Navy Aviation News

Navy Aviation News from the
Association of Naval Aviation Hampton Roads Squadron

 

Joint Strike Fighter 2011 Year in Review
Report Blames Pilot Error In Super Hornet Crash
Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Advances
Ejection Parachute Issue Grounds F-35As
Pentagon Sacrifices To Save Carrier
Arming The Osprey
Local Carrier Could Move To West Coast
New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned
Gortney Tapped To Head Fleet Forces Command

 

Joint Strike Fighter 2011 Year in Review

(YOUTUBE 01 FEB 12) ... NAVAIR SYSCOM

The F-35 Integrated Test Force at NAS Patuxent River looks back at 2011's test milestones and progress toward delivering the F-35B and F-35C to the fleet.

Video produced by the Patuxent River F-35 ITF.

View Clip (RT: 7:27)

Return to Index

Report Blames Pilot Error In Super Hornet Crash

(VISALIA (CA) TIMES-DELTA 01 FEB 12) ... David Castellon

Navy investigators have concluded that pilot error likely caused a fatal Super Hornet crash in 2011 near Naval Air Station Lemoore, Calif.

Just minutes after taking off for a training flight, the F/A-18F Super Hornet crashed April 6 into a field about a half-mile west of the base.

The pilot, Lt. Matthew Lowe, 33, of Plantation, Fla., and the plane’s weapons officer, Lt. Nathan Williams, 28, of Oswego, N.Y., were practicing a “loaded roll” when the pilot apparently lost control, according to a report obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The Visalia Times-Delta of California — which is owned by Gannett, as is Navy Times — received a copy of the report and other documents related to the crash Jan. 30.

It took just 14 seconds from the moment the aircraft began the maneuver until it began a fatal dive and crashed, according to a summary report of the Navy’s findings.

Nobody on the ground was injured. Both Lowe and Williams were killed; the report says Williams managed to eject, but he was too close to the ground for his parachute to deploy and save his life.

“The mishap was caused by the aircrew’s failure to execute the maneuver in accordance with the prescribed airspeed and [angle of attack] parameters” for doing a loaded roll, according to the three-page summary issued Dec. 6 by Vice Adm. Allen Myers, Naval Air Forces commander.

Among the investigators’ conclusions:

• Lowe and Williams didn’t properly follow the instructions on doing the maneuver.
• Problems in previous flights were filmed but not shown to the two aviators afterward.
• The officers lacked sufficient understanding of the flight parameters and the flight computer system “that would have enhanced the safety margin of the loaded roll maneuver.”

Naval investigators concluded that the Super Hornet attempted the loaded roll moving too fast and at too steep an angle and that they lost control of the plane during the maneuver.

A video of the flight taken from the ground shows the Super Hornet beginning the maneuver and suddenly diving until it crashed.

Navy officials said weather did not appear to play a role in the crash and they found no evidence that mechanical problems were involved.

Lowe and Williams took off from the base at 11:55 a.m.; the fatal roll maneuver began just after 12:06 p.m. about 880 feet above the ground, according to the report.

Navy investigators wrote that Williams ejected between 328 and 330 feet and concluded that Lowe attempted to eject after his weapons officer did, but the process had barely begun when the plane hit the ground.

Autopsies showed both men died instantly. Neither had any known health problems, nor did they have alcohol or drugs in their systems that might have played roles in the crash, the Navy reported.

Lowe and Williams were members of the Lemoore-based Strike Fighter Squadron 122, a fleet replacement squadron that also flies at air shows and other public events.

The Navy reported that Lowe had a little more than 1,492 flight hours but only 117 of them in an F/A-18F Super Hornet. The April 6 flight was Lowe’s fourth flight and would have been the last for him to qualify to do demonstration flights.

“I am especially concerned that the mishap crew improperly performed the loaded-roll maneuver during three previous practice demonstration flights,” Myers said in the report.

