Posted on 07/03/2008 10:10:59 AM PDT by pabianice
As The Nav Log noted back in 2004, the EB-52 “Megafortress” airplane from Dale Brown’s techno-thrillers was moving closer to becoming a reality. In July of that year, the USAF began talking about introducing a stand-off jammer (SOJ) electronic warfare version of the B-52 bomber, to enter service as soon as possible. The plan called for development and fielding of a long-range radar-jamming/radar spoofing under-wing electronics pod. An initial purchase of 12 pods, to be carried by 16 B-52Hs, was being worked into the 2005 budget. $21.6M of the FY 2005 Air Force budget had been allocated to the Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA). The exact amount of funding to be allocated to the B-52 SOJ program had not been finalized at that time.
As of July, 2008, the U.S. Air Force has revived the program to convert some of its B-52 heavy bombers into radar jamming aircraft. This will be done by attaching external jamming pods to wing hard points. This latest plan is the purchase of twenty-four sets of pods for a fleet of 34 EB-52s. Each pair of pods, including amortized R&D, is estimated to cost approximately $100 million.
Jamming has most recently been the job of the EA-6E, which is being retired. Although the Navy is replacing these aircraft with the EA-18G "Growler" jamming aircraft, the USAF doesn't believe there will be enough of these aircraft to serve both the Navy and the Air Force (another reason may well be the bomber generals' desire to keep as many heavy bombers in service as possible). The Navy plans to buy about fifty EA-18Gs, for about $73 million each. It will take at least five years to get the EB-52 into service as long as current cost and production estimates prove reliable.
The current B-52 fleet is 47 years old and consists of 104 aircraft. The B-52's enormous electrical generation capability will make it possible to power add-on EW pods where smaller aircraft cannot. Not only will the EW pod be too heavy for smaller aircraft, but the associated antenna system will occupy too much space for tactical aircraft to carry. The B-52’s electrical system can also be beefed-up to serve the new pod, and the Stratofortress already has an electronic navigator’s/EW officer’s station. Designed in the 1950s to deliver the then-huge nuclear weapons of the era all the way to the Soviet Union, the B-52 retains its humungous payload capability and is currently the USAF’s only Air Launch Cruise Missile capable combat airplane. Thus, in addition to the new EW pods, it will be able to carry a boatload of the latest generation of both jamming and explosive warhead cruise missiles at altitudes up to 50,000 feet for delivery any place in the world. With an unrefueled combat range of 8,800 miles, it has flown operationally twice as far -- as long as 35 hours -- with inflight refueling.
“The Air Force envisions the EB-52 to provide a jamming support capability similar to that of the present EA-6B,” said Boeing in 2004. The new EW pods will be fitted to the aircraft to replace the existing wing tip fuel tanks. The new electronic attack transmitters and receivers will be integrated into the airplane’s systems. Boeing will be the prime contractor, with various subcontractors supplying the major system components. Modifications are planned to be done at the Boeing-Wichita modification center.
In 2004 Boeing estimated that the long-term plans included modification of 76 aircraft and acquisition of 36 standoff jamming systems. The first 16 aircraft and 12 pods are still scheduled to be operational in FY13. The contract dollar value has yet to be determined.
Back from the Dead: Bad news for America's Enemies -- This baby'll fry their electronics big-time
Barring that, the USAF should bite the bullet and purchase some E/A-18G Growlers.
Using the B-52 for any jammer role, standoff or otherwise, is stoopid.
Or are they going to modify the EB-52 as extensively as they were modified in “Flight of the Old Dog?”
Old Crows Ping!
Do EF111 platforms have any remaining airframe life to make
the upgrade worthwhile? Can the USAF still provide for training to check out aircrew? These platforms are also pretty long in the tooth. Sounds to me like the B1-B would
be more suitable to this role, since its a currently supported platform and a bunch of them also reside at AMARC.
Use a 767 with an extra generator installed, or take a few Dog model B-52s out of mothball storage.
What we are seeing is another stupid demonstration of the Air Force leadership currently. They could have taken any decent cargo aircraft...from the C-130 to the old C-141. They could have built Global Hawks with this capability. I would hate to suggest this...but we might need the top 100 officers in the Air Force to be retired...and just bring in all new leadership.
Haven't been to Davis-Monthan lately, have you?
Rock Lobster!
I haven’t been there in a couple years. Neat place!
What’s up?
The B-52 is going to survive long enough to get an airborne onboard direct-fire laser weapon, eventually.
Its ability to generate vast amounts of electricity will make it useful for some time to come.
If you recall the acres of 52’s visible next to I-10. They are all gone. As a matter of fact, no aircraft are now visible from I-10 except a glimpse of the Pima Air Museum.
