FREE EA-18G GROWLER SUPPLEMENT - F-16.net

Aerolíneas ArgentinasBack Under State Control

An-225 MriyaAntonov’s Heavylifter

An-124 RuslanBack into Production

INTERNATIONALFor the best in modern military and commercial aviation w

ww

.airi

nter

natio

nal.c

om

MAY 2012

IN

TERN

ATIO

NA

L

APRIL 2013 Vol.84 No.4

£4.50

Chinese Flankers

EA-18GThe MissionsThe ThreatsThe Aircraft

FREE EA-18G GROWLER SUPPLEMENT

INTERNATIONAL

ww

w.a

irint

erna

tiona

l.com

SUPPLEMENTDeny...Delay... ...Deceive...Degrade

Also featuring the Next Gen Jammer

The Mission • The Threats • The Aircraft The Systems • Growler Flight School

Worldwide Combat Operations • Australian EA-18Gs

Deny...Delay... ...Deceive...Degrade

Also featuring the Next Gen Jammer

The Mission • The Threats • The Aircraft The Systems • Growler Flight School Worldwide Combat Operations • Australian EA-18Gs

Game-Changing Capability Delivered.

ATK’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) provides the latest and most advanced weapon system

for engaging and destroying enemy air defenses and time-critical targets. The Weapon is the Sensor. This is ATK.

www.atk.com [email protected]

31

On a sunny day’s visit to NAS Patuxent River, I had the opportunity to interview offi cers serving with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three. The men were

leading the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft through its developmental fl ight test programme. The visit also gave me with the chance to see three Super Hornet strike fi ghters confi gured as EA-18Gs fl ying test missions from the Maryland base. That was back in October 2006.

By the beginning of March 2012, 85 Growlers were in service with the US Navy from a total order of 114 aircraft. Seven fl eet squadrons plus the Fleet Replacement Squadron have transitioned from the EA-6B Prowler so far, and an eighth squadron is currently in transition.

Four of the squadrons have already completed combat tours to Southwest Asia. In June 2011 the fi rst three fl eet squadrons were simultaneously deployed (VAQ-132 in Italy, VAQ-141 aboard the USS George Bush and VAQ-138 in Afghanistan). Over Iraq and Libya the Growler’s combat debut with VAQ-132 proved highly effective and the aircraft looks set to complete its transition plan on schedule in 2015.

However the aircraft’s capability continues to evolve. Growler’s ongoing development is set out in a plan known as the ‘road map’ that focuses on three new areas of capability: passive precision targeting, weapons systems integration, and electronic warfare battle management. The latter involves

employing two or more Growlers operating on a common link to assign jamming tasks cooperatively.

This year the navy plans to use two of the aircraft in a demonstration of a new network known as Tactical Targeting Network Technology, which offers increased data throughput capacity onto and off the aircraft. Further into the future, the Growler is destined to become a key node in a concept known as integrated fi re control, which seeks to increase the range, targeting and survivability of aircraft operating as a strike package.

All future capabilities look set to further improve the Growler and continue its ever-increasing achievements. Because of its commonality with the Super Hornet strike fi ghter, strong programme management by Naval Air Systems Command’s PMA-265 program offi ce and excellent production performance by the industry team led by Boeing, the EA-18G Growler is one of the most successful Department of Defense acquisition programmes in decades.

As editor and co-author, my thanks go to the offi cers from both the US Navy and US Marine Corps involved in the production of this feature and I hope you, the reader, enjoy learning more about this highly capable electronic warfare fi ghter.

Mark AytonEDITOR

This page: Dan S

tijovich Previous page: Paul Ridgw

ay

32 The MissionElectronic attack explained.

36 The ThreatsA summary of surface-to-air missiles.

38 The AircraftAn overview of the EA-18G Growler.

39 The SystemsDetails of the Growler’s major systems.

46 DevelopmentInsight to the Growler development effort.

50 Test & EvaluationOngoing test & evaluation of the EA-18G.

55 VikingsLearning to � y and employ the Growler.

60 ScorpionsThe Growler in combat.

67 Maiden CruiseGrowler’s � rst carrier-based deployment.

72 Black RavensTransitioning from Prowler to Growler.

76 Aussie GrowlersAustralia’s requirement for electronic attack.

78 Next Gen JammerWhat to expect from America’s next generation of jammer.

Editor: Mark AytonDesigner: Dave RobinsonSub Editors: Sue Blunt, Carol Randall, Norman WellsAdvertising Manager: Ian MaxwellProduction Manager: Janet WatkinsCommercial Director: Ann SaundryGroup Editor in Chief: Paul HamblinExecutive Chairman: Richard CoxManaging Director & Publisher: Adrian Cox

Published by Key Publishing Ltd, PO Box 100, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 1XQ, UK

Telephone: +44 (0)1780 755131Fax: +44 (0)1780 757261Subscription: [email protected]: www.keypublishing.com

Contents

Growler Supplement

32

The worldwide air defence environment still includes hundreds of thousands of anti-aircraft artillery

(AAA) guns, more than 50,000 man-portable surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and thousands of longer-range radar SAMs. High-capability long-range SAM systems such as the Russian Antey S-300PS series (SA-20 Gargoyle) and the US Patriot have been exported to many nations.

Russia’s strategic S-500 SAM programme is the most publicised of several projects moving towards production. Russia’s SAMs are still exported worldwide, with more sales than other types of weapons systems. The 2012 Syrian shoot-down of a Turkish RF-4, probably by a Russian-built Pantsir-S (SA-22 Greyhound), demonstrated that smaller, tactical systems have also achieved increased lethality. While the lightweight Russian Igla-S (SA-24 Grinch) proved unable to blunt coalition air operations over Libya, it has since migrated to Syria and other con� icts.

China’s SAMs re� ect access to foreign missile technology, unlike Russia’s, which attest to decades of development. China’s economic growth has provided the resources and the knowhow to turn this access into effective weapons systems, and the country is investing in long-range SAMs able to threaten airspace over the Taiwan Straits. It has also been carrying out work on electronic attack: while peacetime cyber attacks have attracted more publicity, they are unlikely to represent the limit of Chinese capabilities.

Other nations are upgrading older air defence systems, employing new sensors and networks.

Suppression of enemy air defences, or SEAD, remains a critical element of air combat mission success, especially in a medium- or high-threat environment.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) de� nes the SEAD mission as “that activity which neutralises, destroys or temporarily degrades surface-based enemy air defences by destructive and/or disruptive means”. While the large-scale SEAD campaigns over Iraq in 1991 and Serbia in 1999 are fading into history, over the past decade the US, Israel and other nations have repeatedly demonstrated in combat their ability to develop sensors and systems to identify potential targets (including air defence threats)

in near real-time – along with direct weapons to suppress or destroy them before they can escape. This cycle has further enhanced the effectiveness of airpower against air defences.

For example, in 1999, Serbia’s mobile air defences proved elusive targets. Slightly more than a decade later in operations over Libya, the enhanced ability of US and NATO systems to acquire and defeat air defences was proven in action for the � rst time. However, success by today’s airpower depends on the maintenance of effective surveillance and information processing able to deliver time-sensitive data to decision-makers, whether in cockpits or in headquarters; and putting in place tactics and a command system � exible enough to deliver accurate weapons that will turn that information into effects on the ground.

The September 2007 Israeli air attack against a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor near the Syrian-Turkish border shows the way future SEAD operations may unfold. Syria then � elded one of the world’s most dense Soviet-style air defence networks. Its personnel were experienced and well trained, yet they � red no missiles and scrambled no � ghters to oppose the Israeli attackers. While little information has been released

about Israeli strike tactics, it is believed that advanced forms of deception using UAVs, defence suppression and electronic warfare were used to pave the way for the Israeli F-16s making the actual attacks. There were reports of the Israelis using new electronic attack tactics and of false targets being generated and inserted into Syrian air defence computers – this contrasts with the hundreds of jamming and defence suppression missions required in 1999 when Serbian air defences remained capable until the end of NATO air operations.

Other air arms may be more capable in using this type of defence suppression. The US has committed considerable resources to cyber warfare and exercises – most notably those in the US Air Force SUTER series – have tested and re� ned such attacks.

The 2007 Israeli airstrike in Syria and operations over Libya are dramatic examples of a process that started in the 1990s. Advancements in sensors, communications and precision-guided weapons have created an environment where nearly all radiating air defences can be rapidly detected, targeted and destroyed rather than simply suppressed. During air operations over Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon,

The Mission

Growler Supplement

33

Libya and the former Yugoslavia, aircrews suffered fewer losses to air defences (than to accidents). This was due to a number of factors: improvements in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems that could identify potential threats and targets; increased focus on defence suppression, electronic warfare and night operations; enhancements made to combat aircraft; the widespread use of GPS/INS precision-guided weapons, and the adoption of medium-altitude tactics. The latter has nearly eliminated the anti-aircraft artillery and shoulder-� red SAM threat.

The Continuing Need for Defence SuppressionAs a result of enhanced systems, tactics and training, combat aircraft losses, even to man-portable SAMs, over Iraq and Afghanistan have been rare. Tactical aircraft and transports have been able to take advantage of a safe haven when � ying above 15,000ft (4,572m) after radar-guided SAMs were suppressed – yet more than 50 helicopters and a dozen transports operating at lower altitudes have been shot

down and many more damaged. The threat of terrorists using SAMs against airliners remains real, as in a November 2002 attempt to shoot down an Israeli-based Arkia airlines Boeing 757 in Kenya.

In comparison, US forces have suffered no air combat losses since a US Navy F/A-18 was shot down on the � rst night of the 1991 Gulf War, leaving ground-based weapons as the main threat to military aircraft in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Successful SEAD over Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Libya shows the might of US and coalition airpower using new information processing, targeting and strike capabilities. But despite the successes, unless defence suppression capabilities evolve, networked ground-based air defences could be resurgent, especially against UAVs and the manned medium-altitude ISR aircraft that coalition forces have come to depend on so much in the past decade.

Unlike the � rst duels between US Wild Weasels and Communist SAMS over North Vietnam almost 50 years ago, today’s EA-18G Growler does not � ght with surface-to-air missiles. Instead it needs to overcome threat systems with highly lethal SAMs, and

prove highly adaptive in combat conditions.There are three major elements of

electronic warfare: electronic support measures, electronic self-protection and electronic attack.

Electronic support measures include intercepting an adversary’s radar and radio communications in order to develop intelligence so that attack or deception concepts can be planned and successfully implemented. Strike � ghters and all other types of combat aircraft – transports, helicopters and ISR platforms – need electronic protection systems to identify threats and defend against attack.

Electronic attack has, since World War Two, been based on the jamming and deceiving of an enemy’s radar and radio communications. But the 2007 Israeli raid on Syria and the lessons of coalition airpower over Libya suggest it has now become a much broader role.

Aircraft Self-ProtectionSome 45 years ago, the Vietnam War showed the need for combat aircraft self-

The Mission

Above: The EA-18G Growler needs to overcome threat systems with highly lethal SAMs, and prove highly adaptive in combat conditions. Paul Ridgway

Opposite: Russia’s SAMs are still exported worldwide, with more sales than other types of weapons systems. Piotr Butowski

Growler Supplement

34

defence systems and electronic warfare jamming and support. Following the war, US Navy air warfare specialists estimated that aircraft electronic countermeasures (ECM) equipment and support jamming systems had reduced its losses from surface-to-air missiles and AAA by a factor of � ve. They also reckoned that ECM and jamming prevented the loss of 550 aircraft between 1966 and November 1972.

Aircraft losses suffered by Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War made electronic warfare (EW) a priority for air arms worldwide over the next decade. The success the Israeli Air Force had in its 1982 campaign against the Soviet-equipped Syrian air defence network demonstrated that EW lessons from Vietnam and the 1973 Yom Kippur War had been learned, at least by Israel. The same EW air defence rollback strategy adopted by the Israelis in 1982 has also been used, with improvements, in subsequent air campaigns.

StealthIn the 1970s, the US Air Force F-117 stealth � ghter was developed in response to the lessonsof Vietnam and the Middle East as a way to destroy critical air defence and command and control sites. The F-117 proved its worth in the 1991 Gulf War and in subsequent con� icts, and today more advanced B-2 Spirits, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, F-22 Raptors and the forthcoming F-35 Lightning II aircraft also incorporate signature reduction techniques.

However, stealth will not work in isolation; it is much more effective when used with ECM support and decoy activities such as the jamming provided by EA-6B Prowlers over Kosovo in support of B-2 and F-117 strikes. Today, the US Department of Defense is looking at many concepts for future combat, including the EA-18G Growler equipped with advanced systems being used to pave the way for strike operations. Stealth is important, but it does not replace the need for aircraft self-defence or SEAD operations.

Electronic AttackFor jamming or deceiving an enemy’s radar or radio communications, the US Navy and Marines are still using the EA-6B Prowler, 170 of which were built by Grumman between 1968 and 1991. This four-seat, dedicated jamming aircraft uses the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system comprising primary receiving antennas housed in a pod at the top of the tail and jamming antennas in under-wing pods. The EA-6B can loiter for long periods and carries the AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) to conduct suppression and destruction of enemy air defences.

Prowlers currently form part of all but two of the ten carrier battle groups and have been forward-deployed to support all air operations during the past two decades. This intense pace has pushed the ageing force to the limit: today fewer than 65 Prowlers remain in service, many of which are limited to manoeuvres of less than 4g. This operational limitation is caused by airframe fatigue.

The EA-6B � eet has been upgraded to deal with the challenges presented by the threats proliferating around the world: crews now have night-vision goggles and much of the � eet is con� gured to the ICAP III (increased capability III) standard, which introduced the ALQ-218 receiver suite, greater processing capability, Link 16 and other data links.

The US Navy is replacing the Prowler force with 114 EA-18G Growlers – a modi� ed version of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet � tted with the ALQ-218 receiver systemin what is usually the gun bay on a SuperHornet, its antennas on the wingtips andALQ-99 pods under the wings and centrelinestations. The Growler retains all of thecapabilities of the Super Hornet includingstrike and self-defence roles.

Today, 14 EC-130H Compass Call aircraft are the only electronic attack systems

Above: Fourteen EC-130H Compass Call are the only electronic attack aircraft currently in service with the US Air Force. Paul Ridgway

Opposite Top: The four-seat EA-6B Prowler uses the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system comprising primary receiving antennas housed in a pod at the top of the tail and jamming

antennas in under-wing pods. Mass Communication Specialist Chelsy Alamina/US Navy Opposite bottom: The 2012 Syrian shoot-down of a Turkish RF-4 Phantom, probably by a

Russian-built Pantsir-S surface-to-air missile, demonstrated that smaller tactical systems have also achieved increased lethality. Alexander Mladenov

Opposite below: EA-6B Prowlers currently form part of all but two of the ten carrier battle groups and have been forward-deployed to support

all air operations during the past two decades. Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Benjamin Crossley/US Navy

Growler Supplement

35

in service with the US Air Force, all of which are assigned to the 55th Electronic Combat Group based at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona. While the EC-130H aircraft performed well in operations over Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, they are limited in number and often used as strategic-level rather than tactical-level assets. The current � eet is being upgraded, and C-130J-seriesreplacements will eventually be � elded.

The United States, Israel and many other nations have examined the concept of using UAVs in the jamming role. This is an obvious area for unmanned systems because not only do they have the range and can utilise the element of surprise, but aircrews are not placed in harm’s way. But it is not a new application for the UAV: the US used BGM-34 jammer drones in the 1960s over Vietnam.

And in 1982, Israeli forces employed UAVs to cause Syrian air defences to turn on their radars to provide targets for air and ground-launched Shrike anti-radiation missiles.

Decoys such as the BQM-74 drone and TALD/Samson were used in the 2003 Gulf War. Raytheon’s Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) was employed in Kosovo, Iraq and Libya to simulate a major air strike and force the adversaries to activate their air defences.

Electronic Support MeasuresTo suppress an adversary’s air defence system, you � rst have to � nd out what systems they have and how they operate. Such surveillance was developed into a � ne art during the ‘Cold War’ when massive amounts of money were spent by the US Department of Defense to develop a comprehensive intelligence collection capability. There are dozens of SIGINT (signals intelligence) satellites in orbit at any time while RC-135 Rivet Joints, RL-7s, U-2s, EP-3s, RC-12s, and unmanned systems such as Predator and Pioneer, support the mission. Britain, France, Germany, Israel and other nations have aircraft and increasing numbers of UAVs equipped to perform SIGINT missions. The data collected is used to maintain an electronic order of battle of potential adversaries, a critical element of electronic warfare planning.

Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defences

Today, air defences employ a wide range of systems from mobile phones to advanced radars and networks. To keep apace with the systems in use, the US, NATO, Israel and other nations undertake the highly sensitive mission of monitoring the electronic emissions of their potential adversaries and plan ways to disrupt these networks through many techniques.

Recent SEAD campaigns have involved a mix of tactics and weapons. Initially, radars and command and control sites are hit to disrupt the effectiveness of an air defence network. During Desert Storm in 1991 and in operations over Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, A-7s, EA-6Bs, F-4Gs, F-16CJs, F/A-18s and TornadoECRs � red more than 4,000 AGM-88 HARMmissiles to suppress or destroy radars.

In those campaigns US Air Force F-117s and (in Kosovo) B-2s struck command and control centres and other critical air defence nodes with laser-guided and JDAM bombs. Tomahawk and conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCMs) were also directed at important elements of the air defence network such as surveillance radars, missile sites and command bunkers.

Strike aircraft followed up with attacks against known surviving air defence sites, command centres, networks and

other targets employing precision-guided munitions and missiles. Strikes continued until corridors were open or the full air defence network disrupted. This used to be (as in 1973) a slow and costly operation with an average of one aircraft lost for each SAM site destroyed.

But with improved jammers, better situational awareness and the introduction of stand-off precision-guided munitions and other weapons, the speed and effectiveness of SEAD operations have been enhanced.

To counter an adversary with medium- and long-range SAMs, the � rst step often involved aircraft employing longer-range precision-guided munitions to knock out radars and command sites. Such weapons – which can be � red from beyond the engagement zone of area defence SAMs like the S-200 SA-5 ‘Gammon’ – are known as stand-off outside area defence (SOAD) systems. They include the CALCM, Tomahawk, SLAM-ER, AGM-158 JASSM (jointair-to-surface stand-off missile), AGM-142 ‘Popeye’, Storm Shadow and KEP350 Taurus.

The Joint Direct Attack Munition revolutionised both strike and defence suppression attacks. In 1999, US Air Force B-2 bombers dropped up to 16 JDAMs persortie with impressive accuracy (though thisdepended on accurate targeting) throughpoor weather and clouds.

JDAMs now arm US and coalition strike aircraft such as the F/A-18 and F-16. The US Air Force F-15E now also has the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB), a 250lb (117kg) GPS-guided weapon with a wing kit enabling stand-off attack from more than 30 miles (48km) away.

Importance of a NetworkOver the past decade, networking has been the major change in defence suppression and aircraft self-defence. Now, multiple passive sensors can be used to triangulate and locate enemy radars precisely enough for a GPS/INS-guided weapon to destroy them. US Air Force F-16CJs do exactly this. Combat lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan have made the DoD better understand the importance of networking using data links, such as the Link 16, which allow � ghter pilots and battle commanders to share time-critical targeting information. David Isby and Lon Nordeen

Growler Supplement

36

The threats the Growler needs to defeat are becoming more lethal. Today’s SAMs have greater kinetic

capability than their predecessors. The integrated air defence systems (IADS) of which they are a part can network together sensors, SAMs and command nodes in a way that is closer to the internet’s open architecture than Soviet-style stovepipe systems using rigid and not networked lines of control. Electronic and cyber attacks’ potential role in air combat operations is still far from fully apparent. But it is not hard to see how they could have the most far-reaching impact of all: inserting a computer virus in a Growler’s active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar – which uses massive data processing to distinguish seagulls from stealthy missiles – could result in a ‘kill’ as easily as a well-aimed SAM. So the Growler needs to be able not only to survive such threats, but to defeat them decisively.