Videos of those flights showed excessive angles of attack, but they weren’t shown to the aviators in post-flight debriefings. “A vital opportunity to prevent the accident was lost,” the report said.

Myers ordered loaded-roll maneuvers to be banned from the Navy’s demonstration flights. He said that the maneuver is best executed by experienced test pilots and requires levels of focus and skill not normally employed by tactical-demonstration pilots.

View Report (PDF)

Return to Index

Chinese J-20 Stealth Fighter Advances

(AVIATION WEEK 30 JAN 12) ... Bill Sweetman

WASHINGTON - Every indication is that nobody in Western intelligence saw the Chengdu J-20 coming. While it was known that China was developing a stealthy combat aircraft, the J-20 has emerged earlier than expected and appears to be more mature than the X-plane or demonstrator that many people anticipated.

J-20

The debut of the J-20 had been predicted in a November 2009 interview on Chinese television by Gen. He Weirong, deputy commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force. The general said at the time that a “fourth-generation” fighter would be flown in 2010-11 and be operational in 2017-19.

At least two J-20 prototypes were complete by the time the aircraft made its first flight—or at least its first public flight—on Jan. 11, 2011. The two aircraft are distinguished by the detail design of their exhaust nozzles, leading to speculation that one of the aircraft has Russian-supplied AL-31F engines, of the type fitted to the Chengdu J-10, and the other has the Chinese-developed WS-10 engine.

The J-20 is a big aircraft. Although its overall length (around 66 ft.) is not much greater than that of the 62-ft. Lockheed Martin F-22, the main structure from nose to exhaust nozzles is considerably longer. Like the F-22, it has large weapon bays in the lower fuselage and smaller side bays, the latter probably dedicated to air-to-air missiles.

The J-20 echoes the canard configuration of the J-10, but with canards level with, and immediately in front of, the wing. Two small, canted, all-moving vertical stabilizers are fitted. Although no U.S. manned stealth aircraft have flown with canards, a tail-first layout was featured by early Joint Strike Fighter designs, including Lockheed Martin’s—which the J-20 resembles—and McDonnell Douglas’ X-36 unmanned demonstrator.

Stealth design features mostly follow Lockheed Martin F-22 and X-35 practice. A high chine line around the forebody continues through the inlets and upper body, and flat, canted side surfaces blend into a flat underside via a small-radius edge. The canopy shape is also reminiscent of the F-22. The J-20 uses a diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI)—originally developed by Lockheed Martin, DSI technology is now used on the J-10B, JF-17 and (according to one report) the Saab Gripen JAS 39E/F.

The rear-aspect view of the aircraft is not as stealthy, a feature also seen on the Sukhoi T-50. This is clearly an intentional trade, eliminating the heavy 2D nozzles of the F-22. In this respect, both the T-50 and J-20 reflect the philosophy behind the pre-1986 Advanced Tactical Fighter studies that preceded the F-22, based on the theory that a fast, high-flying, agile aircraft is relatively immune from rear-quarter attacks.

According to a Chinese paper released on the Internet, the main goal of the design was to achieve high speed and maneuverability with the engines that would be available to China in the near future—the AL-31F and WS-10—which do not have the same thrust/weight ratio as the latest Western engines. This resulted in the selection of a delta wing and relatively long body for low supersonic drag, plus large, high-deflection canards to provide agility. The all-moving vertical tails are said to be 40% smaller than conventional fin/rudder designs, and accordingly lighter. Supercruise is probably not attainable with existing engines, but the design looks capable of it, once propulsion technology in China improves.

In 2012, China-watchers will be monitoring progress with the flight-test program and looking for signs of work on the many challenging aspects of stealth. A stealth fighter needs multispectral, active and passive sensors to detect and track its targets, and those sensors need to be fused and managed to minimize emissions. Similarly, to operate at maximum effectiveness as part of a networked force, stealth aircraft need effective low-probability-of-intercept voice and data communication systems. These are problems that the U.S. is still wrestling with, after 25 years of work.