Obviously, the Air Force needs a large, generic, multi-purpose aircraft, designed for a combination of low cost, lower maintenance, ruggedness and relative expendability.
Its role is to perform “safe” missions, with very low or no threat from AAA, no great need to perform aerial acrobatics, yet not specifically designed as a cargo carrier.
Most likely, it should *not* be built by one of the major aircraft manufacturers, but in a very long term contract with a smaller manufacturer, designed to produce just that aircraft at a given slow rate over decades. Perhaps only one or two aircraft a year.
A major design concept is that it is a “generic” aircraft, whose design will not change for the manufacturer. Any changes must be made after the Air Force receives delivery, through a different contractor. This prevents the endless requests for modifications that double or triple the price of major end items, and often result in reduced functionality, or even incapability.
If the plane cannot be modified to whatever whim after it has been received from the manufacturer, then it is not a suitable airframe for that change, and the Air Force must look elsewhere.
And if a plane *is* modified after delivery, and is ruined or made less effective, than whoever ordered that ill-advised change is directly, and personally, responsible. The manufacturer is blameless.
Practical missions for the aircraft include providing low intensity conflict bombing support, surveillance and high bandwidth communications platform; and other routine missions for which very expensive, high performance, high maintenance, and stealthy aircraft are much less effective.
Please let me know if you want on or off the Old Crow ping list.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
To all FReepers opposed to McCain:
Don’t worry, President Obama will cancel any and all EB aircraft - we wouldn’t want to offend those nice, friendly nations that we “just don’t like” now, would we?
Vote for McCain, not because you love him or his politics, but because you love your country more than you dislike McCain.
Exactly right.
Agreed, but with the humugous RCS it has, might as well radiate like a lighthouse!
I don't see them surviving long once the stuff hits the fan. High altitude, very easy to spot, can't run...............
Click on pic for past Navair pings.
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
The EF-111A platforms have lots of airframe life left. AFAIK they were put into "flyable" storage at AMARC, or at least enough were to regenerate 24.
Can the USAF still provide for training to check out aircrew?
They could provide checkout training on the B-1B, or the RAAF still flies the F-111C/G, so they could TDY to Brisbane, Australia, for type rating.
These platforms are also pretty long in the tooth. Sounds to me like the B1-B would be more suitable to this role, since its a currently supported platform and a bunch of them also reside at AMARC.
The B-1Bs are needed for their strike role. In order to make the B-1B operational as an EW Jammer it would require an extensive rebuild of the aircraft. The basic airframe work has already been done on the EF-111As.
The only thing that makes the EB-52 attractive is in putting all of the receive and transmit antennae into a pair of pods that replace the underwing tanks. This minimizes the airframe structural modifications to mostly pulling miles of wire through the wings and redesigning the EWO station on the flight deck.
EW Ping you might be interested in.
The current B-52 fleet is 47 years old and consists of 104 aircraft.
~~~
I call BullSh!t on this guy!!!
We only have 24 left that will fly,,,
Most of them fly out of Barksdale,AFB,,,
Some at Minot,,,
Some On Station...
Seems to me that you could do better than a 200 ton intercontinental bomber to carry a few thousand pounds of jamming pods.
Why not a UAV?
The Navy is using a 737 for the P-8. I’m sure it will have some ESM equipment.
I think the AF should use the same 737 and add jamming pods.
IIRC, most the B-52s at AMARC were destroyed as a part of the arms reduction agreements with the Soviets. Nuclear platforms, and all that.
They used huge wedges like pile-drivers to shear the wings off of the planes.
That's EA-6B
The Navy plans to buy about fifty EA-18Gs
85 although only the first 52 are under contract.
With all the bad gouge in this piece it reads as if it was written by a bubblehead.
That would be the ALQ-99.
Source?
Any of them still have their tails attached?
Hmmmm
Most of the Boing (yes, I did that on purpose, I’m ex-Rockwell) quotes are from 2004, referring to a “FY13” program, in a political atmosphere that makes any defense contract look like a sure way to do nothing but grow ulcers and lose money by the bucketful and talking about an airframe that’s been into double-letter revisions since before my kids were born.
Might not be total Bravo Sierra, but it’s so da** thin, it doesn’t have any shadow at all.
Too bad, in a way. We could call the result the NERD BUFF.
“Vote for McCain, not because you love him or his politics, but because you love your country more than you dislike McCain.”
Yep.
Saw a whole bunch of reasonably whole a/c. Put a few back together and save some $.
Of course, NOOOOOOOOO. The zoomies need the latest, greatest, fastest, while grunts can’t afford an upgrade to the 5.56!
Those F-22 must impress the terrs!!!! (not)
XM8 in 6.5 Grendel!!! 5.56 form factor and better energy at 600 meters than 7.62 NATO!
