jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,294
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
The eternal struggle of Stealth vs Jammer on Air-Sea Battle
Stealth vs Jamming, it's seems like a millions dollar question these day, but is arguably the (at least one of the) most discussed topic in Naval and Air Doctrine within the US military circle at least. Probably world wide.
The question arise when the US Air Force have been focusing its force on stealth, keen to replace all their legacy fighter into stealthy F-35, while the Navy go another direction, with the bulk of the investment are still on the Growler, even tho they were back on board the stealth train.
Normally it would not be much if one branch favor one thing and the other branch favor the other, but when you have a joint doctrine between the two, like the AirSea Battle doctrine that become official in 2010. Problem started.
According to AirSea battle model (Which would be discussed later on this article) Air Force all-stealth composition would be undermined or even compromised by Navy non-stealth units (such as F-18) which mean a stanch resistance on the joint operation. On the other hand, the use of Jammer of the Navy means the Air Force have to learn to fight bypassing the Jammer. It may be fine if the Air Force were using legacy fighter, but using stealth under jammer would inhibit or negate some degree of advantage offered by stealth. And Jammer don't just jam the enemy you knows.
By the end of this article, you will have a basic understanding on:
The Concept of AirSea Battle
In the early 2000s, US Navy have been overstretch with its deployment due to the 2 wars being fought in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) and which demanded heavy US Navy present in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, US deployment in the Pacific have been lagging and allowing the Chinese to catch up with many aspect.
One of the specific problem for the US navy is that the Chinese rapid deployment of A2/AD technology in its coast and surrounding area. Which inhibit the capability of US Navy in the area close to the Chinese coast. This is a problem that will cost the United States the balance of Force in the Pacific.
The solution comes in the form of AirSea Battle doctrine. What AirSea Battle entailed is that the Air Force will work with the Navy on a share responsibility.
The History of AirSea Battle Concept (ASBC)
The earliest history of ASBC can be seen during WW2 in the battle of Atlantic and the Island hopping campaign. When the US Army Air Force begin to amalgamate with the US Navy in order to break thru the Wolf Pack and helping the Navy to secure a secured air corridor to win the war of Island Hopping all the way to Japanese homeland.
While in both case, the enemy were both using AD/A2 tactics to disallowing asset that stray into their operational theatre. Both time the US Navy combined with the US Air Force could be seen complementing the Navy and in a way, supplementing the inability for the Navy to rage a full on war. Thus increasing the chance of victory in the battle.
So, how does it work with AirSea Battle concept? For example, during Battle of the Atlantic. When the German are using their U-Boat and reek havoc over the Atlantic Ocean, the shortcoming of the Navy is that they cannot see nor have enough number to engage the U-Boat, simply because the U-boat would have just left unnoticed if they think they are going to be outnumbered by the Allied Navy.
Therefore, the Navy alone would be put into a passive defence, while try to avoid the wolf pack and travel in convoy to mitigate losses, at the same time, they also alternate their route so that they would not be becoming predictable. However, doing so will place the Navy in the lower hand, where there are in no way a deterrence enough for the German to keep on the wolfpack tactics.
The solution comes with "filling the gap" in the mid-Atlantic by the US Army Air Force B-24 liberator, the Liberator have dual role, first, it can attack submarine, submarine tender and resupply ship within the mid-Atlantic blind spots. It Also act to provide early warning to shipping in the intermediate area, thus early preparation would be able to factor in before the shipping entered the ambush site.
On the other hand, in the Pacific, the AirSea Battle concept is applied when the US Army Air Force land based aircraft attacks the Japanese bases, in turn, it allow a dilution of defence between Japanese Bases and increase the difficulty for Imperial Japanese Army to reinforce their fighter over certain island. Which also sparing the Naval Aviator to simply use their air power to support their troop, both Army and Marine Troop.