There is another, more fundamental question: What is the J-20 for? The fighter is large for air combat—but China, simply because of geographical factors, doesn’t face an adversary fighter force of the kind that the F-22 was designed to counter. At the same time, the J-20 weapon bays are not large enough for most standoff air-to-surface weapons. One possibility is that the J-20 is intended to threaten intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and tankers, by using stealth and speed to defeat their escorts.

Return to Index

Ejection Parachute Issue Grounds F-35As

(AVIATION WEEK 30 JAN 12) ... Amy Butler

WASHINGTON - Fifteen new Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters, some of which are participating in the flight testing so critical to moving the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program forward, have been grounded owing to improper loading of parachutes in their ejection seats.

The suspension of flight and high-speed ground testing began Jan. 26 and affects aircraft at Edwards AFB, Calif., Eglin AFB, Fla., and Lockheed’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas, according to Joe Dellavedova at the U.S.-led JSF Joint Program Office. The root cause was “improperly drafted packing procedures,” he adds.

The problematic chutes are not affecting eight test aircraft at NAS Patuxent River, Md., because they carry an earlier version of this seat and the parachutes were properly loaded, he says.

Parachutes for the Martin-Baker US16E-21 and -23 seats were “reversed 180 deg. from design during installation,” Dellavedova says, and replacement seats from British manufacturer Martin-Baker are expected to take 10 days to arrive. “This issue will not prevent the pilot from executing a successful ejection and landing in the unlikely event of a pilot ejection,” Dellavedova says. The problem was uncovered during a routine review, he says, adding that it is premature to discuss any penalties as a result of the mishap.

One industry source notes, however, that an ejection “would have likely caused passenger load factor injury” because pilots would “have hit the ground going backwards.” Because the parachutes were loaded backwards, their steering lines would also have been reversed, affecting a pilot’s ability to guide himself to a landing site.

The affected equipment will have to be shipped back to Martin-Baker’s factory in the U.K. for repair; the repacked chutes will then first be put on the six grounded aircraft at Edwards to return them to flight testing. The six F-35As and three F-35Bs at Eglin AFB, Fla. were already limited to ground operations pending “military flight release” from the Air Force to fly the aircraft unmonitored in the area. So they will be next to receive the newly packed boxes. Eglin flights were held up owing to concerns cited from the Pentagon’s chief tester last fall. Among them was a warning not to fly over water until the -24 seat, the model intended for the operational F-35, is available, owing to concerns of pilot drowning with the older seat versions.

“Aircraft in production at Fort Worth were also affected but their parachutes will be repacked prior to the first acceptance flights,” Dellavedova says.

This mishap comes as Goodrich, the only remaining U.S. ejection seat manufacturer, is in the final throes of attempting to unseat Martin-Baker on the F-35A, which is likely to be purchased by at least 11 countries, with the U.S. Air Force potentially buying as many as 1,763. Without a major program like the F-35, the company’s opportunities to get the Aces 5, the latest in its Aces family of seats, into a new service platform are grim in the near future. The next major opportunity would be the Air Force’s T-38C replacement program, which has yet to formally be kicked off.

Booz Allen Hamilton studied whether the USAF Air Combat Command’s (ACC) use of the Aces 5 seat for its F-35As would save money over the life of the fighter for the service, due to commonality with the Aces 2 seats already in its fleet. “That exhaustive analysis led us to conclude that, while there are potential savings associated with the Goodrich Aces 5 seat, the amount is not sufficiently compelling to warrant the risk and up-front cost of integrating a new ejection seat into the F-35 weapon system at this time,” says Capt. Jennifer Ferrau, an ACC spokeswoman. “ACC and the Air Force strongly support the Joint Program Office’s commitment to pursue efficiencies in order to secure greater value for all JSF stakeholders.”

