy for retaining more of the B-1 fleet on operational status. Instead, about a third of the fleet would be put in storage.

One issue that becomes clear is that providing any future electronic warfare system won't be cheap. The price will be in excess of $25 billion in ownership costs.

BUT CONGRESS IS LIKELY to support the program. The staffer said the Pentagon's platform choice will be closely scrutinized, but will get the support it needs.

The cheapest of the core system would be a new-start, high-flying aircraft, the study determined. But, the estimated $20-billion aircraft would only be land-based and miss the Navy's main mission objectives of being able to operate off an aircraft carrier.

A business jet version, a concept being pushed by Gulfstream, also rated favorably. Total ownership costs for such a system would be around $25 billion.

The cheapest alternative to provide both land- and ship-based airborne jamming would comprise a new high-flying aircraft with a carrier-capable unmanned aerial vehicle. Its cost would be similar to those of a business jet.

One of the candidates for an expendable system is a derivative of Northrop Grumman's Miniature Air Launched Decoy. The MALD jammer concept of operations calls for three vehicles to be deployed to jam early warning radars, clearing a path in the enemy's air defense network for low-observable platforms to pass through. Each of the jammers may be tuned to a different frequency to better defeat a spectrum of air defense radars. Company officials say they could flight test a system within a year.

The Pentagon hopes to start funding the new jammer program in Fiscal 2004. The schedule is being driven by aging and attrition of the EA-6Bs. The Defense Dept. estimates it will begin facing an inventory shortage in 2009. Moreover, the analysis of alternatives found that combat operations over Afghanistan are "expected to further aggravate the inventory situation."