For AirSea Battle to work in SCS, the Air Force would need to task themselves into working closely with the Navy in order to achieve maximum result. The exact information on AirSea Battle doctrine is classified. And I am not inclined to take a peek on it as a former Army officer (A good way to have some FBI or NSA pay you a visit) I will, however, try to figure out a few point regarding the AirSea Battle Concept.
AirSea Battle would be concentrate on the advantage of both forces. The Air Force with their long range ISTAR asset and also anti-A2/AD capability (SEAD Strike and Comprehensive Strike Package) While the Navy would use their mobile asset as well as their advance Jammer aircraft, also the Navy would provide a full spectrum solution from Anti-Air/Sea and land target.
A basic rundown would be
Air Force would be responsible for :
As part of AirSea Battle, one of the main point for the USAF responsibility would be the Stealth Fighter and bomber. The USAF operate stealth aircraft as well as non-stealth legacy aircraft with numerous drone to complement the service. And Stealth Aircraft (both Fighter and Bomber) would means a force multiplication factoring in the use of tactical value. Which basically come down to do more with less.
To understand how Stealth Aircraft would benefit the AirSea Battle Concept in general, it's imperative to understand how stealth works first. In Brief.......
Stealth aircraft are not invisible, in fact, Radar will detect all, even insect. What stealth does is to limit the exposure of the radar detection and to which it mimic other things, thus fooling the Radar computational power.
Stealth is also not just a single entity, stealth is a combination of several factor, EM, RCS, Thermal, Acoustic, Material and Shape. It's always a combination of all these factors that make up the end result on how stealthy an aircraft can be. Having just one or more but not all would still be highly observable.
For an aircraft to be stealthy. The aircraft should have the following trait.
Tactical Function of Stealth.
So, you know how stealth works, how about what it does? As said before, the premier function of stealth is act as a force multiplier. By decreasing the need of unit in theatre (Thus act as a force multiplier by enhancing mission capability). So, how does that works?
Imagine this scenario
You have a mission to bomb a nuclear power plant in an unspecified country. Your Intelligence shown there are 2 enemy air force airfield guarding the power plant. Also present in the area is search radar as well as a few battery of advance SAM missile guarding the approach.
The scenario would call for a Iron Hand strike on the SAM batteries, as well as fighter escort to deal with the potential air threat of the target area. Now, if you are using non-stealth fighter and bomber (such as B-52, F-16 and F-15) You will probably need a flight of B-52 (4 planes) to deal with the mission objective. To guard that B-52 flight, you may also need 1 or 2 squadron of F-15 (12 planes each) to deal with the air threat launched by the 2 airfield. Also you will need a SEAD flight (F-16CJ) to deal with the SAM en-route. In all, you would need at least 20 planes to finish this mission.
However, with Stealth planes, the situation changes dramatically. Since you can now by-pass the radar detection (Assuming if stealth work the way they should) So, the en-route entry would not be detected, and you have a choice to knock out those SAMs on-route or not. Thus saving your F-16CJ flight. Also, in this case, you can choose to pre-emptively attack the enemy airfield before your B-2 bomber attack the nuclear plants. or simply leave it. In the end, I would ended up needing 2 flights of F-35 or F-22 escorting a single or pair of B-2, dropping the number of operational units to 10 planes. Or simply have a flight of B-2 flew thru the area and bomb the power plant abd then bug out.
How Jammer Works?
While that is what stealth "Supposed" to be, but we did not live in a perfect world, so, something gotta give.
In come Jammer Aircraft. Jammer aircraft is basically a normal legacy aircraft that spring on board a Jammer system works to Jam both enemy radar and communication. Currently, only US Navy achieve full Jamming capability in theory in any airborne asset, USAF only jamming aircraft is the EC-130 Compass Call. Which works with F-16CJ, a special build SEAD aircraft to jam and destroy enemy radar.