Lawmakers last year requested information on the study, and the Air Force recently notified staffs of the conclusions. The study or its data will not be released, according to Ferrau, because it contains proprietary information about the pricing of the seats.

The Pentagon was slated to decide in a Joint Executive Steering Board meeting whether it would be open to adding the Goodrich seat to the F-35A in December. But the U.S. decision to slice as many as 179 F-35s from purchasing plans through 2017 prompted officials to move the meeting to March.

Return to Index

Pentagon Sacrifices To Save Carrier

(AVIATION WEEK 27 JAN 12) ... Michael Fabey

The U.S. Navy will keep its aircraft carrier fleet at the now-magical number, 11, while other ships are being slipped or cut over the next five years — even those the Pentagon says it needs and wants to protect — according to a preview of the upcoming fiscal 2013 budget request detailed Jan. 26 by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The plan scuttles months-long speculation that the Pentagon would delay or cancel some carrier programs and reduce the fleet size.

A secure and upgraded 11-carrier fleet — and accompanying big-deck amphibious ships — is needed to meet the Obama administration’s new strategic guidance for “confronting aggression” and projecting power, Panetta says.

With the 2013 request, the Pentagon also aims to increase cruise-missile capacity for future Virginia-class submarines, design a conventional and prompt-strike option for subs, and upgrade ship-borne radars.

Navy officials and defense analysts have been calling for some time to augment the firepower of the Virginia-class subs. At the same, though, the Pentagon plans to slip one of the Virginias beyond the five-year procurement time frame.

The Defense Department also wants to delay the new Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine class replacement, SSBN(X), by two years, a move the Pentagon says can be made “without undermining our partnership with the U.K.”

In addition, the Pentagon wants to slip one large-deck LHA amphibious ship by one year, reduce Joint High Speed Vessels by eight ships over the next five years and cut the planned Littoral Combat Ship buy by two ships over that same time.

Early Retirement

Planned for early retirements are six cruisers that do not have ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability and a seventh cruiser that has BMD upgrades but would be too costly to repair.

Two smaller amphibious ships are slated for early retirement as well, and their replacements would be slipped outside the five-year procurement plan.

The Pentagon says it also plans to reduce spending and accept “some risk in deployable regional missile defense” and “increase reliance on allies and partners in the future.”

This suggests the Navy may consider throttling back on some of its Aegis-equipped vessel plans and start investing in more Aegis Ashore platforms.

Return to Index

Arming The Osprey

Crews don’t use them, but Corps to buy more belly guns

(MARINE CORPS TIMES 06 JAN 12) ... James K. Sanborn

The Marine Corps is plotting how best to arm its prized MV-22 Ospreys for the missions and potential threats that await once combat ends in Afghanistan.

Today, in addition to a ramp-mounted machine gun, Osprey crews in the war zone have access to a bolt-on 7.62mm belly gun capable of providing “all quadrant” defense. It was procured as a short-term answer to the aircraft’s perceived vulnerability, but has not been used — even once — in the two years since first reaching Afghanistan.

There’s a good explanation for that, one commander says.

In Afghanistan, Marine tiltrotor squadrons work in concert with helicopter gunships or fixed-wing fighters that act as armed bodyguards, of sorts, capable of providing fire support. That allows the Osprey to stay focused on transporting men and equipment, said Col. Christopher Seymour, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 26 out of Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C. The belly gun has not been necessary, he said. In fact, many squadrons in Afghanistan fly without it because, at 800-plus pounds, it cuts into its cargo-carrying capability.

An Osprey can carry 12,000 pounds in 70-degree weather, but just 8,000 to 8,500 pounds when temperatures spike above 107 degrees. So with the belly gun in tow, the aircraft can carry fewer Marines and less water, ammo and food on resupply missions.

The belly gun is one component of what’s formally known as the Interim Defensive Weapon System, or IDWS, that also includes an infrared camera capable of target acquisition or surveillance and reconnaissance. There are eight in the Corps’ arsenal right now, and plans to field 24 more starting in June, officials said.