The SAM threat is becoming deadlier. For decades, the possibility that SAMs could prevent non-stealthy combat aircraft from using contested airspace was at the heart of many of the most dif� cult strategic decisions taken and these shaped the development of military aviation. The increased SAM threat was partially why the US and its allies invested so much on the development of the stealthy F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, and why stand-off missiles and UAVs have inherited many of the most dangerous missions.

Russian Surface-to-Air MissilesThe potential near-term SAM threat faced by the Growler is exempli� ed by the Russian Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler, a confusing choice of NATO reporting name). This is the successor to a long line of effective SAM designs dating back to the 1950s. While Russia has a long-standing goal of deploying 56 battalions of S-400 SAMs, both deployment and production have lagged. It intends to deploy up to four regiments of S-400 SAMs between 2016 and 2020 to defend the Moscow region; Russian Air Force � re units are already deployed to Kaliningrad and Vladivostok. Until 2012, all S-400 � re units were deployed with S-300 series missiles.

Of the higher-performing S-400 series of SAMs, the semi-active homing 48N6DM missile is described as being the most advanced, followed by the active-homing 9N96Ye and 9N96Ye2.

The S-400 is effective against air targets up to 250km (135nm) range and altitudes between 10,000 and 27,000m (32,000 to 88,580ft); and against tactical ballistic missiles of up to 60km (32nm) range and altitudes between 2,000 and 7,000m (6,000 to 22,960ft). Equally impressive are the S-400’s abilities to engage a ballistic missile at a speed of 4.8km/sec (2.59nm/sec); and against 35 targets by guiding two missiles each.

Russia’s Air and Air Defence Force will have more than 100 Pantsir-S (SA-22 Greyhound) self-propelled air defence systems (a SAM and gun combination) by 2020. Designed by the KBP Instrument Design Bureau, the Pantsir-S uses optically-guided missiles and is deployed by the Air and Air Defence Force as a point defence system for SAM sites and other high-value targets. While deliveries to export customers including Syria and the UAE have previously accounted for the majority of Pantsir production, most new systems will be for Russia.

The S-300 series of SAMs � rst grabbed NATO’s attention in the late 1970s. Russian-built S-300PM or SA-10B Grumble systems (which were built with a 25-year service life)

have seven to ten years’ life remaining and most of Russia’s more advanced S-300PS or SA-10C systems will reach the end of their service lives soon; many of the exported systems are more recent and will be in service for many years to come. To replace the S-300PS in Russian service, Almaz-Antey is developing the medium-range Vityaz SAM system, defended by the Morfei short-range air defence system armed with new 9M100 missiles and equipped with a non-rotating cupola radar design. The Morfei system is scheduled to enter service in 2013 while Vityaz, which mounts 16 advanced S-300V4 series missiles on each launcher, will ‘appear’ in 2014-2015.

Russia has also been investing in upgrading its most advanced Soviet-era designs. While most of the upgrades have been for export, updated Buk-M2 or SA-17 Grizzly SAMs for ground forces’ � re units will be able to simultaneously engage 24 targets, an increase from the current six. In terms of the protected area per � re unit this represents an increase of 250% and the capability to intercept short-ranged ballistic missiles.

Air defence battalions of Russia’s tank and motorised ri� e brigades are receiving the � rst few upgraded versions of the Tor-M2U or SA-15 Gauntlet SAM systems. The SA-15 can engage four targets simultaneously and will have performance parameters 120-140% more effective than previous versions. The ground forces will continue to procure man-portable SAMs in the Igla (SA-18 Grouse), Igla-S (SA-24 Grinch) and Verba (which reportedly offers increased performance over the SA-18 and SA-24) series. Russia has also designed upgrades for the Osa (SA-8 Gecko) and 2S6 Tunguska (SA-19 Grissom) SAMs and 30mm cannon systems.

Russian SAM modernisation will feature improved automated command and control, including the Polyana D4M1 command and control post, which operates at brigade level, and the Barnaul-T tactical command and control system.

Chinese Surface-to-Air MissilesChina’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has increased its order of battle of long-range, advanced SAM systems and now has one of the largest such forces in the world. In recent years, China has acquired multiple battalions of S-300PMU2 or SA-20 Gargoyles, the most advanced SAM system Russia exports.

The nation has now acquired and

The Threats

Above: The radar unit of a Russian Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf SAM system.

Alexander MladenovTop: The Strella 2M man-portable, shoulder-fi red, low-altitude SAM fi rst entered service

in 1968. Alexander MladenovBelow: Russia has designed upgrades for the

Osa SA-8 Gecko SAM system. Alexander Mladenov

Growler Supplement

37

developed enough technology to produce its own world-class SAM, the HQ-9 and its naval counterpart, the HQ-16, both with ranges of some 100km (54nm).

Unlike Russian SAMs, the HQ-9 is self-propelled, with four launch canisters carried on a wheeled TAS-5380 8x8 transport-erector-launcher (TEL) vehicle. Perhaps more signi� cantly, China has also been able to establish advanced command and control systems.

The Chinese have been positioning their advanced long-range SAMs to cover the Taiwan Strait, where new sites include

Shuimen AB. Here S-300 batteries have been spotted which could be part of the eight � re units of S-300PMU1 systems ordered from Russia in 2001. From Shuimen, they could cover contested airspace most of the way to Taiwan’s capital city, Taipei.

Proliferation

SAMs continue to proliferate. There are few low-threat areas left in the world today. Russia, meanwhile, has announced it will not be exporting its S-400 until its own needs are met. In accordance with UN sanctions,

it terminated a contract to sell the S-300PS to Iran. Yet it has been willing to sell SAMs to desperate regimes, such as Gadda� ’s in Libya and Assad’s in Syria.

Other countries have aimed at developing their own SAMs: Iran claims it will build a replacement for the S-300PSs Russia withheld; the Republic of Korea turned to Russia to access SAM technology; and India has worked with Israel. But even countries that have not mastered the dif� cult technologies required may be able to use a network of sensor systems or develop electronic (or cyber) attack weapons. David Isby

The Threats

Above: A launcher for the Russian S-300V-series missile. Alexander MladenovRight: China has acquired multiple battalions of the S-300PMU, the most advanced SAM system that Russia exports. Alexander Mladenov

Growler Supplement

38

The Aircraft

The US Navy’s need for the Growler arose from the ageing of the Prowler. Despite its upgrades the EA-6B has reached a

point where its limitations are evident and the proliferating threat-technology seen around the world now demands more electronic attack capability. In addition to the airframe’s age and deterioration, the cost per � ight hour has increased to such a degree that the aircraft is no longer a cost-effective tool to achieve the mission.

For years the navy sought a replacement for the Prowler and focused on a derivative of the Super Hornet, which eventually became known as the EA-18G Growler. Packed with the latest electronic attack mission systems technology, one pilot said the variant was an absolute joy to � y and described its � ying qualities, aerodynamics and propulsion as top-notch.

The EA-18G is the � rst aircraft operated by the US Navy to bear the name Growler, which is traditionally associated with ships and submarines.

The Growler is the electronic attack version of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet and shares most of its on-board systems.

This high degree of commonality has led to the Growler being able to achieve success in areas where, all too often in recent years, new designs have experienced setbacks cockpits

in terms of cost, schedule and capabilities. The fully-digital EA-18G is � tted with the ALQ-218 receiver, ALQ-227 Communications Countermeasures Set, Interference Cancellation System or INCANS and ALQ-99 tactical jamming system. It features a new mission computer, the APG-79 AESA radar, Advanced Crew Station and the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System. These systems go to the heart of what makes the Growler an evolutionary aircraft, with capabilities that go far beyond those envisaged at the time the basic airframe was designed.

This process of evolution is still ongoing, with the upcoming EA-18G Block II scheduled to have its capabilities improved by the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile in 2013 and the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) starting in 2020.

From a combat perspective, the EA-18G carries slightly more fuel than the Prowler and has four more stations – two on the wing to carry AGM-88 HARMs and two cheek stations for carriage of the AIM-120 AMRAAM. A typical EA-18G load-out for the aircraft is three ALQ-99 pods, two AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missiles, two AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and two drop tanks. Its launch weight is 66,000lb (29,937kg).

To ensure successful � elding of new capabilities within tight performance and cost

limits, the US Navy and industry team followed a stepped evolutionary growth path. First, the EA-18G was developed from the proven Super Hornet and � tted with advanced systems for the reception and processing of signal information, plus new displays and computers. All aspects of the programme include pre-planned growth options.

While the concept for the Growler goes back to 1993, the relatively quick and inexpensive process from a concept to an actual combat aircraft re� ects its high degree of commonality with the Super Hornet.

The Growler programme began in December 2003 with contract award. In late October 2006, the � rst system design and development EA-18G Growler, EA1, commenced mission systems testing in the anechoic chamber at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. The � rst service Growler was delivered to Electronic Attack Squadron 129 (VAQ-129) ‘Vikings’ at NAS Whidbey Island on June 3, 2008.

Full-rate production approval came in November 2009 and by 2010 a total of 114 EA-18Gs were included in the Super Hornet multi-year production (MYP) programme.

Carrier trials were � own on the USS Harry Truman (CVN-75) by VAQ-129 ‘Vikings’ and VAQ-132 ‘Scorpions’ personnel.

The US Navy plans to � eld 14 � ve-aircraft Growler squadrons, a large training squadron and retain a pool of aircraft for attrition, support and maintenance.

The navy’s decision to increase the number of Growlers it procures was based on the requirement for electronic attack assets and airpower over the past decade, especially for the expeditionary squadrons.

The Growler transition master plan schedule involves two or three squadrons converting to the type per year based on air wing and combatant command requirements. The Growler is the only US electronic warfare and electronic attack system currently planned for forward deployment. David Isby and Lon Nordeen

Above: VAQ-135 ‘Black Ravens’ participated in exercise Red Flag 13-3 at Nellis AFB in early March. Red Flag 13-3 was the fi rst large force exercise undertaken by VAQ-135 since it returned from deployment to Bagram AB, Afghanistan Paul Ridgway

Pau

l Rid

gway

Growler Supplement

39

While commonality with the Super Hornet has been one of the Growler’s strengths both in

terms of development and operations, its electronic attack mission means it carries unique systems and weapons. And, because of its evolutionary development the Growler is likely to carry more in the future.

Boeing Advanced Crew StationThe Growler is designed to be more capable than the upgraded EA-6B Prowler ICAP III it replaces. It also has a crew of only two rather than four. This has put a premium on providing capabilities for the Growler’s electronic warfare of� cer (EWO) whose Boeing-designed Advanced Crew Station (ACS) includes high levels of automation that can prioritise mission-critical activities while the system automatically handles tasks that would have required human direction on earlier aircraft.

Growler system software is embedded into standard H-series Operational Flight Program (OFP) releases for the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets, using the same cockpit hardware for the electronic attack role.

A standard F/A-18F Super Hornet loaded

with H8 software has two levels of display. The Growler has a third level showing all the electronic attack options. It is only activated when the aircraft and its systems are switched on and is only recognised by the electronic attack systems and the ALQ-218 receiver unique to a Growler.

HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) control allows aircrew to view, operate from and switch between all three levels of display. The four primary displays in the aft cockpit are interlinked, including to the front seat, allowing the pilot and EWO to operate with full co-ordination.

The key to successfully operating the ACS lies with knowing the menu system presented on the screens, as one EWO explained: “If you know where to go [through the menus] to execute, it cuts down a lot of potential confusion, because you’ve got radar, MIDS link and the moving map all available to both cockpits, so there’s a lot of information that can go back and forth.”

Exelis ALQ-99F(V) Tactical Jamming SystemThe ALQ-99F jammer – currently the Growler’s main system for the electronic

attack role – also equipped EA-6B Prowler aircraft for years.

An interesting fact about the ALQ-99 is its sheer jamming power. A single Growler loaded with multiple pods could shut down electronic systems on much of the US east coast. But the jammer also re� ects developments that allow precision as well as power in its operations.

Each canoe-shaped pod is 15ft 5in (4.7m) long and features a nose-mounted ram air turbine (RAT) that provides its power at cruising airspeed. The pod has steerable high-gain transmitter arrays fore and aft which broadcast noise jamming generated by a centrally-mounted universal exciter unit (UEU) with a beam width of up to 30°. These can be con� gured before a mission to cover the low- or high-frequency end of the electronic spectrum. They can also use much smaller beam widths for selective narrowband jamming. This means the ALQ-99 can disrupt speci� c threats, especially dif� cult electronic targets such as frequency-agile radars, without blanking out friendly systems.

ALQ-99 pods � tted to the Growler have modi� ed backs and radomes to help with higher g-loads encountered on the supersonic aircraft. Low-band antennas are

Growler Supplement

The Systems

The AGM-88 HARM missile is one of two kinetic weapons currently carried by the EA-18G Growler (the other is the AIM-120 AMRAAM). This shot shows a HARM missile (coloured white) carried on the port side outer wing pylon of an F/A-18C Hornet assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) ‘Salty Dogs’ based at NAS Patuxent River. Naval Air Systems Command

40

housed in a pro� led radome while those for high-band antennas are straight.

The ALQ-99, as with all US active jamming systems, has evolved in the past decade. This a result of � ghting opponents that make little use of radars but are highly adept at the use of mobile phones and remote detonators to set off improvised explosive devices (IEDs) – which have accounted for so many US and coalition lives. This has led to jammers being adapted to detect and disrupt IEDs, giving the EA-18G the capability to counter insurgents as well as the sophisticated integrated air defence systems it was designed to defeat.

The ALQ-99 is scheduled to be replaced by the navy’s Next Generation Jammer (see Next Gen Jammer, p78).

Northrop Grumman ALQ-218(V)2 ReceiverThe ALQ-218(V)2 is the Growler’s tactical jamming receiver, the on-board system that detects electronic signals of threat systems and determines their bearing to the aircraft. This information is then used to con� gure a set of jamming signals that the ALQ-99 pods can broadcast. Alternatively, the Growler crew can use the data as target acquisition information for an attack with an anti-radiation missile (ARM).

The Growler inherited the multi-mission advanced tactical terminal (MATT) satellite communications receiver from the EA-6B Prowler. MATT is � tted on the aft upper fuselage and provides a satellite link to the aircraft.

The Growler’s MATT and Link 16 data link mean threat signals detected by one aircraft’s receiver can be shared with all those it is linked to for improved overall situational awareness.

Like the ALQ-99, the ALQ-218 has its origins equipping the EA-6B Prowler, speci� cally the ICAP III upgrade. Integrating the ALQ-218 on the Growler required installing the main receiver unit into the space occupied by the 20mm cannon and its ammunition on a standard F/A-18F Super Hornet.

The highly sensitive receiver units – the Growler’s primary antennas and sensors – are housed in two ALQ-218 wing-tip pods. Some 30 distinct antenna arrays are located on the forward and aft of the aircraft. The antennas provide the separation required for the ALQ-218 system to process signals correctly throughout the RF (radio frequency) spectrum (64 MHz to 40 GHz).

When the ALQ-218 system intercepts a signal (detects a threat) the data is handed over to a secondary receiver which takes very � ne and parametric measurements of its frequency and amplitude. The ALQ-218 calculates the position of a ground-based threat emitter by measuring differences in phase (or waveform angle) relative to the aircraft’s position in time, a method known as interferometry. The process is so precise and rapid that anti-radiation missiles can be launched in the most accurate known range, and precise positions of threat emitters can be reported over the Growler’s data link.

Commenting on the ALQ-218’s capability, one EWO told the author: “The situational awareness the ALQ-218 receiver set provides to an aircrew is amazing and all major [electronic attack] functions are greatly increased.”

Exelis Interference Cancellation System (INCANS)The EA-18G incorporates INCANS, an interference cancellation system that allows the aircraft to use its ALQ-218 receivers while jamming. This is a capability earlier electronic attack aircraft like the EA-6B Prowler lacked. INCANS also enables the EA-18G to stay linked-in through its IFF transponder, radios and data links while its ALQ-99 jammers are transmitting.

Raytheon ALQ-227 Communications Countermeasures Set (CCS)Jamming threat communications is undertaken with the Growler’s ALQ-227 Communications Countermeasures Set (CCS) system, which is based on communications interception and jamming systems developed for the US Air Force’s much larger EC-130H Compass Call electronic attack aircraft. The ALQ-227 receives threat communications via a blade-like antenna just aft of the Growler cockpit and uses an ALQ-99 pod con� gured with low-frequency arrays to jam the channel. The ALQ-227 has been described as having greater frequency coverage than the USQ-113(V) system used on the G’s predecessor, the EA-6B Prowler.

The ALQ-227 system is installed along with the ALQ-218 main receiver unit and EAU (electronic attack unit) avionics in the space occupied by the 20mm cannon and its ammunition on a standard F/A-18F Super Hornet.

Raytheon APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array RadarThe APG-79 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar is designed to support FORCEnet, the US Navy’s concept for a fully networked battle space. Built with secure, interoperable technology, the APG-79 enhances sharing of information with manned, unmanned and ground-based systems for close co-operation on the battle� eld. It can perform as an essential node in the air and ground information network.

Like its strike � ghter sister, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the EA-18G Growler is equipped with the APG-79, giving increased integration potential of using the radar’s capability in the electronic attack mission. This is accomplished by using its array to broadcast concentrated power to burn out threat electronic systems and even plant false information inside them or to supplement the Growler’s other on-board systems to listen for threat emitters and triangulate their location. The Growler has been able to use its radar to supplement its electronic attack system since 2006.

Raytheon, its manufacturer, says the APG-79 AESA radar has up to three times the performance of a traditional mechanically scanned array (MSA) system. The APG-79’s

Growler Supplement

Opposite top: Raytheon’s AN/APG-79 AESA radar is fi tted on the EA-18G Growler.

RaytheonOpposite middle: Note the straight radome of

this high-band ALQ-99 tactical jamming pod. Paul Ridgway

Opposite bottom: ALQ-99 pods are fi tted with a nose-mounted ram air turbine to provide

power at cruising airspeed. Paul RidgwayBelow: Major electronic attack systems of the

EA-18G Growler shown in orange. Naval Air Systems Command

Paul R

idgway

41

performance is measured as the amount of detection time in various modes of operation. Those modes include air-to-air and air-to-ground search, simultaneous interleaved air-to-air and air-to-ground search operations and SAR (synthetic aperture radar) mapping. The APG-79 is able to provide that level of performance with twice the range and twice the resolution of a mechanically scanned array radar.

In the case of the Growler, the EWO can prosecute air-to-ground targets while the pilot can manage the air picture and prosecute any air-to-air targets.

The APG-79 radar comprises the antenna, the receiver-exciter known as the rex, the CISP (common integrated sensor processor), the MSS (motion sensing sub-system) and the beam steering computer positioned

behind the radar face.

All of the APG-79’s radar processing is done by the

CISP rather than the aircraft’s mission computer. Once processed the CISP sends the radar data to the mission computer for manipulation and display.

The CISP recognises the target

environment of operation and the kind of search required so it can task the appropriate number of TR (transmit-receive) modules to sustain that. If for example the radar is building a high-resolution SAR map, many more TR modules will be required compared to a baseline map. If the radar is simultaneously tasked with tracking air-to-air targets, then further TR modules will be allocated leaving unallocated modules to sanitise the radar’s search volume in the background.

The architecture of the APG-79 allows for a ‘graceful degradation’ of the array, meaning that a certain percentage of TR modules can be lost across the face of the antenna without any resulting degradation in performance. With multiple TR modules the array can continue to function and the mission can be executed. By comparison, if the gimbal, transmitter or receiver is lost on an MSA system, the radar is rendered useless.

The APG-79’s antenna is designed to last for more than 10,000 hours, equivalent to the life of the aircraft. But the design is such that as a TR module fails the CISP records the detail in a data � le. As a consequence the system stops trying to use it and

recalculates which modules can be used to create and steer the beam.