ALQ-99 High Band/Mid-Band Jammer Pod. Targeting frequency between 120MHz to 1 GHz frequency (Mid-Band) and 500MHz to 6 GHz (High Band) To be used to target more accurate radar structure
ALQ-99 Low Band Jammer Pod. To be used against low frequency (20MHz to 500Mhz) which usually more powerful, but less accurate target structure
ALQ-218 (v) 2 Receiver Processor Group (RPG) is used to restore radio function of the jammer aircraft so they would be immune to their own jamming the system include a look-through, look-above and look around technique to control the interference.
Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS) - Allow voice communication while jamming enemy communication.
Antenna Interface Unit (AIU) and SATCOM terminal - Allow for Satellite communication while jamming enemy communication
Jammer works in 2 ways, they both jam enemy radar control, as well as jamming the communication, identification, passive ranging and threat warning system of enemy ground based radar or aircraft. Jammer works by broadcasting radar noise to confuse the radar in single or all frequency. Thus blocking the radar from receiving any useful signal apart from the broadcasted noise. There are 3 types of noise jamming by a jammer aircraft.
Spot Jamming - Totally block one single frequency, rendering the receiving unit in that frequency useless.
Sweep Jamming - Totally block one single frequency, then move on to other frequency. In Real time, it works with jamming multiple to all frequency, however, intermittent transmission can still get thru between sweep.
Barrage Jamming - Partial block of all frequency at once. The up side is, you can block all of the frequency and completely render the Radar installation useless. However, since there are finite amount of computational power, the effective with this jamming decrease as frequencies increase, and if your enemy have a strong receiver, they can by pass this type of jamming.
It was said that 3 EA-18G work together in real time can perform a sweep frequency jamming to render a radar structure useless in real time (given the EA-18Gs can stay on station continuously) However, this only works in theory, the deteriorated communication capability and the error prone AN/ALQ-99 Jammer pod means that it cannot be achieve in any real situation.
Basically, in a Jamming Aircraft, such as EA-18G Growler or EA-6B Prowler works by adding High Band/Low Band Jammer pod as well as receiver pod to perform Jamming Operation. The specialist equipment rundown usually found in a Jammer Aircraft is as follow:
Tactical function of Jammer.
The tactical implication of Jamming is immense, they can be used in pre-emptive, escort and stand-alone manner. Where when used pre-emptively, and couple with EC-130 or a SEAD aircraft such as F-16CJ or F-15SE, they can be use to dealt with enemy radar defence.
They can also use as an escort and selectively jamming the radio frequency on-route to protect the strike package. Alternatively they can work as a standalone Jammer for special need while tailor to different situation.
The tactical influence of Jammer would also mean that the enemy would have to have resource relocated to try and deal with the jammer. Or at least work thru enemy jamming. Which also means a large chunk of capability would be diverted to stay ahead of the Jamming. While only leaving a relative small parts of the defence system or defence network to target the incoming threat. For example, radar would need to be boosted to get around jamming, and asset need to dispatched to deal with the jammer. That would draw away defence asset and split their responsibility.
The Challenge on Air Force and Navy approach on AirSea battle
While they would achieve a lot more if they bend together, however, if one card in the domino falls, that may as well bring down the whole things. So any system is only as strong as their weakest link. And both USAF and USN have their share of their weakest link, which both affecting the others.
The weakest link of the Air Force.
Mobility, to put it right out, the mobility is always the dead spot of the air force. You can go anywhere once your aircraft is launched, however, you cannot move your airport.....
With today satellite technology, it's not hard to tune a satellite to a specific airbase and monitor or even "track" the aircraft coming and going. I mean even stealth are not invisible, you can still see it takes off an lands. Which will give valuable intel (both SIGINT and IMGINT) to the defender had they have the satellite capability.
Another question associated with mobility is the need to defend the area which known to your enemy, you can run free in the air with your stealth or what's not, the problem is, aircraft are not supposed to be on the air 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, meaning while it is quite hard to target any stealth aircraft while they are in the air, they have to come down some how, and that would instantly become the weakest spot. You being stealth does not have anything to do with enemy strike capability, unless you can safely eliminate majority of aerial threat in the very beginning. But while it is doable with a non-peer enemy, it's honestly quite hard to pull it out with a peer enemies.