That plan might seem unnecessary, as the gun hasn’t seen any action during its two-years in the war zone, but Seymour sees it playing a potentially significant role in time. As the Corps renews its emphasis on smaller-scale, expeditionary operations, future missions could include anti-piracy ops, personnel or hostage extraction and raids into foreign countries, he said. In such instances, Ospreys will operate more independently.

“We haven’t really had the opportunity yet to explore how we innovate the use of IDWS in those environments and mission sets,” Seymour said, calling it “a segue and an enabler” for future opportunities. “I don’t think we have discovered all the things we are going to be able to do with the IDWS.”

And Seymour was firm on this point: The Osprey will need its own firepower because it flies faster than the Corps’ other armed rotary-wing aircraft. MAG-26 is the Corps’ only all-Osprey group. It has one training squadron and six operational squadrons, which have made 14 combat deployments. When they have trained with the IDWS, it has shown to be accurate and powerful, Seymour said.

The infrared targeting system is aimed by a crew chief using a video game-like controller. Its video screen, however, was criticized early on by some gunners who claimed that trying to acquire targets as the Osprey maneuvered brought on feelings of nausea.

A Marine spokesman at the Pentagon, Capt. Brian Block, acknowledged there is anecdotal evidence that is true. But Seymour said he is unaware of such complaints. Air sickness, he said, can happen to any passenger or crewmember.

Block noted also that even though the IDWS belly gun has seen zero use in Afghanistan, the infrared camera has proven valuable on several missions as a reconnaissance and surveillance tool.

The Osprey’s speed, however, remains its biggest asset, Marine officials maintain. When flying in airplane mode, it can reach speeds of 350 mph. An AH-1W Super Cobra, by contrast, tops out at 170 mph.

But with the ability to travel faster and farther than any of the Corps’ armed helicopters, it will need a way to defend itself on long-range missions.

Ospreys could be tapped for operating in what Commandant Gen. Jim Amos describes as the “arc of instability.” This is a band stretching across the globe where small-scale conflicts could threaten U.S. interests. Countries range from Venezuela, to Nigeria, to the Philippines. During possible quick missions to these countries, the Osprey won’t always have the same fire support it does today in Afghanistan. And the Corps is planning accordingly.

Some of the new IDWS systems will soon see service during deployments with Marine expeditionary units. The 24th MEU, for example, is about to employ belly-gun equipped Ospreys for Bold Alligator 2012, a combined-arms exercise off the East Coast that is scheduled to run from Jan. 30 through Feb. 12. It’s part of the unit’s pre-deployment certification. When its pump begins in the spring, the MEU will deploy to the Mediterranean and the Middle East regions, with IDWS in tow.

“I think where we are really going to make money with it is in that expeditionary or amphibious role,” Seymour said.

IDWS isn’t a permanent solution, however, and the Osprey could see the same evolution as the Vietnam-era Huey did. For now, the Osprey’s primary role remains assault support, Similarly, the Huey started out as a transport helo but later became a heavily -armed gunship. That’s a possibility for the Osprey, Seymour said.

“I think the IDWS is the beginning of a lot of added capabilities onto a platform that is extremely unique,” he said.

Any next-generation weapons system is probably at least a decade away, Seymour predicted. But there are some ideas being evaluated.

“Nose guns, door guns, and non-lethal countermeasures are being studied,” Block said. “…These systems are being evaluated as standalone systems and as systems in conjunction with the current ramp-mounted weapon system and IDWS, to provide a final solution to the V-22 all-quadrant defensive weapon system.”

Development of the new weapon system is a collaborative effort between the V-22 program office and the Advanced Tactical Aircraft Protection Systems program office at Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., as well as the Naval Post Graduate School, based in Monterey Calif., and the Office of Naval Research headquartered in Arlington, Va.

As yet, there is no timeline for development, Block said.