Once a threshold of ‘bad’ modules is reached the system displays a fault code showing repairs are required. Any such repair to the antenna is only possible at the depot and not aboard the

aircraft carrier, and Raytheon is con� dent that such a fault

code should not be seen within the life of the aircraft.The APG-79 requires very accurate

geo-location data to determine its position in space and those of all air and ground targets. This is provided by the MSS, which functions like the aircraft’s inertial navigation system. The MSS and its data drive are located near the antenna to eliminate any possible errors caused by radar parallax (an apparent change in the position of an object due to an actual change in the radar’s point of view of observation).

Located behind the radar face is the beam steering computer.

Radar Function

The APG-79 AESA radar has an agile, active electronic beam that sweeps through multiple antennas in tile-array architecture at the speed of light to perform the scan traditionally undertaken by a moving antenna.

The radar’s agility means it operates on numerous frequencies that change very rapidly making the APG-79 more dif� cult to jam than a radar unit operating on a set couple of frequencies. Even new DIRCM (directional infrared countermeasures) jammers do not present a serious threat to the APG-79 because its architecture and the way it transmits provide much more resistance.

The APG-79’s antenna is inclined back from sitting perpendicular to the horizontal plane for two reasons – to achieve the maximum size of aperture, because the size of the aperture determines the ultimate power of the beam sent out of the front end; and for signature reduction to minimise re� ectivity of the beam.

With a traditional MSA, a beam comes out of the front of the antenna which is mechanically steered left to right, and up and down. On the APG-79, the antenna face does not move: the agile beam is electronically steered in the direction required. This happens at the speed of light, repositioning the beam through the entire search volume and maintaining situational awareness for the aircrew of the ground situation and the air picture at the same time. Everything is tracked within the entire search volume. Interleaving of the air-to-air and the air-to-ground operations is the real advantage of this capability – when building a ground map with an older MSA radar, the array is pointed at the ground in air-to-ground mode with no ability to track air-to-air � les above the � eld of regard. In contrast, the APG-79 can generate a high-resolution

Growler Supplement

42

SAR map and an air picture of the entire search volume because of the time-sharing agility and speed of the beam.

The APG-79 uses TR modules which are metal protrusions evenly positioned over the face of the array. Each module is powered during transmission by high-power low-noise ampli� ers. When phased, the TR modules form the antenna’s beam and the energy is transmitted. Phasing is changed so rapidly by the beam-steering computer that the beam covers the entire search volume of the radar. Unlike an MSA system, the face of the APG-79 does not move.

The combined power of the many TR modules is converted from RF to digital and collimated.

High-speed beam re-steer bene� ts interleaving of air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, which maintains airspace situational awareness while air-to-ground operations are undertaken. The multimode interleaving and net-centric capabilities of the APG-79 offer substantially increased situational awareness.

Transmission

The APG-79 operates with a classi� ed pulse transmission rather than a continuous wave (CW) transmission used by an MSA (continuous wave refers to the sine wave of uninterrupted transmission). The TR module switches on and off very rapidly in tune with the pulse rate.

The scan volume technique of the APG-79 is also different to an MSA system. An MSA scan volume technique is formed by the antenna repeatedly moving from left to right as it scans up and down in a predictable sequence.

The APG-79 initially starts scanning that way, but once it acquires a contact it turns TR modules on to keep the track � le updated, making the scan volume technique of the agile beam unpredictable.

An advanced four-channel receiver/exciter gives the APG-79 wide bandwidth capability and the ability to generate a broad spectrum of waveforms for air-to-air, air-to-ground and electronic warfare missions.

The APG-79 can track signi� cantly more

targets than current radar systems and can operate in multiple air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously. All tracks detected by the APG-79 are accurate in terms of bearing, range and altitude, and of a quality good enough to use for prosecution of the target.

The modes are real beam mapping, synthetic aperture radar (SAR air-to-air and air-to-ground imagery), air-to-air search, air-to-air track, sea surface search, ground moving target indication and ground moving target tracking. There are four SAR mapping modes: 30ft (9m), 10ft (3m), 3ft (1m) and one that is classi� ed. Each mode provides very high resolution images.

In response to mission requirements, the radar’s built-in resource manager automatically schedules tasks to optimise radar functions and minimise aircrew workload.

One key attribute of the APG-79 radar is its reliability – it has no moving parts (such as mechanical gimbals) which reduces risk of failure.

The ultra-thin, light antennas have a low failure rate, with no maintenance predicted for

Growler Supplement

43

ten to 20 years. Raytheon says the APG-79 is approaching

1,000 hours mean time between failure (MTBF), representing a reliability rate up to 15 times better than an MSA. Typically an MSA gives an MTBF well below 50 hours. Hardware re� nement and implementation of � xes on the APG-79 continue and the company expects to achieve the � rst 1,000-hour MTBF soon.

The statistics for the APG-79’s reliability are based on its 300,000 operational hours now � own. As a radar manufacturer, Raytheon has the largest number of AESA radar units deployed and leads the total amount of operational � ight time, unmatched by any other producer.

Radar Maintenance

There are two levels of maintenance required on the APG-79: O-level (� ight line) and D-level (depot). O-level maintenance undertaken by squadron maintainers is straightforward, requiring the removal of

just four bolts to release the radar unit from the fuselage. Rails � tted to the unit allow maintainers to slide it out from the fuselage to give access to the CISP and the MSS on one side and the rex interloop and power ampli� ers on the other.

Like the Growler’s other systems, the APG-79 radar is con� gured with built-in test (BIT) – so if a failure occurs it displays an error code which can be traced to a speci� c card by the maintainers who simply pull out the module and � t a replacement drawn from the spares carried for the deployment.

According to Raytheon, during the � rst maritime deployment made by Super Hornet strike � ghters equipped with the APG-79 radar, navy maintainers had just six repairs to undertake in nine months.

Future Capabilities

Because the APG-79’s aperture is wideband and its frequency agility is high, the system has a lot of inherent capability and growth

potential, particularly for the Growler’s electronic attack role.

Raytheon has already demonstrated its radar common data link (RCDL), which uses the aperture to transmit huge amounts of data, including near real-time SAR maps, to either a ground station or another aircraft.

Such capability provides huge bene� t in the ‘sensor-to-shooter loop’, speeding up the transfer of SAR maps to the ground station for target veri� cation and their return to another aircraft ready to prosecute the target.

Anti-radiation Missiles

US anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) used against threat radars and other emitters go back some 45 years to the Vietnam War. Earlier versions of the current AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) were extensively used in the 1991 Gulf War and just about every con� ict since then.

ARM development has aimed at making missiles more lethal against radars and less vulnerable to electronic counter-counter measures such as decoys. While earlier ARMs could miss when threat radars were switched off, the current AGM-88 HARM incorporates inertial and GPS guidance. Once it has detected a radar system, even if there are no emissions to home in on, the guidance system will still get the missile close enough for its large fragmentation warhead to do damage.

Raytheon AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)

The AGM-88 HARM is a supersonic air-to-ground missile designed to seek and destroy enemy radar-equipped air defence systems. It is equipped with a guidance system that homes in on radar emissions through a � xed antenna and seeker head in the missile nose.

A HARM missile consists of four sections: a passive broadband radio frequency guidance section; a direct fragmentation, variable charge-to-metal warhead; an electro-mechanical wing control section; and a smokeless, solid-propellant, dual-thrust rocket motor.

The AGM-88 has a weight of 780-810lb (354-528kg) including a 143.5lb (65kg) warhead, a length of 13ft 8in (4.16m) and a diameter of 10 inches (254mm).

The US Navy is now starting to replace the AGM-88 HARM with the AGM-88E advanced anti-radiation guided missile see p44.

Future Upgrades for the GrowlerThe most signi� cant element of the Growler’s planned development is the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ – see the section on p78) which will replace the ALQ-99.

In addition, the new Type 4 General Dynamics advanced mission computer has also been developed. Testing is already under way at NAWS China Lake in California and with Boeing. Further upgrades to mission computer software are planned and

Growler Supplement

Each wing-tip station of the EA-18G is fi tted with a pod housing the digital receivers of the AN/ALQ-218 system.

This example is a dummy version fi tted to an F/A-18F Super Hornet confi gured

as an EA-18G, used by VX-23 for the aeromechanical phase of the Growler’s

SDD. Naval Air Systems Command

44

will drive future, improved displays that are already under development.

Further improvements to the ALQ-218(V)2 receiver are in process to provide faster detection and target location calculations.

Options being evaluated for improved network connectivity include two-way satellite communications, enhanced data links and connectivity to multiple UAV systems.

Airframe options that could enhance the Growler’s performance include improved engines, conformal fuel tanks (to extend range and enhance payload) and better pylon options for multiple jammer pod and weapons carriage.

In addition to the already-funded AARGM missile, new weapons are being evaluated, but their ongoing funding may be cut as part of Department of Defense spending reviews.

ATK AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)The AGM-88E AARGM is an upgrade of the legacy HARM missile � rst introduced in 1983 and which remains in the US inventory: AGM-88B and AGM-88C versions are currently in service.

Doug Larratt, ATK’s AARGM Program Director, described the upgrade as “an ef� cient way of getting the capability to the � eet using an existing quali� ed missile airframe [the HARM] with upgrades to the avionics and sensor suite, communications and data links – without having to develop a new missile.”

AARGM’s History

So why did ATK upgrade a missile designed and developed by Raytheon? “It’s unusual in the industry,” Doug Larratt replied.

He continued: “The AARGM evolved from an SBIR (small business innovation research) project awarded to Science and Applied Technology Inc. (SAT) by the US DoD.” The Small Business Administration’s SBIR programme stimulates technological innovation by encouraging small businesses to engage in federal research and development that has the potential for commercialisation. In 1990, the AARGM

Phase 1 SBIR project began to develop a multi-sensor system for anti-radiation missiles to counter threat radar shutdown.

The project evolved until 1997, when Naval Air Systems Command’s PMA-242, the DoD’s executive for anti-radiation weapons, awarded two technology demonstration contracts to SAT to integrate AARGM technology on the existing AGM-88 HARM airframe. The technology demonstration was a collaborative effort between PMA-242, Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake’s technical program of� ce, and SAT. It ran from 1997 to 2002 and included seven successful missile � rings.

In 2003, following a DoD ‘milestone B’ decision [signals the beginning of system development and demonstration (SDD)], PMA-242 awarded ATK (which acquired SAT in 2003) a contract for the AARGM missile’s SDD phase – which proved successful with 20 more missile live � rings between developmental test and operational evaluation, resulting in a production-ready AARGM design. The programme achieved milestone C in 2009 followed by the � rst of three low rate initial production (LRIP) contract awards totalling 123 missiles. Operational evaluation ended in 2012 with

a subsequent full rate production (FRP) decision and award of the � rst FRP contract. The AARGM’s

fuselage outer mould line, mass properties and � ight control surfaces are

nearly identical to that of the existing AGM-88 HARM and so represent a signi� cant cost-reduction measure. Using a HARM missile fuselage, it did not require the extensive and costly aircraft quali� cation testing usually required for a ‘new’ air-launched missile. Affordability was one of the main programme themes.

Missile Components

An AGM-88 HARM missile comprises four components, which are, from aft forward, a rocket motor, control section, warhead section and a guidance section.

The AARGM features a new guidance section and a modi� ed control section but the rocket motor and warhead are the same as those used on its predecessor. Doug Larratt explained: “We take inventory legacy HARM missiles, dismantle them, retain the rocket motors and warheads and then out� t them with a new [modi� ed] control section and a new [upgraded] guidance section to make an AGM-88E AARGM missile.”

The control section is signi� cantly upgraded with all of the avionics and most

of the structure replaced. The upgrades include a GPS-aided inertial navigation suite (INS), a new guidance processor computer, and a one-way weapon impact assessment (WIA) transmitter, a data link that provides battle damage assessment cueing support. The guidance processor computer carries worldwide DTED (digital terrain elevation data) to support target geo-location. The GPS/INS provides the AARGM with a point-to-point capability and enables the designation of missile avoidance zones.

The new guidance section incorporates a digital ARH (anti-radiation homing) receiver and an active millimetre-wave radar used for terminal search and guidance of the missile.

Counter Shutdown

The primary requirement for the AARGM programme was a concept called counter-shutdown. “Adversaries have learned that in order to stay alive they must radiate only for limited periods of time during engagement. They then shut down and relocate the [SAM] system,” explained Doug Larratt.

To counter periods of a radar’s shutdown, AARGM’s ARH receiver, coupled with the onboard INS, develops track � les for target area locations. The missile will continue to � y to the last known target location even if

the radar is shutdown. It uses the

active millimetre-wave radar to scan the area, pick out a target and hit it whether it’s radiating or not.

During the terminal phase the one-way WIA data link transmits target and missile performance information until impact. This data is invaluable for battle damage assessment as it enables intelligence-gathering aircraft to be cued to verify the kill and prompt re-attack for other associated elements of the air defence system.

The AARGM’s GPS/INS navigation suite provides tight geo-location capability with three-axis co-ordinates: latitude, longitude and elevation. It enables control of the missile’s impact footprint, referred to as geographic-speci� city, allowing impact avoidance or missile impact zones to be designated any time up to launch. Missile guidance is controlled by one of two conditions: avoiding a speci� ed zone (an impact avoidance zone) or striking within it (a missile impact zone). This is designed to prevent fratricide and collateral damage and affords much stricter rules of engagement.

The AARGM is a high-speed kinetic point-to-point weapon with a substantial range that enables the missile to be used against a target with mensurated co-ordinates for time-sensitive strike, although this is not a primary role of the missile.

ATK

Growler Supplement

45

Targeting AARGMThe AARGM has two modes of employment: pre-brief and target of opportunity. Pre-brief is a � ight mode in which target co-ordinates (designated by the pilot; or received by data link or organically generated by the Growler’s ALQ-218 receiver) and emitter targeting information are provided to the missile prior-

to-launch. Once launched, the missile � ies to that designated area, while detecting, identifying, tracking and terminally engaging the target.

Target of opportunity mode uses the missile’s sensors (while on the rail) to generate target tracks and display them to the pilot – who can sequence through the

tracks, highlight one, designate it and � re the missile against that target.

The Growler can also act as a command and control aircraft (a so-called electronic warfare/electronic attack battle manager) linking co-ordinates to other AARGM-equipped Hornets and Super Hornets.

Growler Integration

The SDD phase of the AARGM programme, including initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), was conducted using F/A-18C and D-model Hornets, and involved more than 633 � ight hours and 20 missile live � rings. IOT&E started in the summer of 2011 and concluded in the spring of 2012.

The integration for the Super Hornet and Growler was straightforward and used OFP

H8 software.On May 25, 2011, a test team led by Air

Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 (VX-31) ‘Dust Devils’ conducted the � rst captive-carry � ight test (a simulated launch) of the AARGM missile from an EA-18G Growler at NAWS China Lake, California.

Two live � rings followed during the development phase of the OFP H8 in the spring of 2012 at the end of the AARGM’s IOT&E phase: one from a Super Hornet and one from a Growler aircraft. Both were deemed successful. The AARGM missile will enter service on the EA-18G Growler with OFP H8.

When the AARGM missile gained its initial operating capability in the summer of 2012 it entered US Navy service with an F/A-18C Hornet squadron.

In August 2012 the Department of the Navy authorised FRP of the AGM-88E AARGM missile. ATK is already under contract for FRP Lot 1, comprising 81 missiles for both the US Navy and the Italian Air Force, and is currently negotiating for Lot 2, which is projected to involve 115 missiles. Production will eventually ramp up to approximately 300 missiles per year.

HARM and AARGM missiles are the kinetic element of the Growler’s broadband electronic attack capability. David Isby, Lon Nordeen and Mark Ayton

Naval A

ir System

s Com

mand via ATK

Growler Supplement

Above: Salty Dog 121, F/A-18F Super Hornet BuNo 166449 assigned to VX-23, shown loaded with

an AGM-88E AARGM missile (coloured white) during a test fl ight from NAS Patuxent River, Maryland during the missile’s IOT&E. Naval Air Systems Command

Top: EA-18G Growler BuNo 166642/’DD500’ of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 ‘Dust Devils’, carried an AGM-88E AARGM missile for the fi rst captive-carry fl ight test on May 25, 2011. Naval Air Systems Command via ATK

Developing the

46 Growler Supplement

Main: Salty Dog 101, F/A-18E Super Hornet E22 BuNo 165779 undergoing hot-pit refuelling at NAS Patuxent River. The aircraft was conducting fl utter fl ight-test missions at the time this

image was taken. Mark AytonOpposite: Pictured on the ramp at the end of Pax River’s runway 32, prior to a fl utter fl ight-test

mission, is Salty Dog 101. Mark Ayton

Developing the

47

Early in the development stage of the EA-18G, many EA-6B Prowler aircrew ran through missions in an

EA-18G simulator to provide suggestions on improvements and feedback in respect of the human/system interface. This helped to overcome concerns held by navy commanders about switching the electronic attack mission from the four-man EA-6B Prowler to the new two-man aircraft.

Ninety per cent of the Prowler pilot’s task was to get the aircraft where it needed to be at a certain time, which required a signi� cant amount of his focus and time.

Increased automation – autopilot functions that allow the pilot to set-up the aircraft before take off – mission computer processing power and better algorithms help to mitigate the workload for a two-man aircrew. Workload has been divided into two in the Growler. This means the pilot is much more involved with the airborne electronic attack mission – making pilot/EWO co-ordination critical for mission success. But despite the level of automation afforded by the aircraft, the workload remains “intense but manageable”, according to one Growler pilot.

Growler’s Flight-Test ProgrammeThe Growler � ight-test programme was split between aeromechanical and mission system phases.

In July 2004 Naval Air Systems Command dedicated three Super Hornet aircraft to the programme. All three were modi� ed to represent EA-18G-model aircraft � tted with wing tip pods and other sub-systems with the same weight, centre of gravity and aerodynamic characteristics.

The only two-seat aircraft involved, F35,

received a full set of EA-18G components comprising a series of fuselage antennas, two antennas on top of the fuselage for the Multi-mission Advanced Tactical Terminal and the Interference Cancellation System. There were more antennas on the forward fuselage and aft underside near the horizontal stabilisers for the ALQ-218 receiver, aerodynamic fences on the top of the wings and ALQ-218 wing-tip pods. All were easily distinguishable – coloured orange – the standard for test equipment.

The ALQ-218 wing-tip pods created signi� cant changes to the wing’s aerodynamics and moment of inertia. Both conditions impacted on the � utter testing more than anything else and were in addition to the effects created by heavy ALQ-99 pods loaded under the wing.

F/A-18F F35 also received what is known as transonic � ying qualities improvement (TFQI). Aerodynamic fences and other modi� cations were made to the upper surface of the wing to improve the aircraft’s � ying qualities at transonic speeds, especially carrying heavy loads typical for a Growler.

Aeromechanical Phase

The aeromechanical phase comprised seven main test programmes: � ying qualities, aircraft performance, � utter (covering full subsonic and supersonic � utter programmes), carrier suitability (CVS) demonstration, � ight loads, several phases of the noise and vibration survey (one with E3 and one with EA1) and ALQ-99 safe separation.

F/A-18F F35 commenced � ying as a G-con� gured aircraft on March 30, 2006, beginning a 350-� ight, 20-month aeromechanical � ight test phase. Aircraft F35 was used to expand the � ying envelope and performance test points during the 97-� ight � ying qualities and performance component.

The aircraft also performed source error correction tests for the pitot static system � tted to its slightly re-pro� led radome. F35 also performed testing of the automated carrier landing system.

In the � rst week of April, aircraft E22 joined the test programme. For the next few months, E22 conducted ground-based dynamic � utter testing after which it started a 106-� ight � utter programme.

And later that month, aircraft E3 started an 80-� ight loads test programme involving what navy test pilots called ‘up an away’ loads with full-on g-loads. E3 was also used for carrier loads testing at Patuxent River. Using Pax River’s Mk 7 arresting gear, the aircraft made traps (arrested-landings) and cats (catapult launches) loaded with various weights (consisting of ALQ-99 pods and a AGM-88 HARM missile) up to the Growler’s maximum of 48,000lb (21,770kg).