Also, not all aircraft are going to be stealth, meaning you only need to have a slight clue on where the EWACS/AWACS or even Electronic Attack aircraft went to find them. And those are the integral part of the Air Force asset within the AirSea Battle concept.
Another problem would be the stealth is not the silver bullet it was meant to be, lower frequency radar can still detect the incoming stealth, however, low frequency means they cannot pinpoint where the stealth aircraft is coming from, but only gives a general direction. On the other hand, Stealth aircraft cost a lot more than non-stealth legacy fighter. Money would be a problem.
The weakest link of the Navy
Navy, on the other hand, lacking the complementary stealth aircraft would present itself a target within the first strike. Since the majority of the Navy Aircraft is legacy, and there are 500 or so Legacy Aircraft but only some 70 jammer, there would not be enough to go around. Then either they will need to limited the scope of the attack or have to risk the bulk being shot down before they reach their target area.
Another thing about the Navy is that they have short range and small payload, which means the carrier group need to move into the area in order to launch and rearm aircraft. Which means they are increasingly risky for the whole Carrier Group.
On the other hand, the naval asset is limited in size, and have to dual or even triple use with a single asset. The other side of Force Multiplication means if that asset is gone, you lose an multiplication power of that single asset.
Into the future.
With the current technology, unless we are talking about breaking some X-factor, the stealth technology is at its nominal, it cannot, or I cannot foresee stealth technology can get better than today. On the other hand, according to Moore's Law. Computational power increase exponentially every two years. That means both Jammer and Radar capability will increase over time.
Then it bring us to this scenario. While in the future, increasing computational capability would most definitely means Stealth is no longer a silver bullet we think today (Or maybe we never even begin to think about Stealth as a silver bullet anyway) The question is not if but when, the technology to decode the complex algorithm to unmask stealth caught up with the technology to make stealth stealthier. That is the moment stealth cannot do anything alone.
In the future, the need for both aircraft would still be needed, but it's utmost important for Stealth Aircraft to work with Jammer. This capability is already showing in the current Stealth Aircraft such as F-22 where their AESA radar are powerful enough to interfere with enemy radar, however, without proper jammer backup, this work cannot be done alone by the F-22 and its advanced radar/
However, in AirSea Battle Concept, stealth is just one part of the equation which, with more and more combat asset, such as drones and space technology, another aspect we also need to focus on is the datalink system. While future battlefield would be decided in a quicker manner than before, the important for information to be process and pipe down to everyone involved in the line would also dictate the battlefield.
Conclusion
Like any doctrine and battle concept. This concept is not without flaw. The question is always how the Air Force and the Navy to work together and maximize their combination firepower.
As I said, a team only as best as their weakest link was. While the question is not always know which is better, stealth or jammer. We simply don't know what tomorrow brings. As there are no fool-proofed solution, the only thing we can do is work on what we have, and to which we focus on the current level of technology, and try to accommodate the best of the two cases.
@WAJsal @Slav Defence @AUSTERLITZ @Neutron @PARIKRAMA @Levina @Oscar @Davos @Hamartia Antidote @Blue Marlin @Desertfalcon @DesertFox97 @Tipu7 @TankMan @Gufi
Stealth vs Jamming, it's seems like a millions dollar question these day, but is arguably the (at least one of the) most discussed topic in Naval and Air Doctrine within the US military circle at least. Probably world wide.
The question arise when the US Air Force have been focusing its force on stealth, keen to replace all their legacy fighter into stealthy F-35, while the Navy go another direction, with the bulk of the investment are still on the Growler, even tho they were back on board the stealth train.
Normally it would not be much if one branch favor one thing and the other branch favor the other, but when you have a joint doctrine between the two, like the AirSea Battle doctrine that become official in 2010. Problem started.