Return to Index

 

Local Carrier Could Move To West Coast

(WAVY NBC NORFOLK24 JAN 12) ... Art Kohn

NORFOLK, Va. - The Navy's top officer said another carrier could be going to the West Coast in the next four years.

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, the Chief of Naval Operations, said the Asia Pacific region is the Navy's number one concern. The proposed move is in response to China's military build-up. Greenert said a carrier would likely be assigned to San Diego by 2016.

Currently, there are five active carriers based in Norfolk. But that number could be down at least one more if the Navy is still committed to moving a carrier to Mayport, Florida.

Retired Admiral Fred Metz said, "For him to say they're going to put a third carrier in San Diego based on the strategy I think the question is what is that strategy and how does that impact us here?"

Metz was once the Director of Carrier Programs. He understands the Navy's concern over the Asian-Pacific Theater, but wonders if the Navy is considering this new strategy when making a decision about Mayport.

"You made a decision in 2008. Now your strategy has changed. I can't envision a carrier going to Mayport still being your strategy. It may be," Metz said.

A carrier move to San Diego would bring the number of carriers based on the West Coast to seven, leaving only four in the Atlantic.

Metz added, "Things bode well for San Diego because if you look at that 60-40 split it's not only, you know, you forget, it's not only a carrier it's a whole battle group that goes along with it. It's the submarines and it's all the support ships and everything that goes along with it..."

While Admiral Metz said Norfolk will take a bigger hit from the new strategy and cuts to defense spending than San Diego, he believes the region will survive.

"I was...heard an Admiral make a comment the other day, "If you look at the piers right now, the way they are today and come back 20-years from now probably, maybe ten years from now, they won't look much different," Metz said.

The Defense Department will release its spending plan next week.

Representative Scott Rigell released a statement on the 2016 West Coast carrier assignment saying:

“I understand and appreciate the changing security challenges our nation faces – particularly those presented in the Asia-Pacific region. I am eager to learn specifics about the Pentagon’s plans for our carriers when the President releases his budget, which is required by law to be delivered the first week of February, but has been pushed back. Regardless, the uncertainty of this matter has made a stronger case against continuing to make material improvements to Naval Station Mayport.”

View Clip (RT: 2:40)

Broadcast Clip - Navy Officials Consider Relocating Two Carriers

(WVEC ABC NORFOLK 24 JAN 12) Mike Gooding

Top Navy officials are considering adding an aircraft carrier to the west coast fleet which means a carrier could be leaving Norfolk.

If that happens, it would be a bitter economic blow to Hampton Roads, especially since there is already talk of moving an aircraft carrier from Norfolk to Mayport, Florida.

6,000 jobs and $425 million in annual revenue is attached to each ship. Currently there are five aircraft carriers homeported in Norfolk.

President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have already said the United States will turn its military might towards the Asia-Pacific region in years to come.

Tuesday, there was new indication on how that might happen. The Chief of Naval Operations confirmed the Navy will likely place a third carrier in San Diego within four years.

"Obviously they've decided on a carrier strategy if they can talk about a third carrier going to San Diego. That's what we need to know. Is it going to come from here?" asked retired rear admiral Fred Metz.

The retired admiral is very concerned about Hampton Roads losing two of its carriers and he feels others should be as well.

"The Mayport issue becomes an issue that has to be resolved. But if you go to three, with one in Mayport, that is another impact. When you take 5,000 or 6,000 people out of your economy, look what the Ford motor plant did. It still is going to be an impact. We've got to recognize that because we're so dependent on it. We're not going to be immune to it," Metz stated.

This new carrier talk comes as local lawmakers are already bracing for the details on the Obama administration's announced intentions to cut the military by $489 billion dollars over the coming decade. Just a few days ago, Secretary of Defense Panetta visited the USS Enterprise and announced the U.S. will maintain its fleet of 11 aircraft carriers despite budget pressures.

"I was happy about what the secretary said, but we're going to have to stay vigilant," said Senator Mark Warner.