Fully instrumented, aircraft E3 was used to carry out an initial survey of the noise and vibration environment encountered by ALQ-99 jamming pods loaded underneath the wing of the aircraft. This type of testing was later repeated with EA1, the � rst Growler aircraft built, to validate the results with those gathered using aircraft E3.

In addition VX-23’s F/A-18E E10 BuNo 165537/’SD100’ was temporarily pulled from

Growler Supplement

G-representative Super Hornets

F/A-18E E3 BuNo 165167 Carrier suitability and loads

F/A-18E E22 BuNo 165779 Flutter

F/A-18F F35 BuNo 165875 Flying qualities and performance

Right: On fi nal approach to NAS Patuxent River, Salty Dog 120, F/A-18F Super Hornet F35 BuNo 165875 is loaded with three ALQ-99 jammer pods, two under wing fuel tanks and two AGM-88 HARM missiles. Mark AytonBelow: Salty Dog 120 taxies into the hot-pit refuelling area at Pax River on October 30, 2006, following a test fl ight to expand the Growler’s performance envelope. Mark Ayton

48

the Super Hornet test programme, � tted with instrumentation and used for a couple of weapon separation � ights that each involved jettisoning an ALQ-99 pod. E10 is still assigned to VX-23 for Super Hornet weapon separation and jettison testing.

One reason behind the Growler’s developmental test programme success was that VX-23 had production standard Super Hornets to expand most of the EA-18G envelope. The squadron had completed a signi� cant amount of the � utter, loads, � ying qualities and performance testing before EA1 made its maiden � ight from Boeing’s production facility at St Louis-Lambert Field. “That was the essence of why the four Super Hornets were con� gured as surrogate G-models to achieve that time advance,” said Capt Jaime Engdahl, the then Growler programme lead with VX-23.

EA1 and EA2

On September 22, 2006, the � rst system design and development EA-18G Growler aircraft, EA1, arrived at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, a month prior to its scheduled delivery date. It began its test programme with precision and approach landing system � ights before starting � ve months of mission systems testing in the anechoic chamber at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. This involved assessment of on-board radar, receiver and jammer compatibility, ALQ-218 emitter and characterisation testing and ALQ-99 jammer testing.

The second development aircraft, EA2, arrived at Pax in late November.

EA1 and EA2 were both � tted with the advanced crew station, fully functional ALQ-218 pods and fully integrated ALQ-99 pods. EA1 was equipped with extensive analogue instrumentation (including that for ALQ-218, thermodynamic noise and vibration) and EA2 with equivalent digital systems.

Because of work already undertaken by VX-23 with the three G-representative

Super Hornets, just under half of the aeromechanical � ight test phase was complete before EA1 arrived at Pax River. The status of the aeromechanical phase at that time enabled the test team assigned to Air Test and Evaluation 23 (VX-23) to � y EA1 to an altitude of 35,000ft (10,668m) and up to 4.5g with a full mission load only days after its arrival at the Maryland base.

VX-23’s Growler test programme’s carrier suitability loading � nished on October 27, 2006. It included catapult and arresting gear demonstrations with a mix of different Growler load con� gurations, some clean, some fully loaded and some asymmetric.

One aspect of carrier operations that differs between the Growler and the Super Hornet is the necessity for the EA-18G to bring back its full stores load to the ship. As part of the suitability trials, VX-23 undertook a gross-weight expansion programme to increase the ‘bring-back’ capability, including fuel – up from the Super Hornet’s 44,000lb (19,958kg) load to 48,000lb (21,773kg) for the Growler.

The aircraft was loaded to its heaviest con� guration for catapult shots to ensure the tow-bar, nose-bar, gear and hook-point loads were within the required limits for launching the aircraft and arresting it with a gross weight of 48,000lb. Arrested landings were also conducted as part of the gross weight-expansion. This involved deceleration, high-sink landings, roll/yaw landings and different attitudes simulated under various conditions.

The entire aeromechanical phase was completed in February 2007.

Mission Systems

Growlers EA1 and EA2 were the primary aircraft upon which the mission systems performance was validated. In July 2007 the two aircraft were given the � nal build of software and shortly afterwards

began the � nal phase of mission systems testing – comprising a 15-month � ight test plan and programmes covering: Link 16 data link, APG-79 AESA radar, ALQ-218 receiver, ALQ-99 tactical jamming system (including software integration, antenna pattern measurement with the aircraft and electromagnetic compatibility), the ALQ-227 communication countermeasures system (including receiver performance and software

Growler Supplement

49

integration), the interference cancellation system (including low-band testing and a complete survey of how well the system cancelled out jammer interference), AGM-88 HARM and AIM-120 AMRAAM missile integration including live � rings carried out at China Lake, and the EA-18G electronic data correlation mechanisation or EDCM – an algorithm that integrates all the electronic and link systems.

Testing of the data display and the EA-18G electronic data correlation were the key to Growler’s mission success. Capt Engdahl explained: “With so much information being fed into the Growler’s cockpit the concept behind EDCM was to fuse all data tracks and correlate electromagnetic information into single tracks that are useful to the crew.”

VX-23 spent considerable time operating over the Atlantic Test Range, making sure that EDCM was identifying speci� c emitters and correlating them in a useable form.

VX-23 also conducted RF (radio frequency) and a full electromagnetic compatibility programme for all of the major systems like ALQ-99, ALQ-218, APG-79 and the Link 16/MIDS data link to ensure each system could withstand the harsh electromagnetic environment (created by the wave forms of the radars, data links, antennas and emitters) onboard a carrier and [endure] jamming in a combat environment.

The electromagnetic environment of a carrier is so severe, that testing requires experts to sweep every conceivable RF waveform at the aircraft to ensure its integrity. During sea trials VX-23’s test pilots did not encounter any RF compatibility issues.

Crew vehicle interface or CVI was another major programme in the mission systems phase and one that proved to be a big advantage to the aircraft. Capt Engdahl, who once served as an EA-6B Prowler Electronic Countermeasures Of� cer, values the level of integration afforded to Growler aircrew: “The data display and the EDCM, and the fact that the ALQ-218, ALQ-227, ALQ-99 and the AESA radar all feed in to a fused picture, is what I like most about the aircraft. We had no problem going from a four-man crew [on the Prowler] to a two-man crew [on the Growler] because of the integrated capability.”

The � rst release of live ordnance from an EA-18G Growler took place on July 23, 2008, and involved a successful shot of an AIM-120 AMRAAM missile against a BQM-74E target drone while jamming threat systems at NAWS China Lake’s Echo Range in California. This was followed by a successful launch of an AGM-88 high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) in early August.

VX-23 quali� ed the Growler for carrier operations during sea trials aboard the USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN-69) between July 31 and August 5, 2008. Owing to operational requirements of the Eisenhower, the squadron had just � ve days, half of the initial allotted time, to complete the tasks. VX-23 used Growler-con� gured Super Hornet E3 and the � rst production series EA-18G G1 to complete 319 approaches, 62 catapult shots and 62 arrested landings.

Capt Engdahl told the author that aircraft G1 was � awless in the carrier environment:

“Its � ying qualities were good and the systems performed well. The only thing that surprised us was a sluggish wave-off.” This refers to the amount of time (a couple of seconds) required for the aircraft’s engines to spool-up and � y away (climb) when the landing signals of� cer waves-off the landing approach. A Growler requires a little more time to wave-off and go around, especially when landing with a 48,000lb maximum trap weight.

At the end of the developmental � ight-test programme in October 2008, VX-23 had undertaken 459 sorties including 991 � ight hours for mission systems testing.

OPEVAL

Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 9 (VX-9) ‘Vampires’, based at NAWS China Lake, commenced the Growler’s four-month OPEVAL in November 2008 using the � rst three production aircraft, G1, G2 and G3. All three aircraft were initially delivered to Pax River and used for various test programmes. During the � nal nine months of developmental testing aircrews from VX-9 were � own in G2 and G3 to gain familiarity with the Growler’s complex systems. All three aircraft were delivered to China Lake in August 2008 to be used by VX-9 for a further three months of aircrew and maintenance training before OPEVAL.

On July 29, 2009, the Department of Defense released the � ndings of the OPEVAL: the aircraft received the rating of operationally effective and operationally suitable. It was recommended for � eet introduction. Mark Ayton

Growler Supplement

50

After the Growler’s successful completion of its operational test and evaluation in early 2009, work

continues to further develop the aircraft and its systems. This process is known as follow-on test and evaluation (FOT&E) and is undertaken by Naval Air Systems Command’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 31 (VX-31) ‘Dust Devils’ based at NAWS China Lake, California and VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ based at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland. VX-23 is the largest such squadron in the US Navy.

Naval Air Systems Command continues to make considerable gains with the Growler’s FOT&E.

VX-23’s bread and butter workload with the Growler is cyclic testing using Patuxent River’s unique facilities: its anechoic chamber test facility and the Atlantic Test Range. Depending on the nature of the test, the aircraft will spend half of a test programme in the chamber and the other half performing test flights using the Atlantic range. Major Tim Davis, VX-23’s airborne electronic attack department head, said: “The ground test phase is very heavy on our engineers though aircrew do assist with the chamber testing. The flying phase gives the aircrew more of the daily work schedule and they usually fly a few times a week.”

An example of an FOT&E test is that for the upgrade of the transmitters used in the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system pods. This requires VX-23 to test each upgrade or integration for two distinct aspects of the aircraft’s operation: the electromagnetic environment found on the carrier; and flight envelope expansion. The latter applies to anything that’s carried externally on the aircraft and includes noise, vibration, loads,

flutter and carrier suitability testing.New transmitters are tested first in the

anechoic chamber, a procedure that involves suspending the test aircraft, powering it up and radiating everything on board. Using the chamber is a much cheaper way to implement most of the necessary tests compared to test flying. The amount of time the aircraft spends in the chamber depends on the extent of the testing required but usually involves a minimum of two weeks.

The remainder of the test effort is executed with a flight test programme involving as few as six sorties, during which test pilots and electronic warfare officers perform spot-checks to help verify airborne results against those from the chamber. If the verification process provides the required result, the updated transmitter is released to the fleet for operational use.

VX-23 uses a fleet representative EA-18G from the latest build Lot to enable the squadron to test the latest relevant systems. These are referred to as production verification aircraft and usually reside at VX-23 for approximately 18 months. In addition, the squadron’s permanently assigned Growler test aircraft ‘Salty Dog 521’ is periodically updated to match the fleet’s current configuration.

Support to the Fleet

VX-23 undertakes more than FOT&E work, and one such tasking is fleet support. In 2011 during VAQ-132’s combat over Libya, the squadron discovered a problem with the Growler’s environmental control system (ECS). This called for changes to the cabin pressurisation.

VX-23 was tasked to devise a fix that

could be fitted into VAQ-132’s five aircraft while on deployment at Aviano AB, Italy – during operations over Libya – to improve their availability rates.

The problem was caused by a valve that was sticking because of the prolonged ‘cold-soaking’ of the aircraft during long missions flown at high altitudes over Libya.

The ECS has a Y-junction positioned after the secondary heat exchanger to channel airflow in two separate directions: to the cabin (valve 9) and to the avionics (valve 8). The ECS fault manifested itself with a fluctuation in cabin altitude (pressure) and a valve 8 fault code. Valve 8 was found to be defaulting in the open position, causing most of the ECS airflow to enter the avionics branch and a severe decrease in airflow to the cabin, which consequently depressurised.

A VX-23 engineering team including engineers from Boeing came up with a proposed fix featuring two diaphragms installed in the ECS ducting. These prevented the loss of back-pressure in the cabin flow system in the event of a valve 8 failure. To mitigate the effects of the valve sticking, the engineering team were able to put the diaphragms in the ducting, allowing more pressure to go into the cockpit.

Under time-critical conditions, VX-23 borrowed

Growler Supplement

Test&Evaluation

51

a then-new EA-18G for a series of eight-hour missions at high altitude to cold-soak the aircraft and replicate the missions flown over Libya.

The test sorties began with extended maximum endurance flight at sub-freezing temperatures, followed by a descent. When failure occurred during a sortie the cabin pressure fluctuated by 2,000 to 5,000ft (609 to 1,524m).

Because of the number of ECS degrades encountered by VAQ-132 that were linked to a valve 8 failure, VX-23 had to test the possible fixes to keep the cabin pressure from fluctuating in the event of a failure.

The test flights were conducted in late March and early April 2011 to determine the baseline ECS airflow. Fortunately the fix was approved and incorporated into VAQ-132’s jets within a month of testing. Using its Growler ‘Salty Dog 521’ fitted with the appropriate instrumentation, VX-23 went on to determine the cause of the failure.

OFP Software Configuration SetsA major, ongoing Growler test undertaken by VX-23 is for the high order language operational flight program (OFP) software configuration sets (SCSs). This involves verification work to ensure that problems found in previous OFPs are fixed such that the squadron can check and validate its functionality.

Each OFP release uses specific nomenclature; the next standard is H8E

and the subsequent release is H10.H8E incorporates jammer

footprints, air-to-ground multi-sensor integration (MSI), CCS

manual threshold (THOLD), emitter power levels, AGM-88E

AARGM interface, off-board jam requests (JREQ) and

auto parametrics through Link 16 plus further ALQ-218 receiver optimisation.

‘Salty Dog 521’ finished

chamber testing of the H8E SCS in the spring of 2011 and covered the first few builds and electromagnetic environmental effects (E3) testing for the AGM-88E AARGM.

VX-23 and its sister squadron, VX-31, undertook a joint test in April 2011 at NAWS China Lake, California, comprising two weeks of Link 16 testing with ‘Salty Dog 521’ and aircraft EA2.

H8E SCS developmental test flights finished in the autumn of 2011 and its operational test began in December 2011.

As of December 2012, SCS H8E was in its operational test phase with VX-9 at NAWS China Lake. VX-23 is now working on SCS H10.

H10 incorporates a redesign of the tactical situational display to present more air tracks and introduce a low-priority track feature. This improvement also employs some of the unused push-buttons on the aft 8 x 10 inch tactical situational display.

Developmental flight testing with H10 began in the summer of 2012.

Hardback, EMI and SAIL

VX-23 has conducted development testing to evaluate the redesign of the ALQ-99 hardback for resistance to electromagnetic interference (EMI) caused by its own low-band jamming. EMI testing was conducted with INCANS, dual low-band pods and low-band pods on the wing stations. Traditionally the low-band ALQ-99 pod was carried exclusively on the centreline station. With the work undertaken by VX-23, low-band ALQ-99 pods can now be carried on the wing stations.

VX-23 has undertaken significant work on multi-sensor integration for the EA-18G during testing of the H8E software. All the aircraft’s sensors are now fed into a common picture presented on the tactical situation display. Aircrew will no longer have to look through different displays to get to required information. In addition, the operator can manipulate the information on the display.

Unlike the Super Hornet which already

Growler Supplement

Test&Evaluation

Nav

al A

ir S

yste

ms

Com

man

d

52

has the capability in operation, the effort to integrate and present all of the data fed by the aircraft’s sensors on the tactical situation display was much greater for the Growler.

The objective continues, and involves presenting tactical electronic attack information for both pilot and EWO in a way that can be processed easily.

“It’s been challenging,” said Major Davis. “As you can imagine there’s a lot of information that’s put on one display and in the back seat it’s a big 8 x 10 advanced crew station. A signi� cant piece of the work through the last couple of ‘H’ builds [SCS iterations] is how to present that information in such a way that it can easily be digested by the crew.”

Recent Growler combat experience helped with the process. VAQ-132 provided an excellent post-deployment debrief of their combat experience in Iraq and Libya. The squadron’s recommendations and priorities were fed to VX-23 from the naval aviation requirements group.

VX-23 also undertakes electromagnetic interference on new hardware systems. At

the time of AIR International’s latest visit to Pax River, the unit had just completed a month-long period in the anechoic chamber with EA-18G G63 to conduct extensive EMI testing of a new radio and a mode 5 IFF (interrogation friend or foe) system. This involved radiating the aircraft with the ALQ-99’s full spectrum of waveforms to ensure the new radio was not susceptible to jamming.

Co-operative testing is also undertaken with other new types coming to the � eet. A recent example was during the integration of H8 SCS. “We took a detachment from the airborne electronic attack shop and aircraft EA1 to China Lake for inoperability testing with another Growler and other assets based there,” said Major Davis.

One way to test interoperability is through the data links on which different platforms exchange information. All developmental work for Link 16 and hardware upgrades to the data link are done at Patuxent River. Link 16 interoperability testing

is also conducted on the Atlantic Test Range in conjunction with the Surface/Air Interoperability Laboratory (SAIL).

According to information supplied by NAVAIR, live evaluations are conducted in the Atlantic Test Range – either virtually, through local or distributed synthetic warfare environments; or in a hybrid of the two working with aircraft in � ight, on the deck

Growler Supplement

Above: The fi rst system design and development EA-18G Growler aircraft, EA1, arrived at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland on September 22, 2006, a month prior to its scheduled delivery date. Naval Air Systems Command

Opposite top: In July 2004 Naval Air Systems Command dedicated three Super Hornet aircraft to the Growler developmental test programme. All three were modifi ed to represent EA-18G-model aircraft fi tted with wing-

tip pods and other sub-systems with the same weight, centre of gravity and aerodynamic characteristics. Naval Air Systems Command

53

and in the NAVAIR chamber.SAIL has three shipboard combat system

suites: a guided missile frigate (FFG), guided missile destroyer (DDG) and a multi-purpose aircraft carrier (CVN). These three platforms communicate through voice and data links with aircraft (to test and evaluate their systems) and shipboard equipment – as well as the interface between them.

Future Activity

One of the original developmental aircraft, Growler EA1, is undergoing an extended period of comprehensive instrumentation modi� cation in preparation for EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) testing, set for the spring of 2013.

VX-23 has already undertaken EMALS testing with the Super Hornet; the Growler

requires independent testing because of its heavier weapons load out and

analysis required of its type-speci� c characteristics.

As part of the H10

SCS, VX-23 will be testing software improvements for the ALQ-218 digital receiver both in the chamber and out on the range. This spring, the squadron will use two

new Growlers loaded with the improved ALQ-218 software in � eet exercise 2-13.

This year VX-23 will also conduct a demonstration of the tactical targeting

network technology, or TTNT, advanced data link, which will not follow the normal developmental test. The entire demonstration process will run for about six months.

VX-23 was due to receive two EA-18Gs in March for a month-long hardware

modi� cation. The squadron will conduct an iterative software build cycle involving some

three ground tests and three � ights to prepare for its participation in a major navy exercise.

In 2010 Naval Air Systems Command contracted with Boeing and Northrop Grumman for a trade study on a data link improvement for the Growler. VX-23 will prove that the concept

Growler Supplement

54

can work by performing a live veri� cation of the modelling undertaken by Northrop Grumman’s laboratory. If the demonstration is successful it could be expected that the Of� ce of the Chief of Naval Operations (OpNav) will seek to fund the programme.

In today’s network-centric battle space much information is exchanged using Link 16. For the EA-18G the link is almost saturated, so the navy wants to upgrade the aircraft with a new data link with a much greater bandwidth. That requires an IP-based waveform and software to increase throughput and latency. This will increase the Growler’s ability to send and receive information to and from the aircraft.

Post-2015, VX-23 will undertake development testing of the Next Generation Jammer – for which the squadron expects to have up to three EA-18G aircraft assigned, about twice the current � eet. Interestingly, some of those test aircraft will be Super Hornets con� gured to Growler standard.

The NGJ test programme will involve much structure and aeromechanical testing to clear the actual shape of the pod. This will involve an extensive list of test activities including – along with ground loading and, ultimately,� ight testing, for which VX-23 has the perfectplatform: the only loads-testing Super Hornetin the US Navy, aircraft E3 BuNo 165167.However, because of the size of the NGJ testprogramme, it may require a second aircraft.

As a consequence the navy is already investing in the squadron’s facilities to support the developmental test of the new weapon system. PMA-234, the AEA programme of� ce, will manage all of VX-23’s testing of NGJ. Mark Ayton

Below: The fi rst SDD EA-18G Growler aircraft, EA1, spent fi ve months in the anechoic chamber at NAS Patuxent River to assess on-board radar, receiver and jammer compatibility

and performance as part of the mission systems test programme. Naval Air Systems Command

Below middle: An early production series Growler aboard the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during carrier suitability tests.