According to AirSea battle model (Which would be discussed later on this article) Air Force all-stealth composition would be undermined or even compromised by Navy non-stealth units (such as F-18) which mean a stanch resistance on the joint operation. On the other hand, the use of Jammer of the Navy means the Air Force have to learn to fight bypassing the Jammer. It may be fine if the Air Force were using legacy fighter, but using stealth under jammer would inhibit or negate some degree of advantage offered by stealth. And Jammer don't just jam the enemy you knows.
By the end of this article, you will have a basic understanding on:
- What is AirSea Battle
- How stealth works in AirSea Battle
- How jammer works in AirSea Battle
- The challenge faced by both the Navy and the Air Force
- The future of AirSea Battle concept.
The Concept of AirSea Battle
In the early 2000s, US Navy have been overstretch with its deployment due to the 2 wars being fought in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) and which demanded heavy US Navy present in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean Sea. At the same time, US deployment in the Pacific have been lagging and allowing the Chinese to catch up with many aspect.
One of the specific problem for the US navy is that the Chinese rapid deployment of A2/AD technology in its coast and surrounding area. Which inhibit the capability of US Navy in the area close to the Chinese coast. This is a problem that will cost the United States the balance of Force in the Pacific.
The solution comes in the form of AirSea Battle doctrine. What AirSea Battle entailed is that the Air Force will work with the Navy on a share responsibility.
The History of AirSea Battle Concept (ASBC)
The earliest history of ASBC can be seen during WW2 in the battle of Atlantic and the Island hopping campaign. When the US Army Air Force begin to amalgamate with the US Navy in order to break thru the Wolf Pack and helping the Navy to secure a secured air corridor to win the war of Island Hopping all the way to Japanese homeland.
While in both case, the enemy were both using AD/A2 tactics to disallowing asset that stray into their operational theatre. Both time the US Navy combined with the US Air Force could be seen complementing the Navy and in a way, supplementing the inability for the Navy to rage a full on war. Thus increasing the chance of victory in the battle.
So, how does it work with AirSea Battle concept? For example, during Battle of the Atlantic. When the German are using their U-Boat and reek havoc over the Atlantic Ocean, the shortcoming of the Navy is that they cannot see nor have enough number to engage the U-Boat, simply because the U-boat would have just left unnoticed if they think they are going to be outnumbered by the Allied Navy.
Therefore, the Navy alone would be put into a passive defence, while try to avoid the wolf pack and travel in convoy to mitigate losses, at the same time, they also alternate their route so that they would not be becoming predictable. However, doing so will place the Navy in the lower hand, where there are in no way a deterrence enough for the German to keep on the wolfpack tactics.
The solution comes with "filling the gap" in the mid-Atlantic by the US Army Air Force B-24 liberator, the Liberator have dual role, first, it can attack submarine, submarine tender and resupply ship within the mid-Atlantic blind spots. It Also act to provide early warning to shipping in the intermediate area, thus early preparation would be able to factor in before the shipping entered the ambush site.
On the other hand, in the Pacific, the AirSea Battle concept is applied when the US Army Air Force land based aircraft attacks the Japanese bases, in turn, it allow a dilution of defence between Japanese Bases and increase the difficulty for Imperial Japanese Army to reinforce their fighter over certain island. Which also sparing the Naval Aviator to simply use their air power to support their troop, both Army and Marine Troop.
For AirSea Battle to work in SCS, the Air Force would need to task themselves into working closely with the Navy in order to achieve maximum result. The exact information on AirSea Battle doctrine is classified. And I am not inclined to take a peek on it as a former Army officer (A good way to have some FBI or NSA pay you a visit) I will, however, try to figure out a few point regarding the AirSea Battle Concept.
AirSea Battle would be concentrate on the advantage of both forces. The Air Force with their long range ISTAR asset and also anti-A2/AD capability (SEAD Strike and Comprehensive Strike Package) While the Navy would use their mobile asset as well as their advance Jammer aircraft, also the Navy would provide a full spectrum solution from Anti-Air/Sea and land target.