View Clip (RT: 2:41)

Return to Index

New Plan: NGJ To Go Unmanned

(AVIATION WEEK 24 JAN 12) ... David Fulghum

NAS PATUXENT RIVER, Md. - The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, long touted as the follow-on to the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, is no longer heir-apparent as the king of nonkinetic warfare.

The often-delayed Lockheed Martin JSF program is being more narrowly focused on its conventional attack role. Jamming is no longer a priority for the stealthy fighter. The airframes expected to carry the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) are conventional-signature unmanned aerial systems and will be followed by stealthy unmanned designs.

NGJ is one of the U.S. Navy’s prized new programs. To maintain its fiscal and technological attractiveness, acquisition officials are revealing some interesting revisions of the service’s airborne electronic attack (AEA) concept to ensure that NGJ will be flexible enough to be used by large numbers of different platforms.

A new logo for the office swaps the electronic surveillance “Old Crow” for a patch that features the EA-6B Prowler, EA-18G Growler and an unmanned aircraft that looks suspiciously like the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (Uclass) aircraft.

“That should speak volumes to you,” says Navy Capt. John Green, chief of the AEA and EA-6B Prowler program office. “We believe that the Prowler is the [electronic warfare] past; the Growler is EW now, and the future of EW will be unmanned vehicles.”

The aerospace industry is reaching similar conclusions. Senior officials see systems-of-systems evolving with decoys and nonkinetic weapons being released by larger platforms. They also anticipate a change in EW to encompass more active electronic attack.

“Electronic warfare is going to be very targeted and focused rather than very broad,” says Mark Kula, Raytheon vice president for tactical airborne systems. “It will allow some platforms to perform nonkinetic missions to get in the front door and then a kinetic mission to escape.”

The reason for the shift is the availability of new technologies for both the attacker and the attacked. The notion that the U.S. will always have air superiority and dominance is no longer a given.

“I think those days are probably waning as the world gets more advanced integrated air defense [IAD] systems,” Kula says. For example, several countries, some in the Middle East, have very good IAD systems. “If you combine these advanced systems with double-digit [surface-to-air missiles], an adversary could reach out a couple of hundred miles to threaten our larger command-and-control platforms.”

Navy acquisition officials say the last 15 months have taught them a lot about the new budget challenges. Where they had been looking at both Growler and JSF as a twin path, they have now chosen a single focus in the first increment of the program. Moreover, NGJ integration on the EA-18G is now fully funded.

“The F-35 has other tasks to do, and the Defense Department has invested a lot in making a low-observable aircraft,” Green says. “There are other platforms we could put NGJ on that would be lower risk and a better use of resources. That’s not to say putting NGJ on F-35 will never happen. But the Defense Department is going to be looking at other solutions.”

The initial plan of making the F-35 (probably the Marine Corps B-model) an early user of the NGJ is being de-emphasized in favor of a more intense focus on the EA-18G Prowler as the initial platform for a fully funded AEA program. In turn, the JSF program will concentrate on more immediate production and development problems.

The Growler, although the newest aircraft in the fleet, will have a limited service life of 15-17 years left by the time it starts carrying NGJ pods. Service planners say they must have an AEA system that can be “transportable” from platform to platform in order to support an advanced electronic attack capability.

“There is the potential to combine radar, electronic warfare and other capabilities for use in smaller aircraft,” says Green. “It could very well be a UAV because the Growler has a limited lifespan.”

Aerospace officials also anticipate the need for small, stealthy platforms with powerful electronic payloads.

“As platforms become smaller in the attempt to get stealthier, I see EW systems evolving into the other systems on the aircraft, because you can’t afford the weight and processing for each of the separate technologies,” Kula says.

Meanwhile the NGJ program will be growing as it works through a series of developmental blocks involving the fielding of separate pods sequentially that operate in mid-, low- and high-frequency bands.