Naval Air Systems Command Bottom: ‘Salty Dog 521’ VX-23’s permanently assigned

EA-18G Growler test aircraft. Paul Ridgway

Growler Supplement

Vikings

After a tour as the commander of VAQ-132, Cdr Jeff Craig became the skipper of Electronic Attack

Squadron 129 (VAQ-129) ‘Vikings’, the Growler Fleet Replacement Squadron based at NAS Whidbey Island. Fleet Replacement Squadron is US Navy terminology for a training squadron, a mission VAQ-129 has undertaken at the base in Washington state since September 1970 with the mighty EA-6B Prowler and, since 2009, the all-new EA-18G Growler.

During AIR International’s visit to the base, Cdr Craig discussed the squadron’s role and the essential part it plays in the navy‘s Growler transition master plan. This represented a big change. “132 has

� ve aeroplanes and 185 people, 129 has40 aeroplanes and over 800 people,” heemphasised.

VAQ-129’s core mission is to ensure the navy has combat-ready aircrew, maintenance personnel and � eet squadrons fully trained in the electronic attack mission. This requires a solid syllabus to ensure all aircrew and maintenance students are trained with the right skill sets – and those skills must ensure that if they later have to fall back on any aspect of their training in any environment, combat or otherwise, they can perform the mission.

Cdr Craig explained: “A lot of things go into that. We teach the maintenance personnel how to do all routine and on-schedule maintenance and how to sign-off

their quali� cations. For aircrew, we make sure that they are fully capable across all mission sets.”

New Requirement

Introducing the brand new EA-18G to VAQ-129 presented the unit with challenges its staff had never undertaken before. The new Growler syllabus specialises in airborne electronic attack (AEA) but, unlike the old Prowler equivalent, it also covers the � ghter aspects of the aircraft. “We had tothink speci� cally about how to employ theaeroplane with air-to-air missiles – and whichcommunities could provide experienceof that – and bring it on board to build asyllabus,” said Cdr Craig.

55

VAQ-129 ‘Vikings’ is the EA-18G Growler Fleet Replacement Squadron based at NAS Whidbey Island. Paul Ridgway

Growler Supplement

56

Much of the required � ghter experience came from the US Air Force F-16 and US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet communities.

Devising a syllabus with a robust air-to-air element was of paramount importance for VAQ-129 because there is no leeway in the Growler transition master plan’s set timeline.

Over the period that VAQ-129 has to accomplish the plan, it will be transitioning former Prowler squadrons to the Growler back-to-back, typically one at a time.

Cdr Craig explained the challenges involved: “The squadron must ensure the training continually meets the requirements for each squadron, but also continue training its own cadre of instructors to ensure they are con� dent in all mission areas.”

The squadron must also ensure that it has the right number of appropriately quali� ed of� cers assigned.

“During the short down periods we

have between two squadrons going through transition, we’re constantly in the process of making sure we’re self-perpetuating by having enough instructors to allow us to continue to train the next squadron without delay.”

As for the transition master plan, Cdr Craig points out successes to date, saying: “From an AEA community perspective we’re conducting the transition the right way. We’ve put ourselves on the map as far as how we do things. We were given a large apple to take a bite of. We’ve taken a huge bite and we’re pushing squadrons through transition safely, with the right mentality, and to the timeline. A lot of very talented people

undertook a lot of preparation to put us in the position

we’re in right now.”Summarising the Growler’s service

to date, Cdr Craig

spoke of the importance of the AEA mission and how critical the Growler is to the success of airpower: “Our commanders put an emphasis on getting us to the � ght as quickly as possible, as was the case with Libya. Operation Uni� ed Protector showed that our capability is extremely important to the � ght. I think VAQ-129 continues to provide quality aviators and maintenance personnel for a platform that is extremely relevant, and will be into the future.”

The Vikings’ Mission

What does VAQ-129 undertake to train Growler pilots and back-seaters? It runs a ten to 11-month course for category 1 students (ie, having completed their � ying training with Naval Air Training Command) selected for the EA-18G Growler.

When students arrive at Whidbey Island their fast jet experience will be on the T-45 Goshawk with one of three wings based at NAS Kingsville, Texas, NAS Meridian, Mississippi, and NAS Pensacola, Florida.

Growler Course

The initial part of the course syllabus is known as the ‘fam-form’ stage. That starts with a week of academic classroom-based training. More speci� cally, student pilots (who are of� cially called replacement pilots, or RPs) use the NATOPS manual to learn the Growler’s fuel, electrical and hydraulic systems, and its components, to gain a basic familiarity with the aircraft and its emergency procedures.

Then they undertake their � rst simulators over a two-week period. This exposes them

Growler Supplement

fl

Top and opposite top: With 40 Growler aircraft assigned, VAQ-129 uses multiple fl ight lines at NAS Whidbey Island. Paul Ridgway Main: To mark the Centenary of Naval Aviation in 2011, VAQ-129 painted EA-18G BuNo 166899/’55’ in a similar colour scheme to that worn by an F4-U Corsair operated by VBF-85 ‘Sky Pirates’ aboard USS Shangri-La in 1944. Paul Ridgway

57

to the aircraft’s cockpit for the � rst time and gives them the opportunity to practise all the procedures required to � y a mission from Whidbey Island. From start-up to shutdown, the list of events is comprehensive. It includes a variety of emergency procedures, take-off, departure, recovery and landing procedures at the base; and � ying in the training areas used by Whidbey Island-based Prowlers and Growlers over the Olympic mountain range and the Okanagan Highlands in the east of Washington state. The � delity and clarity of the simulator, built by L-3 Communications Link Simulation and Training, is such that students are given the very best environment in which to gain familiarity with the switches and procedures and build their personal con� dence in the Growler. The aircraft, by the very nature of its mission, is one of the most system-laden strike aircraft currently in the US Department of Defense inventory.

RPs � y their � rst two sorties with an instructor pilot in the aft cockpit of a G-T aircraft, one that’s � tted with a second control stick in the aft cockpit. The third sortie is � own with a EWO instructor. All three � ights provide aircraft and airspace familiarisation and culminate with landing pattern practice at Whidbey Island using the ball to get used to the differences between the Growler and the T-45 trainer.

RPs then move to the ‘form’ stage which lasts for two weeks and comprises basic formation � ying. An RP must get use to standard departures, section departures, performing breaks, join-ups and rendezvous procedures. Their recoveries to Whidbey Island require a run and break into the pattern for more landing practice, using the ball during multiple passes. Use of the ball from this early stage begins to prepare the RP for carrier quali� cation, or CQ, phase.

Radar and Electronic Attack

More academic work follows – this time for the all-weather intercept (or AWI) phase which familiarises RPs with the APG-79 AESA radar, its use and what’s involved in intercepting and joining up on an aircraft. Two weeks of simulators followed by a handful of day and night � ights complete the phase.

AWI is the foundation for the � rst eight-week part of the next section of the course. Called the � ghter phase, it involves interpretation of the radar picture and how to � y the aircraft in a tactical way. Basic � ghter manoeuvring and 1 v 1 air-to-air engagements follow which are designed to develop the skill set already learned.

Missions � own in the � ghter phase are intermixed with AEA, the Growler’s primary mission set and the most extensive phase of the syllabus. This requires students to learn about the Growler’s AEA-speci� c systems and involves much academic study and simulator use to master the menus and commands required.

Numerous sorties are � own in the AEA phase, during which RPs and EWOs use the ranges mentioned above to exercise with mobile threat-emitters and ground stations to employ the Growler’s systems against.

The phase also includes instruction on all

the Growler’s major jamming and offensive systems including the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system, the ALQ-218, ALQ-227 and AGM-88 HARM missile – � rings of which are simulated, given the cost of the real thing.

Category 1 RPs � y on average about 140 hours while those taking the category 2 syllabus (pilots that have already served � eet tours) � y some 120 hours. Depending on the split between simulator time and � ight time between a quarter and a third of the respective � ight hours are allocated to the AEA phase. Both category 1 and 2 RPs spend equivalent amounts of time in the simulator.

Post-fam stage, and throughout the remainder of the course, RPs tend to � y with an instructor for half of the events and a trainee EWO for the remainder – including speci� c syllabus events such as the CQ phase.

The CQ phase has to be conducted when a carrier is available and is generally � tted in during the AEA phase. RPs and student EWOs usually undertake CQ as a crew.

Jumbo John

The AEA phase presents a task-laden challenge to any new student entering the electronic attack role for the � rst time. With a requirement to operate automated but high-speci� cation systems, each simulator sortie in the

Growler Supplement

fl

Electronic Attack WingNAS Whidbey Island is home to 14 electronic attack squadrons fl ying either the EA-6B Prowler or the EA-18G Growler. By 2015 all of them will be EA-18G-equipped. Each unit at the base is assigned to the Electronic Attack Wing and currently one is forward-deployed to NAF Atsugi, Japan. Meanwhile, a reserve EA-6B squadron is based at Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington in Maryland. A decision on its future and possible transition to the EA-18G has yet to be made.All US Navy squadrons are assigned to a parent wing and the composition of the Electronic Attack Wing at Whidbey Island is generally no different to its Strike Fighter counterparts at NAS Lemoore, California, and NAS Oceana, Virginia. The CO of the Electronic Attack Wing serves as the type wing commander for all the navy’s Growler and Prowler squadrons. The wing trains personnel and provides aircraft maintenance, materiel, operational readiness support and administrative functions.The Whidbey Island wing has a unique aspect – it also serves as an expeditionary wing. Three of its squadrons (VAQ-132, VAQ-135 and VAQ-138) are expeditionary units that deploy to land bases in areas of operation such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. As such, expeditionary squadrons are not assigned to a carrier air wing. The Electronic Attack Wing’s CO also serves as the operational commander of the three expeditionary squadrons.Two divisions – the operations department and the requirements department – help with the development of Growler-specific operational flight program (OFP) software including interaction with the fleet and its squadrons.Electronic attack is a Department of Navy-only

mission, and has been so since the US Air Force retired its fl eet of EF-111A Ravens in June 1998. Since then the air force has assigned personnel to NAS Whidbey Island, including aircrew to fl y the Prowler and support staff to help run the wing. The fi rst EA-6B-equipped expeditionary squadron deployed to Prince Sultan AB in Saudi Arabia in December 1998.Cdr Will Potts, an offi cer serving with the Electronic Attack Wing, said: “AEA is needed at forward bases in most theatres [Afghanistan and Iraq], and we [as a wing] supply that with three deployable squadrons to a schedule entirely independent of the navy’s carrier deployment plan.”The three EA-18G-equipped expeditionary squadrons follow a different training routine from those assigned to a carrier air wing, there being no requirement to maintain currency in carrier landings or to follow the carrier work-up cycle. Expeditionary squadrons make regular EWARP (electronic warfare advanced readiness programme) detachments to NAS Fallon in Nevada and also participate in the USAF’s Red Flag exercises at Nellis AFB, Nevada, and Eielson AFB, Alaska.The expeditionary squadrons provide electronic attack capability to all US MAJCOMS (major commands). Their deployment is based on a schedule determined by the Joint Staff and the Secretary of Defense designed to meet the requirements of, for example, US Central Command.A standard tour ‘to the beach’ (a land base) usually lasts for six months depending on theatre requirements. But that can change. For example, Operation Unifi ed Protector in Libya changed theatre requirements overnight. “We were asked to do more in a short period of time such that the expeditionary squadron deployed at the time [VAQ-132] operated in two different arenas [Iraq and Libya],” said Cdr Potts. Mark Ayton

Opposite top: The Growler’s nose wheel steering enables the aircraft to be easily manoeuvred around a carrier fl ight deck. Paul RidgwayMain: The Growler’s two General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofan engines generate a combined 44,000lbs of thrust with afterburner. Paul Ridgway

58

AEA stage is speci� c to a given system such as the AGM-88 HARM missile – for which the student learns about the cockpit interfaces, how to use the displays, how to operate the weapon and how to employ it.

For the ALQ-227 Communications Countermeasures Set, students undertake several hours of brie� ng and debrie� ng about the menus, commands and functions required to use the system while jamming is being conducted; and similar instruction for the ALQ-218 and multiple simulators dedicated to jamming using the ALQ-99. The syllabus follows a sequence of 12 part-test events, each focusing on one speci� c system or sub-category. Students then start to missionise the individual systems to counter a multitude of different threats before incorporating all AEA systems together in one mission area.

The academic side of the AEA phase is intense. Students undertake a course known as AVEWS with the Aviation Electronic Warfare School to learn the theory of radar, surface-to-air missile systems, jamming along with AEA systems nicknamed ‘beeps and squeaks’.

RPs and EWOs learn the fundamentals of subjects such as geolocation and interferometry using computer-based trainers and must work through a series of studies, lectures and simulators to master the science involved. Additional instruction is given on

Growler Supplement

59

the AVEWS course.The author was keen to � nd out what

the training experience is like for a student EWO – who may have to spend much of the mission looking down into the cockpit, adding to the stress of executing the task for the � rst time. “You spend quite a bit of time looking down into the cockpit, especially in this aircraft with all of the systems,” said Lt Dan Sherman an instructor pilot with VAQ-129.

Tactical crew co-ordination is essential for a Growler crew, as Lt Sherman explained: “The pilot is focused on � ying the aeroplane and what’s going on outside while the EWO will be heads-down and really focused on the display. But if the pilot needs to focus on the radar or something critical to the aircraft, the EWO must pay more attention to what’s going on outside.”

But this can be dif� cult and it is easy to get bogged-down with all the systems and displays and lose sight of what’s going on. Having the joint helmet-mounted system helps the Growler crew immensely. It works in the front and the aft cockpit and uses

AEA-speci� c symbology. “For the EWO it’s almost another complete weapon system, tying other sub-systems such as

Link 16, ALQ-99, ALQ-218 and ALQ-227 together. This helps bring

you out of the cockpit and to look around with the systems information in your display,” enthused Lt Sherman.

The EWO has four screens: a left and a right 6in x 6in (150mm x 150mm) DDI (digital display indicator); the Jumbo John, a big 8in x 10in (200mm x 250mm) display described by one EWO as “awesome”; and the touch screen UFCD (up-front multi-functional control display). “We can use it as a display, most often showing the HUD group, or as a

keypad to enter frequencies or TACAN channels. The joint helmet is considered as a � fth display,” said Lt Sherman.

So does the helmet ease the amount oftime the EWO spends staring down into thecockpit?

“That depends on the type of � ying and thephase of � ight. As you get more pro� cientand comfortable with using the systems, theless time you’re focused inside the cockpit.

“For some of the missions, a lot ofthe time spent looking into the cockpit isadministrative: setting everything up, inputtinga frequency and setting the systems up todetect whatever you want to look for. Afterthat it’s just monitoring. So once you’redone with the admin, the task loaddecreases quite a bit.” Mark Ayton

Growler Supplement

6161

Above: VAQ-132’s CAG-bird Growler BuNo 166894/’NL540’ refuels from a US Air Force KC-135R Stratotanker. The

squadron’s EA-18Gs undertook multiple air-refuellings and received up to 50,000lbs

of fuel during some of the missions fl own over Libya while operating from Aviano AB in

northern Italy. VAQ-132/US Navy

Growler Supplement

When EA-18G Growler pilot Cdr Jeff Craig touched his aircraft down on the 13,000ft runway following a long � ight he made naval aviation history.

At the time (mid-November 2010) Cdr Craig was the commander of Electronic Attack Squadron 132 (VAQ-132) ‘Scorpions’ based at NAS Whidbey Island, Washington.

Operation New Dawn

History was in the making that November day for two reasons. Touch-down marked the beginning of the � rst EA-

62

18G Growler deployment by the US Navy, and it did not involve an aircraft carrier. Cdr Craig was leading the men and women of VAQ-132 on the � rst Growler expeditionary deployment. Their home station for the next four months was at Al Asad AB in western Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn.

Commenting on the Iraqi deployment Cdr Craig told AIR International: “The deployment gave us a very interesting perspective on asymmetric combat. We got to � y a lot, in an environment that most of the squadron’s aircrew had never experienced.”

In fact about one third of the squadron’s personnel had never deployed before. For much of their navy and Growler-speci� c training they had probably expected to deploy on a carrier. Now they were in the middle of the desert supporting combat operations in Iraq.

Being the � rst squadron to deploy added an interesting dynamic to the situation. VAQ-132 personnel recognised that there were things they would experience with the aeroplane that had not been encountered before and potential challenges that nobody had previously thought about. Among these was the environment, as Cdr Craig elaborated: “The desert had some environmental challenges including limited visibility with dust and � ne grit.” Another was logistics. Because the US was withdrawing its forces from Iraq, those elements remaining faced increased risk from improvised explosive devices and bomb attacks, which meant that VAQ-132 had to maintain all � ve of its aircraft at a moment’s notice to launch.

“We had to know the right buttons to push, to get the right people involved, to get the right parts to us in limited time. The learning curve was extremely steep for my maintenance personnel to get things done to support the aeroplanes and be able to conduct the missions,” said Craig.

Desert Growlers

So how did the aircraft and its systems stand up to the dry, dusty desert environment? “Fantastic,” replied the commander, adding “the aircraft technologically is extremely capable in the electronic warfare role. We showed up in theatre and we were able to conduct our mission from day one.”

How did the combat environment in Iraq compare with that in Libya? “It was

a signi� cantly different challenge. The experience gained from four months of focused combat � ying in Iraq prepared us to run through the paces, ensure that we were capable and con� dent to perform our mission on a daily basis,” concluded the squadron boss.

“We got a lot of great � ight time, doing a lot of great stuff, so I was very satis� ed that we had met all the tasking objectives that had been placed before us. I was also con� dent that we had shown the aeroplane to be very effective and put ourselves in a position to succeed.

“We were four months into a supposed six-month deployment. Folks were starting to focus on wrapping up and think about heading home. At that point I had to look people in the eye and say, we’re not going home, we’ve got continued combat operations in a different environment, where more than likely we’re going to be shot at.”

Re-deployment to ItalyAt an all-of� cer meeting held in the second week of March, Cdr Craig explained that the squadron was re-deploying. At that time he didn’t know where to. VAQ-132’s new deployment location turned out to be Aviano AB in northern Italy. This was an important meeting as it would enable all the department heads to brief and motivate their teams.

A suggestion was made to hold an ‘all hands’ meeting that evening. At 11.30pm everyone was called together, including all of the day shift maintenance personnel who were already in bed. The entire squadron was present, most of whom had no idea of what was going on.

Close to midnight Cdr Craig took to a podium and addressed his squadron personnel: “We’ve been called to do this, we’re the closest to the � ght, and we’re the best able to support the operation. We need to be ready to go, and by the way… we’re going within the next 24 to 48 hours. We need to start packing up, establish what the requirements are in priority order, and we need to go and do this today.”

Re� ecting on his words, Cdr Craig told AIR International: “When you’re in command, you like to think you’re making all the important decisions. In this case I was a translator and an information of� cer. I provided the information and told them what we needed to do. Everybody in the

squadron switched on like a light bulb – they were activated, engaged, excited, and ready to go.”

Having taken time to walk through the hangar to talk with the squadron sailors Cdr Craig returned to his of� ce to work on the next steps. At 2am he returned to the maintenance department: “I was greeted with a � urry of activity. Everybody was still there, including all the day-shift folks, they had all stayed to ensure they were packing up their work centres ready to go.”

Within about 48 hours the aircraft were en route to Aviano AB in Italy.

Cdr Craig summed up: “There was a real desire at the upper echelons of the navy to ensure that we were in theatre as soon as possible. The electronic warfare capability was required in theatre quickly. We happened to be in the best place to respond.”

Into Libya

One of the � rst things the author asked Cdr Craig was how he handled the initial missions into Libya and what the electronic attack requirements were?