A basic rundown would be
Air Force would be responsible for :
- AWACS and Target Acquisition (From Asset such as E-3A, E-8 JSTAR and E-10 MC2A)
- Airborne Mobile Command capability (From E-4 Looking Glass/EC-130 Compass Call)
- Satellite SIGINT support
- SEAD and Anti-Radar Strike (Anti-Radar strike against Enemy Anti-Ship Radar)
- Strike Package both Stealth and Non-Stealth (from B-52, B-1, B-2)
- Tactical Close Air Support (from F-15E/F-16CJ)
- Air Superiority Mission (from F-22)
- Ground Solution (Amphibious capability from the USMC)
- Jamming (EA-18G Growler)
- Mobile Tactical Strike (Carrier Air Group)
- Area AA screen (by AGEIS Ship)
- Own A2/AD platform (Submarine and Minelayer)
- AWACS solution (E-2D Hawkeyes)
As part of AirSea Battle, one of the main point for the USAF responsibility would be the Stealth Fighter and bomber. The USAF operate stealth aircraft as well as non-stealth legacy aircraft with numerous drone to complement the service. And Stealth Aircraft (both Fighter and Bomber) would means a force multiplication factoring in the use of tactical value. Which basically come down to do more with less.
To understand how Stealth Aircraft would benefit the AirSea Battle Concept in general, it's imperative to understand how stealth works first. In Brief.......
Stealth aircraft are not invisible, in fact, Radar will detect all, even insect. What stealth does is to limit the exposure of the radar detection and to which it mimic other things, thus fooling the Radar computational power.
Stealth is also not just a single entity, stealth is a combination of several factor, EM, RCS, Thermal, Acoustic, Material and Shape. It's always a combination of all these factors that make up the end result on how stealthy an aircraft can be. Having just one or more but not all would still be highly observable.
For an aircraft to be stealthy. The aircraft should have the following trait.
- Low Profile - Small in shape would means less reflective surface to reflect radio wave.
- Angular Edges - Angular shape works better to deflect radio wave than smooth edges
- Thermal Shielding/Deflection - Limited Infrared remittances
- Noise Mitigation - To reduce noise from engine
- Radar Absorbing Material - To absorb radio wave.
Tactical Function of Stealth.
So, you know how stealth works, how about what it does? As said before, the premier function of stealth is act as a force multiplier. By decreasing the need of unit in theatre (Thus act as a force multiplier by enhancing mission capability). So, how does that works?
Imagine this scenario
You have a mission to bomb a nuclear power plant in an unspecified country. Your Intelligence shown there are 2 enemy air force airfield guarding the power plant. Also present in the area is search radar as well as a few battery of advance SAM missile guarding the approach.
The scenario would call for a Iron Hand strike on the SAM batteries, as well as fighter escort to deal with the potential air threat of the target area. Now, if you are using non-stealth fighter and bomber (such as B-52, F-16 and F-15) You will probably need a flight of B-52 (4 planes) to deal with the mission objective. To guard that B-52 flight, you may also need 1 or 2 squadron of F-15 (12 planes each) to deal with the air threat launched by the 2 airfield. Also you will need a SEAD flight (F-16CJ) to deal with the SAM en-route. In all, you would need at least 20 planes to finish this mission.
However, with Stealth planes, the situation changes dramatically. Since you can now by-pass the radar detection (Assuming if stealth work the way they should) So, the en-route entry would not be detected, and you have a choice to knock out those SAMs on-route or not. Thus saving your F-16CJ flight. Also, in this case, you can choose to pre-emptively attack the enemy airfield before your B-2 bomber attack the nuclear plants. or simply leave it. In the end, I would ended up needing 2 flights of F-35 or F-22 escorting a single or pair of B-2, dropping the number of operational units to 10 planes. Or simply have a flight of B-2 flew thru the area and bomb the power plant abd then bug out.
How Jammer Works?
While that is what stealth "Supposed" to be, but we did not live in a perfect world, so, something gotta give.