Typo. It says EA-6B further down.
At least I got the A and the numbers right. Thanks, Dad!
As fond as I was of the EF-111, pulling it out of AMARC is a non-starter. Many parts were sold to the Aussies, and setting up new training and logistics tail would run the cost thru the roof. I never saw the numbers, but a friend did and he said it would never be cost-efficient to revive the EF-111.
The EB-52 isn’t a bad idea. Take good geolocation and highly directional jammers, combine it with the electrical power of all those engines, and the potential is interesting. I would be curious why they couldn’t use a commercial aircraft platform, tho, instead.
Some have suggested C-130s - too slow and not enough excess electrical generating power.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52.htm Barksdale AFB, LA and Minot AFB, ND serves as B-52 Main Operating Bases (MOB). Training missions are flown from both MOBs. Barksdale AFB and Minot AFB normally supports 57 and 36 aircraft respectively on-station. ~~~ I stand CORRECTED,Sir!...:0/ But I Feel Better...;0)
Question for those who know jamming. If Iran launches 100 or 1000 missiles at one shot, can we kill the electronics by jamming or would that take a EMP? Could it be that the B-52 is being chosen due to the sheer volume of airspace they are trying to kill at one shot?
The missing component is a “tin foil man,” enter Weasely Clark.
Only the ones on gate guard and display. The D’s are history.
Damn. Got a ride on one during RVN.
Got about :30 “stick time” during descent and approach back to Guam. A truck! Move wheel, take sip of coffee, wait for A/C to rspond!
The EF-111As were sent to AMARC in 1998, just ten years ago. There are over 200 F-111s in AMARC for basic airframe parts. We've resurrected A-10s out of AMARC, and granted it is a MUCH simpler airframe, but it is doable. It's what AMARC is for, and many of the EFs were put into flyable storage.
$100 million per aircraft is a lot of money available to rebuild EFs from a basic airframe up, and be able to generate one or two a year. Basic work was already done to re-engine the EF-111A with the F100 using the F-14 adapter system. The Aussies have operated a fleet of 35 F-111C/Gs on their own for a decade, and even had their own AUP program that included a new glass cockpit and digital stores management (so that work has also been done already.) They will retire their F-111s in 2010, freeing up those spares for us again.
Barring that, instead of buying 24 EB-52 wing pod sets, $100 million per copy is more than enough to buy a squadron of 24 EA-18Gs plus support. At the very least, we could subcontract with the USN to provide depot level maintenance and LRU repair for such a small fleet of Growlers, leaving the USAF to just provide flightline level support.
And there is another option. If Boeing could integrate AN/ALQ-99 EW into the F/A-18F airframe on their own dime, they should also be able integrate the very same Growler avionics package and wingtip antenna pods to the F-15E airframe, and do so economically. Doing that would make the ‘EF-15E’ a multi-role aircraft just like the EF-18G. It could fly normal strike missions, or be fitted with the wingtip antenna and become a jammer.
So how about a fleet of converted or new build EF-15E aircraft w/AESA radar? That should also be doable for $100 million apiece for a fleet of 24, including the development costs. And the USAF already has the F-15E support train in place. Boeing is still making F-15Es (or Ks, SGs, etc.) and I think we're still buying them.
I personally feel the EB-52 is a bad idea given present and future threats. Half of the engines don't have generators, so there is a whole lot of airframe modifications required to add generators to all eight engines, rewire the wing hardpoints, and add the EW function to the WSO station. It would be hard to imagine an EB-52 being integrated with a strike wing at a forward operating base, so it would have to generate from B-52 bases like Deigo Garcia to escort strike aircraft into Iran? I can't see it doing much more than being a nuclear strike package escort.
Can you imagine an EB-52 orbiting a contained airspace like Bosnia for longer than 2 hours? They'd get shot down faster than they did over Vietnam. Can you imagine an EB-52 flying over Baghdad performing Elint and IED suppression the way the EA-6B is right now? With oil at $150 per barrel?
The only advantage I've read for the EB-52 over the EA-18G is the ability to carry larger antenna for lower frequency radars. If that is the case, then at least use new build P-8 airframes to carry the electronics. The P-8 has hard points that could be converted to carry the underwing antennas, and it would be more able to operate as part of an expeditionary wing. It should still cost less than $100 million per copy, including the airframe and integration costs.
Bottom line, unless I'm missing something that you know, the EB-52 should be the last item on the list, not the first.
I could see, for example, equipping a B747 with the necessary power generation/transciever control consoles on the main deck with EM radiators mounted beneath the wings and on the aircraft spine.
Of course, with everything cranked up, the aircraft would have a huge "kick me" sign on it for any anti-jam homers...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.