I read earlier this year, and I think that GF alluded to it as well, that most, if not all of the processors in the CIP were converted to Power PC's.  Course, that aint to say some avionics may be running older embedded devices.

The issue is that the A-6 and F-111 were long range all weather medium bombers (or attack aircraft).  Neither was replaced by an aircraft that was actually a bomber/attack aircraft.  Neither was replaced by an aircraft of greater range, greater load carrying ability, or better low level performance.  The A-6 used to fly in the all weather medium attack sdqn's which are gone along with the dedicated KA-6 tankers.

 

USN carriers used to have 2 fighter sqdn's, 2 light attack, 1 medium attack, 1 patrol/asw, and various detachments including tanker and elint.  From 6 sqdn's the USN carrier air wing now has 4 all of which are strike fighter.  Once upon a time the F-18A/C was considered a new light attack aircraft.  The A-6 was retired without replacement.  As was the S-3 force and together we lost the tankers and elint aircraft as well.  Not only are there far less aircraft on deck (the present carrier air wing is smaller than what was operated by Midway class carriers) but some of these must be used as tankers at all times.

 

The A-12 was canceled what in fact happened was the medium bomber/attack aircraft role was eliminated without replacement.  At one point the USAF was talking about buying up to 400 to replace the F-111.  Once the A-12 was canceled a new program should have started but instead they eliminated the requirement.  In fact it's extremely difficult to imagine a more useful aircraft in today's world then a medium bomber.  A long range high loiter time bomber carrying up to 30,000 lbs is exactly what is required.  What we are using are B-52's and B-1's because we have them.  The B-52 is more cost effective but the B-1's higher dash speed is the aircraft most in demand.  The F-15E performs well as well but it does not have the legs of the F-111.  

 

By not replacing the F-111 the USAF lost the tactical deep strike, medium bomber, culture.  They also lost their own tactical EW aircraft in that the EF-111 was retired without replacement as well.   The USN is buying F/A-18G's to replace the EA-6B.  The USMC is not buying any.  Exactly what airframe does the USAF plan on using for EW as the USN is certainly not going to purchase enough Growler's to provide enough extra for the USAF?  Single engine, single generator, single seat aircraft are not good for EW.  The need for a medium attack/bomber airframe does not go away just because one wishes it away.  

 

Not sure thats true.  The USMC elected to refurb its Prowlers for a number of reasons, interim performance issues being one of them (ie Prowler was regarded as still superior to the Growler).  They  are still committed to fielding Growlers (and AFAIK are backfilling to sparky role for the USAF)  once the Prowlers are passed their use by date.  USN agreed to fund the Prowler refurb and TLS 

Granted, the above was a view 18months ago, so I am unsure as to whether its still valid.  It was an issue covered in USNI Proceedings and JED approx 18/12's - 2 years ago

.

As far as I'm aware the current plan is for the USMC to transition to an all F-35 force and drop some roles and missions.  Among the planning is to drop the all weather medium attack sqdn's and their F/A-18Ds.  There are no plans to take on any F/A-18E/F/G's.  The planning is to eventually field an EW version of the F-35 with limited capability and then ditch the EA-6B.  The plan I believe is for the F-35 to carry one NGJ.  I do not know if the dedicated EW sqdn's are intended to be kept on not.

 

Thus while the EA-18G is a national asset it will only be flown by the USN and the current plan is to buy 57 vs the 123 current EA-6B's.  One keeps hearing about USAF using an EB-52, EB-1, or UAV for stand off jamming as far as I know the USAF has not budgeted anything to begin a future stand off jamming requirement- though they have officially assumed the mission. 

 

It's worth noting that one reason the EF-111 was retired in favor of the EA-6B was that the Prowler did some other things the EF-111 did not such as communication jamming.  It's not clear to me that the EA-18G will be able to perform all roles and missions of the EA-6B nor how capable it will be vs the EA-6B and her 3 ECMO's vs the EA-18G's single ECMO?

 

The ability to carry a single NGJ pod whether by an F-35 or a UCAV is a significant capability but it does not bring the capability of an aircraft like the EA-6B.  The nation will not have enough tactical EW aircraft in 57 EA-18G's.  It's fine to say we'll have multiple EW UCAV's escorting strike packages but there are four  problems:  The aircraft do not exist yet and have to be high performance to escort manned strike aircraft, the small size and engines of UAV's create issues with electrical power generation, it's not clear that single seat fighters can control escorting UAV's, and assuming each UAV carries a single NGJ one requires multiple escorts.  Furthermore does the escorting tactical jammer UCAV also carry HARM's?

 

Just one more mission the airframe that should have replaced the F-111/EF-111A and A-6/EA-6B should have been doing.  Canceling the A-12 and then pretending the requirement did not exist, and thus fielding no follow on program, will haunt this nation for decades to come.  An EA-12 would have been a great aircraft to escort the F-35 in both the USN and USAF.  We'll get no such class airframe, the only solution was a stretched two seat FB-22 airframe but that possibility died some time ago.  At the very least we need a two seat F-35 with more on board electrical power with larger internal bays.  The F-35A in the USAF is supposed to eventually carry HARM- one wonders how that will work?  It won't fit in the bay and the USAF HARM firing F-16's were never as capable as the F-4Gs they replaced being limited to the HARM targeting pod.