In come Jammer Aircraft. Jammer aircraft is basically a normal legacy aircraft that spring on board a Jammer system works to Jam both enemy radar and communication. Currently, only US Navy achieve full Jamming capability in theory in any airborne asset, USAF only jamming aircraft is the EC-130 Compass Call. Which works with F-16CJ, a special build SEAD aircraft to jam and destroy enemy radar.
ALQ-99 High Band/Mid-Band Jammer Pod. Targeting frequency between 120MHz to 1 GHz frequency (Mid-Band) and 500MHz to 6 GHz (High Band) To be used to target more accurate radar structure
ALQ-99 Low Band Jammer Pod. To be used against low frequency (20MHz to 500Mhz) which usually more powerful, but less accurate target structure
ALQ-218 (v) 2 Receiver Processor Group (RPG) is used to restore radio function of the jammer aircraft so they would be immune to their own jamming the system include a look-through, look-above and look around technique to control the interference.
Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS) - Allow voice communication while jamming enemy communication.
Antenna Interface Unit (AIU) and SATCOM terminal - Allow for Satellite communication while jamming enemy communication
Jammer works in 2 ways, they both jam enemy radar control, as well as jamming the communication, identification, passive ranging and threat warning system of enemy ground based radar or aircraft. Jammer works by broadcasting radar noise to confuse the radar in single or all frequency. Thus blocking the radar from receiving any useful signal apart from the broadcasted noise. There are 3 types of noise jamming by a jammer aircraft.
Spot Jamming - Totally block one single frequency, rendering the receiving unit in that frequency useless.
Sweep Jamming - Totally block one single frequency, then move on to other frequency. In Real time, it works with jamming multiple to all frequency, however, intermittent transmission can still get thru between sweep.
Barrage Jamming - Partial block of all frequency at once. The up side is, you can block all of the frequency and completely render the Radar installation useless. However, since there are finite amount of computational power, the effective with this jamming decrease as frequencies increase, and if your enemy have a strong receiver, they can by pass this type of jamming.
It was said that 3 EA-18G work together in real time can perform a sweep frequency jamming to render a radar structure useless in real time (given the EA-18Gs can stay on station continuously) However, this only works in theory, the deteriorated communication capability and the error prone AN/ALQ-99 Jammer pod means that it cannot be achieve in any real situation.
Basically, in a Jamming Aircraft, such as EA-18G Growler or EA-6B Prowler works by adding High Band/Low Band Jammer pod as well as receiver pod to perform Jamming Operation. The specialist equipment rundown usually found in a Jammer Aircraft is as follow:
Tactical function of Jammer.
The tactical implication of Jamming is immense, they can be used in pre-emptive, escort and stand-alone manner. Where when used pre-emptively, and couple with EC-130 or a SEAD aircraft such as F-16CJ or F-15SE, they can be use to dealt with enemy radar defence.
They can also use as an escort and selectively jamming the radio frequency on-route to protect the strike package. Alternatively they can work as a standalone Jammer for special need while tailor to different situation.
The tactical influence of Jammer would also mean that the enemy would have to have resource relocated to try and deal with the jammer. Or at least work thru enemy jamming. Which also means a large chunk of capability would be diverted to stay ahead of the Jamming. While only leaving a relative small parts of the defence system or defence network to target the incoming threat. For example, radar would need to be boosted to get around jamming, and asset need to dispatched to deal with the jammer. That would draw away defence asset and split their responsibility.
The Challenge on Air Force and Navy approach on AirSea battle
While they would achieve a lot more if they bend together, however, if one card in the domino falls, that may as well bring down the whole things. So any system is only as strong as their weakest link. And both USAF and USN have their share of their weakest link, which both affecting the others.
The weakest link of the Air Force.
Mobility, to put it right out, the mobility is always the dead spot of the air force. You can go anywhere once your aircraft is launched, however, you cannot move your airport.....