It’s important to note that the electronic attack mission requires very intensive planning during which aircrew and squadron intelligence of� cers study all of the systems known to be in operation (in this case with Libyan forces) to determine how they can address each one. Craig explained: “Libya was a different challenge to Iraq and we looked at it much differently, returning to the basics of what we do in airborne electronic attack and how we do it.”

Left: As part of the squadron’s work-up for deployment to Iraq in November 2010, VAQ-132

participated in exercise Red Flag 10-4 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. Paul Ridgway

Right: A pair of VAQ-132 EA-18Gs line up for take-off from NAS Whidbey Island on a routine training fl ight over the Okanagan Mountains in eastern Washington state. Paul Ridgway

Growler Supplement

63

Operations in Iraq had been running for some time so the VAQ-132 intelligence department had a good understanding of the state. Libya was a new commitment. Nobody had a full understanding of its electronic environment so each mission plan required greater analysis of the details.

According to VAQ-132 personnel, aircrews and the intelligence department undertook lot of work and planning onboard the transport aircraft that � ew them from Al Asad AB to their new station, Aviano AB in northern Italy. Home to the United States Air Forces in Europe’s F-16C-equipped 31st Fighter Wing, Aviano was fully geared up to support VAQ-132 and its mission. “The 31st Fighter Wing personnel knew what we needed, so we were able to plug-in almost seamlessly and able to roll right into the mission set,” said an enthused Cdr Craig.

At the time, Libya had a relatively advanced integrated air defence system so the author was keen to � nd out what kind of preparations VAQ-132 aircrew made. “Mentally, it took a lot to put myself into an aeroplane and come back eight or nine hours later, but that’s what the mission required,” re� ected the skipper.

“I never doubted for a second our ability to employ every mission area of this aeroplane across the spectrum. We knew there were going to be threats that we had not experienced previously, but we also knew that we were fully prepared,” he acknowledged.

The transit time from Aviano was two to two and half hours, followed by a few hours on station and a similar transit all the way back.

Cdr Craig highlighted crucial aspects of a mission: “Tanking was critical to our success. Each aeroplane was taking 50,000lbs of gas, per mission. That’s a lot of gas, requiring � ve, six, sometimes seven air-refuelling brackets per mission, with a variety of NATO tankers that we had never tanked with before. [Working] in a different environment, with different accents on the radios and speci� c terminology presented some challenges.”

Combat Performance

Despite the threat posed by some very capable Libyan air defence systems, the Scorpions had con� dence in the Growler’s full suite of systems and their training –- they knew they could get the mission done. But how did it plan out? “I think we provided the joint force commander with exactly what he expected when he requested our capability,” said Cdr Craig.

“Questions have been asked about how the Growler stacks up. A lot of folk understand that the array of threats is so diverse that they won’t put people and aeroplanes in harm’s way without the protection afforded by Growler’s capability.

“The situation in Libya demanded that we were brought into the � ght immediately to provide the protection necessary. We stayed in the � ght and continued to do our job to ensure that we were able to prosecute targets, protect civilians, and enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 the best way we could, and we did it very well.”

So were there any surprises thrown up and how well did the Growler cope?

Cdr Craig replied: “Having � own a couple thousand hours I consider myself experienced, but combat from the Growler cockpit was new to everyone. I wasn’t surprised with the aircraft’s capability to deal with the threats and I was never thrown a curve ball while looking at the battle space – I always understood what was going on. There was nothing that I hadn’t been exposed to during training.”

The author was curious to know what bene� ts Growler provided the aircrew going into the � ght. Craig was emphatic in his response: “The air-to-air picture provided by the APG-79 radar is second to none. The radar allows us to see what’s in front of us and do what we need to do. It gives you the peace of mind that you need. From a maintenance perspective, reliability is a non-issue we simply had aeroplanes when we needed them.”

When the author asked about the kinetic use made of the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-88 HARM missiles Cdr Craig would not comment on speci� c operations but said that VAQ-132’s EA-18Gs carried the full complement of weapons for the missions. A subsequent press release issued by NAS Whidbey Island later con� rmed that VAQ-132 employed the AGM-88 HARM missile during the Libya campaign.

Armed with AMRAAM missiles, VAQ-132’s Growlers were the � rst US electronic attack aircraft to go into combat with an air-to-air capability. The commander would not be drawn on whether the squadron employed the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile in an air-to-air engagement simply saying: “We had AMRAAM onboard.” A source not

Growler Supplement

64

associated with NAS Whidbey Island later said that AMRAAM had not been employed by the Growler during the Libyan campaign.

Based on pilot experience in Iraq and Libya, how has the Growler evolved the electronic attack mission compared to the EA-6B Prowler? Cdr Craig emphasised the change for the pilot: “A Growler pilot is much more involved in the speci� c missions within the aeroplane. In a Prowler, I was a little less than 25% of the team � ghting the jet because I didn’t have a lot of capability to interface with the systems. Now it’s at least 50% and in some cases 100% depending on what we were doing.”

Borne in the network-centric age, the Growler is equipped with JTIDS and a fairly good bandwidth on and off the aeroplane, but how did it perform in combat? “You’re an information manager. You have to understand what your role is in the jet because it provides good, high � delity information,” explained Cdr Craig.

Joint helmet-mounted cueing is a new capability afforded to the AEA community by the EA-18G Growler, so the author asked what the system contributed. “As we gained experience of the system we were devising new things to use it for and how to integrate the best practices of other communities for our

mission set,” remarked the squadron boss.“Some things don’t translate well from

different communities. How the strike � ghter community employs joint helmet and how we employ it may be completely different. It’s another very capable tool – we are only just starting to scratch the surface of how best to employ it in electronic attack,” he said.

During its four-month commitment in the skies over Libya, the longest mission � own by VAQ-132 lasted about nine hours. Cdr Craig re� ected on that ability: “It’s a testament to the tanker and maintenance crews that come together as a team and make that happen so well.”

The XO’s Account

Prior to its � rst deployment � ying Growler, VAQ-132 undertook two major detachments: Exercise Red Flag at Nellis (July 2010) and a week-long � ghter tactics camp at NAS Key West, Florida.

In November 2010 Cdr Jay Matzko, the squadron’s executive of� cer (XO) at the time, arrived at Al Asad AB in Iraq accompanied by three other of� cers and ten enlisted sailors for the start of a six-month deployment.

On a Saturday, two weeks later, all � ve of VAQ-132’s Growlers arrived at Al Asad to

embark on the type’s very � rst operational deployment. The next day the squadron started � ying combat missions. The planned six-month tour of duty was suddenly cut short when orders came to move to Aviano AB, Italy to support Operation Odyssey Dawn.

Cdr Matzko recollected the change in operation: “The last mission that I � ew in Iraq was on March 17, 2011. The squadron was then re-deployed to Aviano AB, Italy. About 12 hours after the squadron’s aircraft arrived at Aviano we were over the beach in Libya. Cdr Craig led the very � rst strike.”

When VAQ-132 departed Aviano for home its personnel had completed a deployment lasting about eight months during which it � ew thousands of � ight hours in support of Operation New Dawn in Iraq, then Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Uni� ed Protector over Libya.

Comparing the threat scenario in Iraq to that encountered in Libya, Cdr Matzko told the author: “There was still an enemy presence in Iraq that was trying to disrupt and degrade America’s ability to conduct its operations there. Deployed as a contingency, VAQ-132 was there to provide cover to other strike assets stationed in the country: US Air Force F-16s and helicopters.

“Libya, on the other hand, presented a

Above: A ground crew member from VAQ-132 signals to an EA-18G Growler as it returns from a fl ight during heavy snow at NAF Misawa, Japan in

January 2013. Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Kenneth Takada/US Navy

Above: VAQ-132 EA-18G BuNo 166894/’NL540’ lands at Aviano AB, Italy following a mission to Libya during

Operation Unifi ed Protector. The aircraft is loaded with two AGM-88 HARM missiles, two AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air

missiles and two ALQ-99 jamming pods. VAQ-132/US Navy

Growler Supplement

scenario that was bread and butter [basic] AEA. VAQ-132 was tasked with taking down or degrading an integrated air defence system to an extent that would allow US and NATO strike aircraft to go over the beach to either enforce the no-� y zone or strike nominated targets with impunity.

“This required a big mindset shift even though the Growler, like its Prowler predecessor, provides a support role. The support provided in Iraq was a ‘wait and see’ before jumping in to strike, whereas Libya demanded provision of airborne electronic attack for every mission. From day one each mission involved taking down strategic and tactical surface-to-air missiles by electronic attack.”

When tasked to deploy, VAQ-132 was focused on the Iraqi theatre and a well-understood level of threats. However before any Growler squadron deploys it has to train for 15 different mission sets, be pro� cient in all of them and prove to the electronic attack wing commander that it can conduct all of those missions. Once VAQ-132 arrived at Aviano it was immediately tasked to � y missions. Even though VAQ-132 had not performed some of the required tasking for quite a while the squadron was ready, according to Cdr Matzko.

The capabilities of the EA-18G Growler

are a vast improvement on ICAP 3 EA-6B Prowler. Why? “Because the level of situational awareness presented to the aircrew is so much better for a couple of reasons: a colour moving map and air-to-air radar, neither of which featured in the Prowler. Both make the battle� eld much more manageable for us. That may sound elementary but it’s very important for the Growler mission,” replied Cdr Matzko.

Striking the Enemy

Once VAQ-132 arrived at Aviano its task was to provide an electronic ‘safe haven’ for aircraft patrolling the skies of Libya. “We knew when and where the NATO aircraft were coming from, and so would disrupt the enemy radars to prevent them from detecting the coalition aircraft,” explained the XO.

Cdr Matzko would not be drawn on the geo-location performance of the aircraft, but told the author: “In everything we undertook in the air-to-ground role with HARM missiles, jamming and � nding actual systems, the aircraft performed to expectation, a lot of times better than expectation in every aspect of the � ght – every single one.”

As the scope of the operation broadened, a suppression mission ensued, which the

Growler performed very effectively. Cdr Matzko explained: “A lot of the enemy systems were either smashed up or not radiating for whatever reason. We became more of a surveillance platform at that point, watching and waiting. Periodically we would see something come up and let everybody know. That’s pretty much what we were doing throughout the campaign.”

Pro-Gadda� forces had some pretty potent systems capable of shooting at the Growlers, so did such a threat level throw up any surprises? After a little consideration the commander answered: “There were a couple of systems that they started radiating and caused me to ponder over...but no [they were not a surprise].”

Cdr Matzko also praised the effectiveness of the aircraft operating in network-centric battle space: “It performed extremely well in that context. My eyes were opened with the information that could be gathered so very quickly throughout the whole battle space and put to good use by the aircrew.”

He also spoke highly of the displays: “I can see my position in the airspace and as I turn, the map moves. It’s got layer upon layer of information. If I get overwhelmed with information I can strip some of it away. If I need more I can add to it. It’s a very helpful

Above: VAQ-132’s CAG-bird Growler BuNo 166894/’NL540’ received desert tail markings, side numbers and insignia for the squadron’s 2010-2011 deployment to Iraq and Italy. VAQ-132/US Navy

Above: Some local training fl ights fl own by the EA-18Gs from NAS Whidbey Island do not require ALQ-99 jamming pods to be carried. Paul Ridgway

66

layered menu system on the � ve screens in the front. The huge screen in the back is priceless.”

As the Growler is the only western strike aircraft developed entirely for electronic attack, is it evolving that role, and did it bring any new capability to the � ght? VAQ-132’s XO highlighted some interesting points: “We’re on the leading edge of tactical development with this aeroplane, which represents a leap in electronic attack capability.” Matzko emphasised the work undertaken by VAQ-141, the � rst Growler squadron to deploy onboard an aircraft carrier: “VAQ-141 truly pushed the boundaries as far as tactics go and had some interesting things to say about this when operating in the carrier environment.”

Furthermore Cdr Matzko con� rmed that the unit had evolved what it was able to do with the EA-18G: “That started when we participated in Red Flag seeing the bene� t of having an air-to-air capability and the ability to know what was going on in the whole battle space. As a former Prowler pilot that was foreign to me.” According to Cdr Matzko every major system – ALQ-99, ALQ-218, ALQ-227 and APG-79 – was used, worked as advertised and in some cases better than advertised.

As more squadrons transition to the Growler the AEA community is developing its self-escort capability utilising the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. Cdr Matzko provided insight: “Right now we’re pushing the bounds as to how and what we’re going to do with that capability because our primary function is still to provide AEA for everybody else.”

Besides the EA-18G’s suitability to the electronic attack mission, the jet has a high availability rate, and maintenance man-hours per � ight hour are markedly better than the Prowler’s, as Cdr Matzko replied: “When I get into an aircraft I know things are going to work, and we’re going to go. I also know that if something isn’t working on the ground, in 80% of instances it’s � xable before we take off.”

He described the aircraft’s ease of maintenance as “vastly improved”.

A big driver in that is the self-diagnostic system on the aeroplane and its modular design. When a fault occurs the aeroplane

sends a warning to the maintenance personnel advising what is wrong. In most instances the maintainers follow a set procedure and change an LRU (line replacement unit) to � x the fault.

With all � ve of the unit’s jets deployed to Aviano, how did the squadron organise the missions in terms of number of aircraft required? “That depended on the requirements issued by the CAOC. We launched with different numbers of aircraft to provide the required coverage. There weren’t enough jets to provide 24-hour coverage but we were always there when we were needed,” Cdr Matzko explained.

VAQ-132 supported many of the coalition strike aircraft participating in Operation Uni� ed Protector, notably, from a UK perspective, RAF Tornado GR4s. Some of the most signi� cant missions in which VAQ-132 supported the RAF were those involving Storm Shadow cruise missile strikes against strategic targets in Libya – for these the Tornado GR4s � ew missions from and recovering to the UK.

The Scorpions arrived back at Whidbey Island on July 9, 2011 at the end of a 240-day deployment involving 700 combat missions and 2,800 � ight hours. For their efforts in making the Growler’s � rst combat deployment, in two areas of operations, the squadron received the 2010 Commander Naval Air Forces Battle Ef� ciency and Chief of Naval Operations Safety awards.

After ItalyThe squadron and its � ve EA-18Gs left NAS Whidbey Island on July 12 on another historic deployment, this time to NAF Misawa, Japan. The aircraft arrived at Misawa on July 14, 2012 beginning a seven-month tour.

During its time there the US 7th Fleet Area of Responsibility VAQ-132 participated in a series of multi-national exercises, including Growler 12 at RAAF Base Amberley, Australia, Keen Sword 2012 and a Maritime Counter Special Operation Forces Exercise (MCSOFEX) in the Republic of South Korea.

Keen Sword 2012 involved US and Japan Air Self Defense Force units over a two-week period during which VAQ-132 employed the EA-18G in one of its core AEA missions, the suppression of enemy air defences and simulated contingency situations affecting Japan. It was the � rst time that the EA-18G had participated in Keen Sword.

In December three VAQ-132 Growlers deployed to Osan AB in the Republic of Korea to take part in a week-long MCSOFEX with US and Republic of Korea Air Force units.

MCSOFEX is a quarterly theatre-wide � eld training exercise that includes

deployment of off-peninsula forces, such as VAQ-132, to areas in and around the Republic of Korea to test and improve interoperability. One navy press release listed “simulated contingency situations affecting an area” as one of the missions undertaken by VAQ-132 during MCSOFEX. The exercise also involved Growler-equipped VAQ-141 ‘Shadowhawks’ based at NAF Atsugi, Japan marking the � rst time that two EA-18G squadrons had visited the Republic of Korea simultaneously.

In mid-December VAQ-132 deployed three aircraft to Kadena AB, Okinawa to shoot an AGM-88 HARM missile. VAQ-132 was the � rst EA-18G squadron to ever launch the AGM-88 HARM during combat in March 2011. The Scorpions � red dozens of HARM missiles at Libyan integrated air defence targets during Operation Odyssey Dawn and Uni� ed Protector while operating from Aviano AB, Italy.

VAQ-132’s Kadena HARM shoot gave the aircrew the opportunity to properly employ the missile in a controlled environment. According to an NAS Whidbey Island press release, the squadron undertook many hours of pre-� ight preparation to ensure the missile shoot was executed safely and ef� ciently. Three Growlers took part, one launched the missile and two others were used to check that the range area was clear of all vessels and aircraft. The latter task also involved a P-3C Orion from Patrol Squadron 45 (VP-45).

The squadron completed the seven-month deployment on February 2, 2013 when its � ve EA-18Gs landed at NAS Whidbey Island. One hundred and eighty maintenance and support personnel arrived at Whidbey on January 30 ready to receive the jets two days later.

Deployed as part of Uncle Sam’s strategic pivot to the Paci� c, VAQ-132 was the � rst expeditionary airborne electronic attack squadron to deploy to Japan since 2006.

Last September, the Scorpions spent three weeks in Guam taking part in an exercise that combined air force and navy aircraft from Carrier Air Wing 5 called Valiant Shield. Next stop was RAAF Base Amberley in Queensland, Australia for Exercise Growler 12. While there, the squadron conducted a change of command for outgoing Commanding Of� cer Cdr Jay Matzko, and welcomed incoming Commanding Of� cer Cdr Dave Kurtz.

The Scorpions supported exercise Keen Sword at Misawa in November, followed by a MCSOFEX at Osan AB in the Republic of Korea and sent several detachments to Kadena AB in Okinawa, Japan. Mark Ayton

Above: Sailors utilise a block to discharge the static build-up on a Growler’s canopy at NAF Misawa, Japan. Mass Communications Specialist 1st Class Alfredo Rosardo/US NavyBelow and bottom: VAQ-132 Growlers deployed to NAWS China Lake in March 2010 to utilise the threat emitters located on the extensive electronic range. Paul Ridgway

Growler Supplement

In April 2009, VAQ-141 � ew off the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and into history, landing at NAS Whidbey Island,

Washington, for the last time as an EA-6B Prowler squadron.

On February 12, 2010 VAQ-141 was deemed ‘safe for � ight’ with the EA-18G Growler becoming the second operational squadron to have achieved the quali� cation after VAQ-132 ‘Scorpions’.

In late July 2009, the EA-18G successfully completed operational evaluation which rated the type as effective and suitable for operational use. On August 5, Growlers assigned to VAQ-129 ‘Vikings’ and VAQ-132 ‘Scorpions’ carried out the � rst at-sea carrier-arrested landings undertaken by � eet squadrons. These were all � own aboard the USS Harry S Truman (CVN 75).

Nearly eight months later, Odyssey Dawn, the US-led operation undertaken to enforce a United Nations’ no-� y-zone over Libya, provided the EA-18G with its � rst combat experience. Five Growlers from VAQ-132 were redeployed from Al Asad AB in Iraq to Aviano AB, Italy, to support the air campaign over Libya.

Despite the epic combat tour by VAQ-132 in two theatres of war in 2011, the Growler had yet to deploy as part of a Carrier Air Wing embarked on a US Navy super carrier.

That honour fell to VAQ-141 when it � ew aboard the USS George H W Bush on its maiden deployment as part of Carrier Air Wing 8.

Growler Integration

Integrating a new aircraft into an air wing and conducting carrier operations represented a challenge for the men and women of VAQ-141. Throughout its 2011 deployment, VAQ-141 developed many tactics, techniques and procedures for EA-18G carrier-based operations.

“VAQ-141 is really writing the tactics for how the aircraft will operate off a carrier for probably the next ten years until it really matures in terms of how the mission is executed,” said Capt Jeffrey David, Commander of Carrier Air Wing 8.

Findings from VAQ-141’s experience were used to adapt and improve tactics, techniques and procedures for all squadrons to improve training, and develop their understanding and effectiveness at fl ying the EA-18G Growler for future carrier deployments.

Air Test and Evaluation squadrons within Naval Air Systems Command, VX-9 ‘Vampires’, VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VX-31 ‘Dust Devils’ also received the data to further

explore the fi ndings to determine the level of improved capability available before any necessary but additional technology and software was integrated on to fl eet aircraft.