Advanced, long-range, air defense radars with active, electronically scanned arrays (AESAs) with double or triple the range to detect aircraft and missiles “are the kinds of technologies that really scream out and require us to take this NGJ step,” Green says. “It is the proliferation of solid-state equipment, advanced control mechanisms, sophisticated waveforms, enhanced electronic agility and electronic, counter-counter measures on the radars themselves that really push us to make these kinds of investments before the electronic attack technologies of today become obsolete.”

Most of these problems have physics at their root. Flying into heavily defended areas requires smaller, stealthier platforms. That, in turn, drives the need for electronics and power in a small, light, powerful package. While researchers have made significant advances in improving effective radiated power output, it is not yet enough. One benefit of adapting AESA radar technology to AEA, for example, is that it permits the design of small packages to focus power into tailored waveforms.

“What’s driving the current NGJ program is the level of maturity needed to meet the initial operational dates the Navy wants,” says Nick Uros, Raytheon vice president for NGJ. “I think you can extrapolate from that they want to stick with tried and proven AESAs that are open and scalable.” This would indicate that the introduction of conformal or embedded arrays is still well into the future.

Higher up the power scale, using AESA-generated electronic beams as directed energy will likely be the dividing line between manned and unmanned AEA platforms.

“I don’t see us using the NGJ system in a directed-energy form, if for no other reason than the long standoff distances we have to operate from,” Green says. “For that mission area, you are more likely to see us put that mission onto an unmanned platform. The risk you run with putting a man well inside the kill range for an advanced surface-to-air missile is not acceptable.”

The Navy is actively exploring NGJ technology transfer to its UAV programs. That is at the heart of a decision by the chief of naval operations to move NGJ and other EW systems under a combined intelligence and command-and-control directorate to speed the fusion of EW and unmanned craft.

The Navy and Marine Corps are looking at putting NGJ on both stealthy and nonstealthy platforms. The capability is definitely going on regular-signature UAVs (such as Shadow), and researchers are studying a mission set for stealth designs (such as Uclass).

In an era of dwindling resources, the Pentagon is looking hard at the nonkinetic effects produced by electronic attack.

“It can be an economical way to either put off full-scale warfare or enhance it,” Green says. “I’m sure that creating kinetic effects by nonkinetic means is being looked at—anything to deny, degrade and deceive in the electromagnetic spectrum. You are going to see technologies shared between EW and [directed energy] are similar, but you are going to see them led by different teams because the concepts of operations are very different.”

Return to Index

Gortney Tapped To Head Fleet Forces Command

(NAVY TIMES 23 JAN 12) ... William H. McMichael

President Obama has nominated Vice Adm. Bill Gortney as the next commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, a move that if approved by the Senate would likely occur this summer.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the announcement today.

Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, would be promoted to admiral and replace Adm. John Harvey, who has commanded what was once known as U.S. Atlantic Fleet since July 2009. Gortney reported to the Pentagon in July 2010.

Harvey, with three years on the job come summer, is expected to retire.

Naval observers and industry insiders told Navy Times in late December that Gortney appeared to have the inside track on the job, saying he possesses the right combination of experience in preparing ships to deploy, readiness funding requirements and fleet operations.

The job, one retired flag said, requires someone who’s “excellent in standards and execution … and sustaining what you’ve got.”

Gortney has commanded a carrier air wing, a strike group and 5th Fleet, as well as two aviation squadrons. He understands requirements, having served as deputy chief of staff for global force management and joint operations at the former U.S. Joint Forces Command. His current job is his second go-round on the Joint Staff, having worked at the J-33 Joint Operations Department, Central Command Division, in 1998-1999.

Fleet Forces Command is responsible for manning, training and equipping all Navy forces east of the Mississippi and providing same to overseas combatant commanders. It advises the CNO on all integrated warfighter capability requirements. It also handles the Navy’s anti-terrorism/force protection, individual augmentee and sea basing programs for the CNO.

Return to Index