With today satellite technology, it's not hard to tune a satellite to a specific airbase and monitor or even "track" the aircraft coming and going. I mean even stealth are not invisible, you can still see it takes off an lands. Which will give valuable intel (both SIGINT and IMGINT) to the defender had they have the satellite capability.
Another question associated with mobility is the need to defend the area which known to your enemy, you can run free in the air with your stealth or what's not, the problem is, aircraft are not supposed to be on the air 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, meaning while it is quite hard to target any stealth aircraft while they are in the air, they have to come down some how, and that would instantly become the weakest spot. You being stealth does not have anything to do with enemy strike capability, unless you can safely eliminate majority of aerial threat in the very beginning. But while it is doable with a non-peer enemy, it's honestly quite hard to pull it out with a peer enemies.
Also, not all aircraft are going to be stealth, meaning you only need to have a slight clue on where the EWACS/AWACS or even Electronic Attack aircraft went to find them. And those are the integral part of the Air Force asset within the AirSea Battle concept.
Another problem would be the stealth is not the silver bullet it was meant to be, lower frequency radar can still detect the incoming stealth, however, low frequency means they cannot pinpoint where the stealth aircraft is coming from, but only gives a general direction. On the other hand, Stealth aircraft cost a lot more than non-stealth legacy fighter. Money would be a problem.
The weakest link of the Navy
Navy, on the other hand, lacking the complementary stealth aircraft would present itself a target within the first strike. Since the majority of the Navy Aircraft is legacy, and there are 500 or so Legacy Aircraft but only some 70 jammer, there would not be enough to go around. Then either they will need to limited the scope of the attack or have to risk the bulk being shot down before they reach their target area.
Another thing about the Navy is that they have short range and small payload, which means the carrier group need to move into the area in order to launch and rearm aircraft. Which means they are increasingly risky for the whole Carrier Group.
On the other hand, the naval asset is limited in size, and have to dual or even triple use with a single asset. The other side of Force Multiplication means if that asset is gone, you lose an multiplication power of that single asset.
Into the future.
With the current technology, unless we are talking about breaking some X-factor, the stealth technology is at its nominal, it cannot, or I cannot foresee stealth technology can get better than today. On the other hand, according to Moore's Law. Computational power increase exponentially every two years. That means both Jammer and Radar capability will increase over time.
Then it bring us to this scenario. While in the future, increasing computational capability would most definitely means Stealth is no longer a silver bullet we think today (Or maybe we never even begin to think about Stealth as a silver bullet anyway) The question is not if but when, the technology to decode the complex algorithm to unmask stealth caught up with the technology to make stealth stealthier. That is the moment stealth cannot do anything alone.
In the future, the need for both aircraft would still be needed, but it's utmost important for Stealth Aircraft to work with Jammer. This capability is already showing in the current Stealth Aircraft such as F-22 where their AESA radar are powerful enough to interfere with enemy radar, however, without proper jammer backup, this work cannot be done alone by the F-22 and its advanced radar/
However, in AirSea Battle Concept, stealth is just one part of the equation which, with more and more combat asset, such as drones and space technology, another aspect we also need to focus on is the datalink system. While future battlefield would be decided in a quicker manner than before, the important for information to be process and pipe down to everyone involved in the line would also dictate the battlefield.
Conclusion
Like any doctrine and battle concept. This concept is not without flaw. The question is always how the Air Force and the Navy to work together and maximize their combination firepower.
As I said, a team only as best as their weakest link was. While the question is not always know which is better, stealth or jammer. We simply don't know what tomorrow brings. As there are no fool-proofed solution, the only thing we can do is work on what we have, and to which we focus on the current level of technology, and try to accommodate the best of the two cases.
@WAJsal @Slav Defence @AUSTERLITZ @Neutron @PARIKRAMA @Levina @Oscar @Davos @Hamartia Antidote @Blue Marlin @Desertfalcon @DesertFox97 @Tipu7 @TankMan @Gufi
Last edited:
It's clearly been awhile since I've been in that business.