 

Of course someone will just blithely comment that it'll be a UCAV mission as well.  If the UCAV is going to carry the escorting jamming pods, and the capability to engage with HARM, whilst escorting a strike package then it begs the question exactly why it can't perform the easier job of strike- which is actually the first mission UCAV's are scheduled and have performed?  This brings us full circle back to the US buying fewer F-35's than is currently programmed. 

 

Why?  Do you want to escort strike packages of F-35's with them or do you want to buy a new aircraft to escort legacy F-16, A-10, and F-15E aircraft?  The USAF in it's wisdom seems to have given up on tactical jamming and has assumed the role of providing stand off jamming- not that has any budget, much less aircraft, for that role either.

 

It would be nice to see the USAF buy EF-18Gs, but I don't see it happening.  Especially not with the current administration.

USMC don't think the Growler will fit the bill either, its why they dug their heels in about TLU/TLS for the Prowlers

USMC don't think the Growler will fit the bill either, its why they dug their heels in about TLU/TLS for the Prowlers

 

An EA-12 would have been a great aircraft to escort the F-35 in both the USN and USAF

At least with RAAF we've ordered 6 Growler kits and are developing TACAIR doctrine for escorting strike packages.  There are people on exchange with USN doing that now.  But, the reality is that we will be giving back the SHornets once we receive the JSF.  The big question is whether we 1) convert the harnessed platforms to a proper role. 2) can defend the costs of having a short squadron of Growlers in the fixed wing shooter fleet.

We'll get no such class airframe, the only solution was a stretched two seat FB-22 airframe but that possibility died some time ago.

Although there was some considerable excitement when one of the YF-23's disappeared for a while - and couldn't be found in all the expected places.  For a brief moment in time it was "hot" that the YF-23 might do a lazarus as a striker for med TAC bombing etc...

Of course someone will just blithely comment that it'll be a UCAV mission as well.  If the UCAV is going to carry the escorting jamming pods, and the capability to engage with HARM, whilst escorting a strike package then it begs the question exactly why it can't perform the easier job of strike- which is actually the first mission UCAV's are scheduled and have performed?  This brings us full circle back to the US buying fewer F-35's than is currently programmed.  

UCAVs can't do the escort role within a atrike package.  At least with the sparkvarks they could excort the aardvarks.  at least with the growlers they can escort the rhinos.

The unfort side effect of improving digital training and simulation is that the need for twin cab trainers has died off.  hence the ability to convert trainers into weasel roles has also died.  The other problem being that Lead in Fighters are too small to pick up the package "in flight" ewarfare/weasel roles.

what would be interesting with the Super Eagle concept that has partial transferable opportunities is to use the conformal weapons packs as the basis to develop e-warfare-sensor packs.  Either way, two helmets under the hood is better for weasel roles.  The belief that we can automate the RIO type roles with bolt ons is a nonsense.

my 2c anyway

I likw where you went with that, gf:

"...what would be interesting with the Super Eagle concept that has partial transferable opportunities is to use the conformal weapons packs as the basis to develop e-warfare-sensor packs."

 

And I think if Boeing is smart, they'll consider it also.

 

While certainly those conformal bays aren't going to fit any of the HARM/AARGM family (AGM-88), not without a major cropping of the missile wings or making it look more like a strake-equipped ESSM,

creating EW/ELINT packs makes a lot of sense.

 

Certainly Israel would appreciate such a capability, encouraging the Saudis to buy as a possible counter.

The Asian nations operating the F-15s already surely would bite also (growing concerns over china).

For its size, a Wild Weasel F-15 with these packs would possess more capability than what's built into the Growler (F/A-18G), one the grounds of carrying more in weight of that electronic gear (and weaponry) to a greater range with less inflight refueling.

 

Sounds like a perfect idea, and judging by the improving capabilities that modern EW pods have, the larger Eagle FAST pack types could allow considerably more capability, with the advantage that a given nation doesn't need a purpose-built aircraft to do it, as the Eagles in question could revert to standard-config FAST packs, Slient Eagle config'ed packs, or no packs at all as needed.

 

The kicker might be that the aircraft would need considerably more software, so the price might climb.

Another issue could be pilot training: in addition to air-to-air and regular air-to-surface (land and sea), do we train every set of pilots now in all the necessary EW tactics and equipment?

A better alternative here might be multiple crews for each aircraft, with a set of pilots trained for the EW environment.

 

Yet another option is, further development of the packs may create a new model that allows more EW to be carried by the standard aircraft in addition to everything else it can already carry.

There though, we would still need to train those pilots additionally so they can make the most of that added EW capability.

 

Compare the size of one FAST pack... to something like the EW pods that current EA-6B's and other EW-tasked aircraft carry.

For the size of those packs and the Eagle's power-generating potential (a pair of ~30,000 pound thrust engines), DEW-type EW (microwave) offensive/electronic attack systems could also be incorporated as the tech matures, not needing to be purpose-built into a given aircraft but rather installed in these large pods.

 

And the potential of conformal AESA radar could, in theory, turn these Eagles into miniature AWACS/AEW platforms,

just by swapping another set of pods, although that's even more information for those two pilots to handle

(datalinks could transmit that info to wherever it's needed, be it other aircraft, or ground/sea assets).