Lt Cdr Mike Lisa, the then Maintenance Offi cer with VAQ-141 told AIR International: “We had an idea of what the aircraft’s capabilities were. During the deployment we had a chance to actually learn and change some of the pretences we had.” This created greater utility from the EA-18G. Lt Cdr Lisa is a test pilot who fl ew the Growler with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) ‘Salty Dogs’ at NAS Patuxent River in Maryland. There, his primary job was carrier integration. Mike fl ew the fi rst trap in a Growler onboard the USS Dwight D Eisenhower (CVN 69) on July 31, 2008 with weapons system offi cer Cdr Jaime Engdahl. Lt Cdr Lisa and Cdr Engdahl were two of seven VX-23 members who took part in the six-day sea trial during which time they completed 319 approaches, 62 catapults and traps, and 44 hours of fl ight. After his tour with VX-23, Lt Cdr Lisa joined the EA-18G Fleet Replacement Squadron Electronic Attack Squadron 129 (VAQ-129) ‘Vikings’ as an instructor during which time he helped develop the electronic attack part of the Growler training syllabus. He joined VAQ-141 when the squadron transitioned to the EA-18G.

67

Maiden Cruise

Below: Since VAQ-141 was established as an EA-6B Prowler squadron in 1989, the unit has participated in every major combat operation since Desert Storm. Matthew Clements

Growler Supplement

68

From an electronic attack (EA) perspective, the mission fl own by a four-man Prowler is now undertaken by a crew of two in the EA-18G. The author was curious to know how Growler crews are adapting to an operational environment, “It is a challenge,” said Lt Cdr Lisa, who explained that the cockpit display and automation enables a two-man Growler crew to perform the EA mission. But the Growler also allows other missions to be undertaken – air-to-air surveillance and some self-protection – which the Prowler, lacking an air-to-aircapability, never did.

“Automation and technology has enabled us to work co-operatively but the workload

is extremely high,” said the maintenance of� cer. “Sometimes we have mission areas that we de-couple. We use the displays and non-verbal communication. The HMCS, for example, works in that way – I can see where my crewman is looking by seeing a symbol on the display and direct him, if required, to the target using the system,” he said.

Cdr Miller VAQ-141’s then commanding of� cer highlighted the advantage provided by the Growler saying: “The excellent situational awareness tools, displays, interfaces, and care-free � ying qualities of this aircraft enable a pro� cient, EW-savvy crew of two to function as effectively as a four-person crew operating an EA-6B. For

me, the individual workload is as high, if not higher than in a Prowler, but the overall impact of that work can often be greater because of the technological advances of the platform and weapon systems.”

Equipped with high-� delity sensors, such as the ALQ-218 and ALQ-227, a Growler generates a large amount of data which presents challenges for the crew. They have to sort through the data to make sure they are looking at exactly the right thing at the right time and thereby provide the ‘man in the loop’ in a combat scenario and not depend on complete automation.

But do the on-board systems make the challenging role less work intensive for the aircrew to capture what the EA-18G takes to the � ght? The VAQ-141 commander responded: “The sensors and connectivity tools that we have, clearly bring a lot of information into the EA-18G cockpit. Effectively managing that information � ow and presentation, in order to create tangible and timely effects in the battle space, is a key task, perhaps the key task in � ying and � ghting this aircraft.”

Cdr Miller then explained the techniquesused by the aircrew: “In my opinion, aviationis fundamentally about scan, habit patternsand decision-making. The EA-18G impactsall three signi� cantly, and our squadronexperimented with different crew resourcemanagement and tactical crew coordinationtechniques to � nd the best path forward.Fortunately, the displays and crew vehicle

Below: A VAQ-141 Growler launches from the USS George Bush during a pre-deployment

work-up exercise. Mass Communication Specialist Kevin Steinberg/US Navy

Bottom: An EA-18G assigned to VAQ-141 prepares to take off from USS George Bush

while underway in the Atlantic Ocean. Mass Communication Specialist Billy Ho/US Navy

Opposite top: VAQ-141’s CAG-bird EA-18G BuNo 166928/’AJ500’ on the fl ight deck

of the USS George Bush underway in the Mediterranean Sea on its maiden cruise.

Matthew ClementsOpposite bottom: A plane director marshalls a

VAQ-141 Growler from parking. Matthew Clements

Growler Supplement

interface tools in the Growler are outstanding, fusing data from multiple sources into an easily recognisable tactical picture.”

This gives a tactical advantage. The crew can build a picture of the battle space with much less effort allowing them to devote more of their attention to analysing the situation and choosing the best tactics to employ.

Cdr Miller also highlighted the bene� t provided by the aircraft’s radar. “The APG-79 AESA radar enhances our tactical situational awareness immensely and has a huge impact on safety of � ight. I equate having the AESA radar as being similar to � ying with night vision goggles or the joint helmet-mounted cueing system; � y with it once, and you’ll never want to � y without it.”

One aspect of conducting cyclic � ight operations from a carrier that was encountered by VAQ-141 aboard the USS Bush was the criticality of the aircraft’s fuelstatus. A condition caused by the high drag imposed by carrying the ALQ-99 pods. The fuel burn rate of the Growler was expected to be similar to a Super Hornet, but offi cers were surprised by how much more fuel it required and how often it needed to be refuelled. This proved to be one of the big lessons learned on the fi rst deployment.

Managing the fuel status is achieved by changing the pod load-out to match the mission and by increasing the fuel reserve status in bad weather and rough sea states.

Game Changer

As the latest fast jet type to enter US Navy service, the EA-18G is changing naval aviation by unlocking previously unattainable capabilities and at the same time facilitating synergies. “Put two of these aircraft in a strike package and it changes warfare because we are able to see the battle space in a way we never have done in the past, surface-to-air and air-to-air, and merging the two,” said Cdr Miller.

“By leveraging the data coming off this aircraft everyone has greater situational

awareness and can be more combat effective,” said 141’s skipper.

“We can populate the data into the Link 16 architecture so people can see what we are seeing and that’s where the real synergies happen, it’s like a force multiplier,” he added.

One of VAQ-141’s sister Growler squadrons, VAQ-132 ‘Scorpions’ deployed the jet before the ‘Shadowhawks’, as an expeditionary unit supporting the US Air Force � ying from Al Asad AB in Iraq for Operation New Dawn and then Aviano AB, Italy for Operation Uni� ed Protector. VAQ-132 deployed to Iraq in December 2010.

Both squadrons co-operated with each other during their respective work-ups to deployment but each unit followed a different path. VAQ-132’s training checks were integrated with the air force while VAQ-141 focussed on carrier strike group integration, and according to Cdr Mike Miller, the tactics that go along with that are different.

VAQ-132 returned home to NAS Whidbey Island on July 9 after completing an eight-month deployment. During that time the squadron was able to report on its experiences during the two operations. This feedback provided the Electronic Attack Wing (the EA-6B and EA-18G wing based at NAS Whidbey Island), the Electronic Attack Weapons School and other Growler squadrons, including VAQ-141, with signi� cant operational data and

lessons learned.“We have very involved documentation

processes for our lessons learned,” said Miller, who was one of four test pilots assigned to VAQ-141 on the � rst deployment, “and we too are exchanging ideas back and forth through our weapons school,” he said.

For its deployment aboard the USS Bush, VAQ-141 was assigned � ve Lot 31 EA-18Gs loaded with H6E software and equipped with all of the Growler’s main systems. Describing the EA-18G’s systems, Cdr Miller told AIR International: “The EA-18G is a well-crafted blending of the airframe, sensors, connectivity and selected weapons of the F/A-18F Super Hornet with the electronic warfare [EW] sensors and weapons of the Improved Capability [ICAP] III version of the EA-6B Prowler.” This combination creates what Cdr Miller described as “an entirely different and unique platform that is much, much more than the sum of its parts”.

Based on the ‘Shadowhawks’ experience during the deployment, the skipper told AIR International that the EA-18G’s “unique combination of airframe, sensors, weapons, and connectivity had enabled signi� cant advances in friendly force survivability, improved lethality against potential enemies, and enhanced synergy with the other assets in the carrier air wing”.

Below: VAQ-141 EA-18G BuNo 166930/’AJ502’ seconds from catching a wire onboard USS George Bush. The Growler’s maximum landing weight is 48,000lb. Matthew Clements

70

Full Range of Ops

During the 2011 cruise VAQ-141 conducted the full range of carrier-based electronic warfare missions with the EA-18G. “We � ew the � rst carrier-based EA-18G missions in support of coalition forces in Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn and the very � rst EA-18G missions into Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” said the squadron boss.

VAQ-141 crews received very positive feedback from the forces they supported on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Cdr Miller: “The effectiveness of airborne electronic attack support to ground combat forces has made absolutely incredible strides since my � rst OEF deployment back in 2005. Our goal was to provide the best non-kinetic � re support that we could during our entire time in theatre.”

Based on the experience gained on the � rst carrier deployment, the author was keen to know how VAQ-141 rated the EA-18G as a carrier-based electronic warfare platform? Cdr Miller responded: “The � ying qualities, sheer performance and unprecedented reliability

of the F/A-18F-derived airframe enable us to operate the EA-18G weapon systems in ways we physically couldn’t with the EA-6B airframe.

Speaking more speci� cally about the aircraft’s systems Miller said: “The sensors and connectivity help us visualise and share information with other assets in the battle space in ways that were previously either very hard to come by or hard to communicate. The performance of the EA-18G’s electronic warfare sensors and weapons has been phenomenal. They provide accurate, timely and comprehensive situational awareness, and precise EW effects that were previously either very time consuming, labour intensive, or simply not available.”

But do the on-board systems make the Growler less labour intensive to operate as an electronic warfare platform compared to the EA-6B Prowler? Cdr Miller referred to the EA-18G as a crew-served weapon. “In my opinion, there is more information � owing into the cockpit than one individual, no matter how talented, can process and effectively react to. In the EA-6B, the pilot had limited interface with the weapon system due to the physical design of the aircraft. In the EA-18G, there are very few functions that are constrained to only one cockpit or the other, aside from the physical control of the aircraft [due to only one set of � ight controls].”

“All sensor and weapon system functions are available to either crewmember at any time. VAQ-141 pilots are fully trained

Growler Supplement

71

electronic warfare of� cers. Our pilots have fully embraced this role which, I believe, has been a key factor in accelerating our tactical development much further than I had initially expected,” said the skipper.

As VAQ-141 aircrew became more comfortable � ying and � ghting the Growler, they experimented with a variety of crew resource management and tactical crew coordination techniques for getting the most of its sensors and weapons.

“We’ve studied the F/A-18F techniques carefully and applied those that make sense to our mission. Equally important, our colleagues � ying ICAP III EA-6Bs have been invaluable in showing us how to get the most out of the ALQ-218 and Link 16.”

Compared to the EA-6B, how easy is the EA-18G to manoeuvre around the deck? “Just � ne,” replied Cdr Miller, “features from the Super Hornet, such as the auxiliary power unit, ‘hands free’ high and low gain nose wheel steering and electric wing-fold make it simpler to start up and manoeuvre during carrier operations than with the venerable EA-6B,” he said. And what is a catapult shot like? The VAQ-141 skipper gave some detail: “There are a lot of factors that go into the amount of force exerted on the aircraft and aircrew during a catapult launch: stores con� guration, aircraft weight, wind over the deck, and of course, the � yaway characteristics of the aircraft, to name a few.

Cdr Miller summed up with his opinion on watching a Growler catapult launch: “While the test pilots in VAQ-141 may note the subtle differences between Prowler and Growler cat shots, they both feel about the same to me. A night time combat rated thrust [full afterburner] EA-18G cat shot is one of the coolest things that you’ll ever see on the carrier � ight deck, from both inside and especially outside the cockpit.” Matthew Clements and Mark Ayton

Growler Supplement

Above and below: VAQ-141 was deemed ‘safe for fl ight’ with the EA-18G Growler on February 12, 2010 and made the fi rst carrier deployment with the type in 2011. The squadron fl ew the fi rst carrier-based EA-18G missions into Iraq as part of Operation New Dawn and the very fi rst EA-18G missions into Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom during its 2011 maiden cruise. All images Matthew Clements

Ravens

72 Growler Supplement

73

Electronic Attack Squadron 135 (VAQ-135) ‘Black Ravens’ returned to NAS Whidbey Island for the last time as an

EA-6B Prowler squadron in September 2010 and commenced its transition to the Growler with VAQ-129 the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) on November 1 that year.

On that day the squadron was no longer safe for � ight, had no aircraft assigned and its maintenance department was not quali� ed to release aircraft for � ight. Many of VAQ-135’s senior enlisted personnel were embedded in the FRS maintenance department and supervised by VAQ-129 personnel. “We had maintainers that could work on FRS jets but nobody could sign them off for � ight because those quali� cations were removed,” said Cdr Vince Johnson, the squadron’s skipper at the time.

More than 100 of the squadron’s sailors underwent training at one of two sites: NAS

Lemoore, California, or NAS Oceana in Virginia. Depending on their prior experience and quali� cation, the training lasted for six weeks to six months.

The VAQ-135 maintenance department had to stand up 34 different programmes from scratch, each covering a different aspect of their work ranging from fuel and maintenance control to quality assurance.

Retraining a maintenance department on a new aircraft with different systems and avionics required a nine-month period to complete.

Most of VAQ-135’s aircrew � ew their � rst Growler � ight at Whidbey Island before the squadron deployed to NAS Jacksonville, Florida, on December 1 to conduct initial � ying training. After a short break at Christmas, the aircrew continued � ight training at Whidbey before returning to Florida for an air-to-air training � ghter detachment at NAS Key West in April 2011.

Each squadron is given about nine months to transition and achieve ‘safe for � ight’ status. Cdr Johnson received the letter certifying the squadron as safe for � ight from the Commodore of the Electronic Attack Wing on June 21, 2011. The next day Johnson was cleared to sign his squadron’s � ight schedule for the � rst time, which allowed the unit to launch its own aircraft using its own maintenance department and aircrew – quite a day.

On paper, achieving ‘safe for � ight’ sounds straightforward. But there is much more to the process, as Cdr Johnson explained: “They’re typically painful. It’s a week-long inspection with days of drills. They inspected all 34 of our maintenance programmes and ripped them apart. You’re pretty much graded as being either on track – or off track, meaning more attention is required.

“The � rst major inspection was for VAQ

-135

/US

Nav

y

Growler Supplement

74

conventional weapons loading. VAQ-135’s sailors came within four points of perfect, the highest score they had seen on a Growler squadron. We had four programmes graded as needing more attention, all of which were very minor. None of the 34 programmes were found to be off track.”

So impressed were inspecting of� cers from the Naval Safety Center with the standards set by VAQ-135 that they wanted to publish an article about the ordnance department to highlight it as a model all naval aviation units should work to. Cdr Johnson was full of praise for his maintenance staff: “I just can’t say enough of the leadership of my chiefs and my QA department,” he said.

Working-up to DeployEach squadron then gets a further six months to work-up and be ready for deployment. Speaking about the deployment work-up, Cdr Scott Janik, VAQ-135’s XO at the time, told the author: “Each squadron has a training of� cer who is responsible for each aircrew’s training and provides, through the squadron’s operations of� cer to the skipper, recommendations for individuals to undertake certain types of � ights to get signed-off at the required levels.”

In accordance with the Growler transition master plan, VAQ-135 was set to continue as an expeditionary squadron rather than being assigned to a carrier air wing. This meant its deployment work-up followed a speci� c training programme, as Cdr Johnson explained: “The � rst step of the programme is called the EWARP, or electronic warfare advance readiness programme. With VAQ-135, a squadron fresh out of transition, it was all about building each aircrew’s quali� cations from the baseline level one.”

Level two is the combat-ready quali� cation permitting an individual to deploy, level three is EA-18G mission commander and level four is a SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) package leader. The last two were accomplished later in the work-up but � rst the squadron had to get everyone to level two, which started with ground school and simulators followed by unit level training at NAS Fallon, Nevada. In September 2011, VAQ-135 deployed to Fallon for a week of air-to-air

Electronic Attack Weapons SchoolOne of the units assigned to the Electronic Attack Wing based at NAS Whidbey Island is the Electronic Attack Weapons School which provides graduate-level tactics training as its primary task.The school runs the electronic warfare advanced readiness programme (EWARP), a six- to seven-week course of instruction designed to get an entire Growler squadron ready for deployment.It’s the fi rst training event an air wing squadron undertakes prior to going to NAS Fallon and a carrier to conduct work-ups.EWARP instruction comprises a series of lectures given by the school’s subject matter experts (SMEs), each drawn from its different branches, including tactical crew co-ordination. These teach aircrew how to manage all the systems and displays, work together as a two-man crew and gain effi ciencies – and suggest ways to make life easier in the cockpit while processing all of the information presented by the aircraft’s sensors. A lot of work was done to devise ways to improve tactical crew co-ordination, a process that’s still ongoing. “Nothing in the ‘G’ is 100% set. We’re still developing a lot of things,” said Cdr Pete Milnes, the Electronic Attack Weapons School’s CO. Students also undertake graded simulator fl ights and a series of fl ight events at Whidbey and Fallon.The EWARP is run for the EA-6B Prowler and the EA-18G Growler on a squadron-by-squadron basis using their own aircraft.

The school’s work is not limited to the EWARP. The navy is now running two separate programmes in support of the growing Growler fl eet. The school runs the Growler Weapons and Tactics programme which is a structured training syllabus designed to qualify a pilot as a mission commander. There are different levels of achievement in the programme: level one is an FRS graduate, level two is a wingman qualifi cation, level three is mission commander and level four is SEAD mission commander (a qualifi cation to lead all aspects of the SEAD element of a strike package). At each level a student must complete academics, simulator fl ights and fl ight events. Weapons school instructors fl y with a student.The school manages the programme, develops the courseware (which is available online), simulator fl ights and the fl ight events. It’s led by a squadron’s training offi cer with assistance from the school. Qualifi cation sign-off is given by the squadron commander and his department heads.A second programme, the Growler Tactics Instructor (GTI) course, is run by the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center’s N10 Division (NSAWC/N10) and is supported by the school when necessary. GTI students conduct their simulator events at Whidbey because there is no Growler simulator at NAS Fallon. VAQ-129, the Growler FRS, supports some of the fl ight events by sending jets to Fallon to augment those

now assigned to NSAWC. GTI students participate in exercises towards the end of their course, the largest of which is Mission Employment, run by the USAF’s Weapons School at Nellis AFB, Nevada.The school has also had to create and implement a course to meet the navy’s air combat training requirements. Growler ACTC (air combat training continuum) is also the joint responsibility of the weapons school and NSAWC/N10 and implemented by each squadron in accordance with a training programme managed by directors in the two organisations.Other navy trades are supported by the school. Aviation ordnancemen and aviation technicians from the 14 electronic attack squadrons based at Whidbey undergo weapons training for loading AIM-120 AMRAAM and AGM-88 HARM missiles.Aviation ordnancemen take the conventional weapons loading course and the equivalent refresher course while the aviation technicians take the conventional release systems course. Both comprise a series of lectures and weapons loading practice on a jet. Aircrew receive similar training as part of their course lectures and simulator events, but do not undertake any loading practice.The school also conducts CWTPI – an inspection of weapon loading procedures at a squadron to make sure that they are conducted to the required standards.What about achieving the preparedness

required to meet worldwide tasking in any theatre? “This takes place at a couple of levels,” replied Cdr Milnes.“We teach the basics on the course and use information about what’s going on in the world, what’s changed, what’s different and what’s where to keep the deployed squadrons supplied with the very latest information. That information is then included in subsequent lectures and simulator events.”In addition to studying intelligence fed back from theatre, the school’s SMEs attend meetings with researchers from the Department of the Navy to keep pace with the latest emerging threats.Managing the Growler’s interoperability with other services is also the responsibility of the SMEs. They are tied-in with all of the groups and agencies that require electronic attack support in combat operations within the US Navy and DoD, which allows them to manage the Growler’s interoperability with the other armed services, often by giving briefi ngs on the aircraft and its capabilities. SMEs will usually deploy to theatre if something new is encountered.During Operation Unifi ed Protector in 2011, the school sent SMEs to Europe to brief and help intelligence personnel working at the NATO Combined Air Operations Centre in Italy. Cdr Milnes explained: “The school exists to support the fl eet: whatever help it needs, we will send SMEs with the appropriate expertise if a problem arises.”

Above: VAQ-135’s current CAG-bird features tail markings similar to those carried by the unit’s EKA-3B Skywarriors in the early

1970s. Paul RidgwayBelow: The Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center based at NAS

Fallon, Nevada has its own EA-18G aircraft assigned for instruction of the Growler Tactics Instructor course. Matthew Clements

Growler Supplement

75

training followed by a week of primarily surface-to-air training speci� cally to practise defending against surface-to-air threats.

After making level two, the squadron needed to qualify some mission commanders to level three standard and deployed to JRB New Orleans to undertake air-to-air training with Strike Fighter Squadron 204 (VFA-204) ‘River Rattlers’.

VAQ-135’s � rst large force exercise was Red Flag Alaska in October 2011.

Red Flag Alaska

It might be supposed that deploying to Eielson AFB near Fairbanks, Alaska, less than 200 miles (320km) south of the Arctic Circle, in October would mean sub-zero temperatures, snow and ice for VAQ-135 and its sailors to deal with.

“For the majority of the aircrew, it was their � rst large force exercise involving a robust surface-to-air threat and a big air-to-air threat,”said Cdr Johnson.

The commander also pointed out the differences between operating a Prowler to a Growler in such an exercise scenario: “With the ‘G’ we have air-to-air radar and air-to-air missiles, so we can protect ourselves. We also have the ability to receive signals and therefore listen to the radios while we are jamming. In the Prowler you’re either jamming or you’re listening; you really can’t do both. You can do a decent amount of both in this aircraft [the Growler].”

Taking part in an air force-run exercise also presented VAQ-135 aircrew with preconceived notions held by mission commanders about the Prowler’s capability to such an extent that the Growlers were initially tasked with the same job and put in the same area of sky as a Prowler could go. “We can do a lot more than that” was the emphatic message given to the USAF Red Flaggers by VAQ-135 aircrew. The tables were turned pretty quickly once the mission commanders appreciated the latter fact and started to think in terms of a Super Hornet, with the result that VAQ-135 was placed in the lead for the strike packages. This proved bene� cial for the squadron’s training, as Cdr Johnson explained: “We wanted to push ourselves as far forward into the � ght and stay in there as long as we could. Red Flag provided an opportunity for us to do that.”

Speaking about the squadron’s Red Flag involvement, Cdr Janik highly rated the ability to network with other aircraft in real time and was pleased to be able to “really lean forward in the straps and test some different tactics to see what works, what doesn’t work, and from where [in terms of distance] we kill targets from with this platform”.

Tasking at Red Flag involved two missions a day. Sunrise was around 9.00 to 9.30am and sunset around 4.30 to 5pm. “We were taking-off just after sunrise for the � rst and landing pretty much at sunset for the second,” said Cdr Johnson.

Faced with typical Alaskan conditions, how did the aircraft hold up in terms of availability for each mission? “We made every single mission,” replied Cdr Johnson with an obvious sense of satisfaction. “Our guys did an awesome job getting the de-icing done early and making sure that everything was prepared for us on the jets.” The skipper explained how he and his fellow aircrew dealt with the aircraft in sub-zero temperatures ahead of each � ight:

“You’ve just got to let it warm up a little bit and take everything a little slower during the ground operations. We encountered stubborn little things and just restarted, reset and retried each time. Everything worked the entire time. I don’t think any maintenance issues were attributed to the cold weather.”

The maintainers had taken all � ve of the squadron’s aircraft to a cold weather environment for the � rst time, worked in sub-zero temperatures to prepare and de-ice them and provided the necessary availability for the mission requirements – an effort described by Cdr Janik as “very impressive”.

VAQ-135’s counterparts on exercise were also seemingly impressed with the Growler’s capability. “They loved it, and the deployed force commander was in awe of it,” said Cdr Johnson proudly. An impressive accolade considering the squadron was limited to what it could do with the aircraft because of the unclassi� ed status of the exercise.

At that time of the author’s visit, VAQ-135 was preparing to deploy once again to Nellis AFB, Nevada, for Mission Employment, the � nal phase of the US Air Force weapons schoolcourse in which the navy’s electronic attack weapons school participates. In terms of its training evolution, the skipper wanted Mission

Employment to “unlock a few more doors and really test and � nd out about the aircraft”. His wish came true. Just � ve months after successfully completing the Nellis detachment, an event that quali� ed the squadron to deploy, VAQ-135 commenced operations in Afghanistan.

Between May and September 2012, operating from Bagram AB, the Black Ravens � ew 410 combat sorties and accumulated 1,560 combat � ight hours in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Black Ravens were originally scheduled to return home to NAS Whidbey Island in September 2012. Within a week of its planned departure from Bagram, the squadron received orders to redeploy to the US Navy’s facility at Souda Bay on the island of Crete and await further orders.

Over a three-week period at Souda Bay, VAQ-135 � ew daily missions in the eastern part of the Mediterranean.

The squadron arrived back at Whidbey Island on October 11, 2012 after completing its � rst deployment with the EA-18G Growler. Since then it has continued with its unit level training and arrived at Nellis AFB in mid-February to participate in another Red Flag exercise, this time one with fully-classi� ed status. Mark Ayton

Electronic Attack Weapons School

Growler Supplement

Right and top: EA-18G Growlers assigned to the Black Ravens over Alaska en route to Eielson AFB for exercise Red Flag Alaska. VAQ-135/US Navy

Australian Growlers

76

The announcement by Defence Minister Stephen Smith in August 2012 that Australia would convert 12 of its

F/A-18F Super Hornets to EA-18G Growler con� guration came as no surprise, considering the aircraft had been pre-wired on the St Louis production line for just such an eventuality.

Indeed, it was one of the selling points of the Australian Super Hornet deal, in which the aircraft were acquired as a ‘bridging capability’ between the retirement of the F-111C and the introduction of the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, not expected before 2015. If a further capability in the form of an electronic attack role could be found for the Super Hornets once the F-35A was in service, it would make the deal easier for the Australian Government to accept.

Ironically, further delays in the F-35 programme have meant that at least the � rst six Australian Growlers will be in servicebefore the Lockheed Martin strike � ghter� nally arrives, given Boeing’s capability toundertake the conversion at the Growler

production facility at St Louis, Missouri because of the wind down of US Navy Growler production in the period 2015-2018 when Australia’s � rst aircraft enters service.

This has added to another potential capability gap later in the decade, which may even see a further Super Hornet buy.

Super Hornet Purchase

Australia became the � rst, and so far only, export customer for the F/A-18F Super Hornet following concerns that the F-35 programme was falling behind schedule and the realisation that the F-111C, even in upgraded form, could not be stretched out to its planned 2020 retirement date.

An order for 24 F/A-18Fs, plus spares and support, valued at $6.1 billion Australian dollars was announced in early 2007, with deliveries to commence in 2010. The reasons cited were the need to both replace the F-111C and ‘de-risk’ introduction of the F-35.

Details released at the time of the Super Hornet contract signature in March 2007,

showed that the RAAF aircraft would be built in production Lots 32 and 33. A further contract in 2009, valued at $35 million, con� rmed the 12 Lot 33 aircraft would have the wiring and waveguides for possible Growler conversion installed during manufacture. This con� guration of aircraft is known as the F/A-18F+. Boeing has designed kits to install the required antennae, equipment and displays for the conversion.

Aside from the Growler provisions built into the � nal 12 RAAF Super Hornets, the aircraft also differ from their Block 2 US Navy brethren with the installation of ILS in lieu of TACAN, and altimeters calibrated in millibars rather than inches of mercury.

All 24 aircraft were delivered to Australia between March 2010 and October 2011 and were declared FOC (� nal operating capability) as strike � ghters in December 2012.

Transforming Super Hornet to GrowlerAustralia’s 12 F/A-18F+ aircraft have Growler

wiring and waveguides installed out to the wing-fold. Other provisions incorporated include the blanking of antenna cut-outs and structural provisions for equipment racks.

All Super Hornets built in Lot 32 and higher have the same aft fuselage wiring harness, so the modi� cations to the Australian aircraft concentrated on the forward and centre sections.

Small areas will require de-skinning during the conversion and a new fairing at the wing fold needs to be installed.

“There’s not a lot of risk around the conversion itself, because most of the work was done on the production line; the wiring is all in the jet, antenna locations have been blanked off and the wiring behind is capped and stowed,” detailed a defence spokesperson. “There are some minor structural modi� cations but they have been pre-drilled. There’s a new fairing cover on the wing and an electronic equipment pallet to install in the gun bay, but the provisions are already in place and it will slide right in.”

The Australian government has approved

the purchase of all the equipment, to ensure its Growlers have a full operational capability in line with the US Navy aircraft, but the AGM-88 HARM (high-speed anti-radiation missile) is not included in the contract and will be acquired under a separate project at a later date.

The � rst Australian aircraft to undergo Growler conversion will be the � rst one ever attempted, though Boeing says it has already written all the technical instructions required. The � rst two aircraft will be converted in St Louis to validate the conversion process, with a decision on the remainder to follow in due course. Boeing estimates this will take between six weeks and three months, decreasing as the workforce becomes familiar with the conversion procedures.

The aircraft will initially remain in the United States after conversion, to validate the process and carry out the RAAF airworthiness functions. This work will be done by the US Navy, in conjunction with the RAAF, most likely at NAWS China Lake in California.

RAAF GrowlersThe strongest indication that the Growler conversion would proceed came in March 2012, when Minister Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare jointly announced a further $19 million for long-lead items of equipment, including electronic systems, antennas and high-frequency modulation receivers.

“The decision to purchase this equipment has been made now to ensure Australia continues to have potential access to the Growler technology,” said the ministerial statement. “A � nal decision on whether Australia converts some of its Super Hornets to Growler con� guration will be made after exhaustive assessment by the government. This purchase ensures Australia will continue to have access to speci� c technologies needed to make any such conversion.”

The green light was eventually given by the ministers on October 23, 2012 and Australia is now set to gain an electronic attack capability unique among its neighbours. The total capital cost estimate will be around

Growler Supplement

Below: A computer-generated image of a Royal Australian Air Force Growler in the markings of No.6 Squadron, currently a Super Hornet unit based at RAAF Base Amberley.Opposite bottom: The fi nal 12 Super Hornets built for Australia were wired for future conversion to Growler confi guration. Both images Royal Australian Air Force

Australian Growlers

Royal A

ustralian Air Force

77

Aus$1.5 billion, including funding for the conversion kits, supporting equipment, spares and initial training systems.

“The 2009 Defence White Paper outlined the government’s view that the Australian Defence Force would require additional capabilities to maintain air superiority into the future, including acquiring an airborne electronic warfare capability,” said the ministers after making the announcement. “Growler is an electronic warfare system that gives the Super Hornet the ability to jam the electronics of aircraft and land-based radars and communications systems. Electronic threats are an inherent part of modern combat and Growler will provide options for the air force to undertake electronic threat suppression operations in support of Australian Defence Force operations, including land and sea forces.”

Timeline and Capability

The � rst Australian Growler conversion will occur in 2015 and an initial batch of six will

be completed. The timing of the second batch has not yet been decided and will be dependent upon decisions to be made around the mitigation of the looming air combat gap.

Because the aircraft will come from the RAAF’s Super Hornet operational conversion and training squadron, transition of ongoing training will have to be managed to ensure the strike � ghter capability is not compromised. This will likely see the bulk of Super Hornet training migrate back to the US Navy. Growler training will also be conducted by the US Navy at NAS Whidbey Island, Washington on Australia’s behalf.

Initial operating capability should occur during 2018 and will represent six aircraft, an adequate complement of trained crews and a suf� cient number of ALQ-99 pods to conduct operations.

The aircraft will be � own by No.6 Squadron (currently the Super Hornet training squadron) at RAAF Base Amberley and thus remain under the purview of Air

Combat Group. The RAAF is at pains to point out, however, that Australian Growlers will support all ADF operations and not just those undertaken by ACG.

“The Growler widens the capability from straight air combat. Full spectrum electronic warfare has uses right across the spectrum of operations and it will be interesting to watch as we develop the capability over the next four of � ve years,” said Air Marshal Geoff Brown, Chief of Air Force.

Last October, three EA-18Gs from the US Navy’s Growler-equipped Electronic Attack Squadron 132 (VAQ-132) ‘Scorpions’ deployed to Amberley to participate in Exercise Growler 12.

“That visit allowed us to have our � rst look at operating our Super Hornets alongside a Growler capability, to look at the tactics and procedures the US Navy uses, so we can get an early step up,” said AM Brown. “It also underscores the US Navy’s support for our air force in standing up this capability – that they were willing to undertake a deployment to Australia so early after we made the decision.

“We’re adopting a crawl, walk, run approach to Growler because we’ve never operated an electronic attack capability before,” concluded Group Captain Phil Gordon, Director of the Air Combat Transition Of� ce for Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation. “This will be a joint capability; it’s not just about supporting Super Hornets or Joint Strike Fighters. It will be just as valuable to navy ships at sea and army soldiers on the battle� eld as it will be to our combat aircraft.” Nigel Pittaway

Growler Supplement

Jammer Next Gen

78

Some combat aircraft have been designed from the outset to be deployed with its main weapon

as an integrated system – such as the F-14 Tomcat and AIM-54 Phoenix air-to-air missiles – while others, by designor improvisation, have only received thesystems that allowed them to achieve theirfull effectiveness later in their service life.

The Growler is set out to be one of the latter, with the US Navy’s Next Generation Jammer or NGJ a key system that will make the EA-18G Block II much more capable than those currently in service. Current ALQ-99 jammers were never intended to be more than an interim solution for the Growler. The purpose was always to match the Growler’s capabilities with a new jammer that would incorporate technology generations beyond those of the ALQ-99, the basic design of which dates from the 1970s.

Next Generation Electronic AttackThe evolution of the NGJ has been long and often frustrating – one reason why the Growler is currently operating without it. There had been multiple navy and joint service approaches moved forward, but none led to a deployable capability. The

NGJ is part of electronic warfare (EW) family of systems, that the navy put together after attempts to create a joint programme with the air force failed. The NGJ is not currently being funded to be integrated with the F-35 Lightning II and no unique F-35 requirements are included in the programme.

The NGJ has become the most high-pro� le element of a comprehensive family of EW systems, in part because of its importance to the Growler but also because a wide-open competition for the development of the NGJ is currently in progress. The winner will likely become the pre-eminent maker of US military high-power jammers for years to come. Technologies developed for the NGJ programme may be adapted to upgrade the capabilities of legacy systems that will remain in service.

The NGJ competition should be decided in 2013. The navy issued its � nal request for proposals (RFP) to industry in July 2012. Those likely to submit proposals include teams led by Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, (industry observers see these two as being the front-runners in the competition), ITT Exelis and Raytheon. In April 2012 the navy issued $20 million contracts to each of the four contenders so that they could � nalise the advanced technology that would be incorporated in the proposed NGJ designs. The April contracts

Growler Supplement

Jammer

79

Opposite: A computer-generated image showing a concept design of Naval Air

Systems Command’s Next Gen Jammer. Naval Air Systems Command

Below: The Next Gen Jammer pod should commence fl ight operations on the EA-

18G Growler in 2015. Jamie Hunter

Growler Supplement

80

brought the navy’s total investment in each of the four competitors to $68 million.

The winner of the competition will have 22 months to produce the NGJ prototype, by May 2015. The navy has abandoned plans for a � y-off between two competitors, so the NGJ development contract issued to the winner of the competition in 2013 will be for the construction of a prototype pod. If this successfully meets the challenges of � ight and electronic testing, it will give the design an advantage in gaining full-rate production orders to equip the Growler force.

If all goes according to plan, the next step will be an engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase, due to be completed in 2019. Low-rate initial production (LRIP) will follow and the � rst NGJ pod should commence Growler � ight operations after initial operational capability certi� cation in 2020.

Issues

Some NGJ issues have not yet been resolved. Whether the � nal NGJ design will be exportable or not remains uncertain, although this is obviously of great importance to the Royal Australian Air Force.

While the navy had originally speci� ed that the NGJ be able to operate at supersonic speeds, this requirement was dropped before the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), as was the requirement for one NGJ pod to cover the entire spectrum. The Growler will typically operate with three pods. Two will be NGJ pods with identical frequency band capability. The third, carried on the centreline station, will be either an ALQ-99 or future increment 2 NGJ pod. The navy sees the middle part of the electronic spectrum, where most threats operate, as being the � rst priority for developing NGJ capability.

But the biggest question regarding how the NGJ will operate re� ects the fact that it is designed to be an integrated part of the family of EW systems.

The NGJ is not the only future system that the Growler will require to remain viable. High-performance surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) are proliferating, with weapons such as the Russian-designed S-400 (SA-21 Growler) likely to be widely exported in the future. Other countries worldwide are either buying SAMs on the market or developing their own. The threat the Growler will have to counter will not be limited to SAMs. Lasers are being weaponised. With the Israelis demonstrating their ability to switch off Syrian air defences in 2007 through electronic attack tactics, it takes little imagination to realise that potential threats would be looking at ways to use the same approach against aircraft, injecting signals that would mislead an aircraft’s on-board sensors or, potentially, switch off computerised � ight controls. The Growler and the NGJ will have to be able to counter networked electronic threats yet to be used in air combat. David Isby and Lon Nordeen

History of the Next Gen JammerFourteen years ago the US DoD tasked the Department of the Navy to conduct an

analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the next generation of jamming aircraft. The result of that AoA was the EA-18G Growler – a variant of the F/A-18F Super Hornet – with stand-off and mod-escort jammer capability.

Mod-escort means the aircraft escorts a strike package part of the way into an area within the lethal � re range of enemy missiles and at some point peels off to set up an orbit from where it provides electronic attack. This is a safety demarcation from certain surface-to-air missiles that have the capability to hone-in on jammers.

Plenty of funding came to bear for the Growler aircraft, but there was also realisation that an upgrade to the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system (which clocked up its 40th year in operation in 2011) lacked suf� cient funding. Over the past 25 years individual components of the ALQ-99 have been upgraded. “We have reached the ceiling of technology, there was nothing more we could do with the ALQ-99,” said Capt John Green Airborne Electronic Attack Program Manager with PMA-234.

“We hit that ceiling about 2005. There are little tweaks that allow it to go after new target sets, particularly in communications, and for asymmetric warfare [a reference to IEDs] used in Afghanistan and Iraq. But for dealing with double-digit SAMs in a future combat operation the ceiling has been hit.”

The navy needed new architecture and a new system which was recognised to be the NGJ. An AoA was launched and briefed out in April 2010. The results were kept internal to the navy and were released as part of a normal acquisition process by the OSD (Of� ce of the Secretary of Defense).

PMA-234 attended a resources, requirements and review board or R3B at the Pentagon in October 2010 to validate the results of the AoA. R3B is now a standard procedure for any navy acquisition programme. The outcome of the board provided an initial validation for developing the NGJ system for the EA-18G.

Two-year development contracts focussed entirely on maturing the technology required for the NGJ were awarded to four different contractors; Raytheon, Northrop Grumman,

ITT with Boeing, and BAE Systems. PMA-234 asked each contractor to place its technology into the context of a system, so technologies were developed that could be packaged in a pod of the size required by the navy. Capt Green explained: “The continuing challenge on the Growler aircraft is to get a lot of capability, which demands a lot of power generation and cooling capability, in a tactically relevant way.”

An example of a high-powered jammer is the Rivet Fire electronic countermeasures system used on USAF EC-130H Compass Call aircraft. But a C-130 size aircraft can’t

get close enough to the � ght and remain safely outside of the SAM engagement zones. Consequently the Rivet Fire used on Compass Call has to be high-powered to be effective but from a stand-off range great enough so that it remains safe.

Size and payload are crucial for the NGJ, but physics constrain both. By de� nition to put out a lot of power that power has to be generated. The EA-18G does not have the capacity to generate a lot of excess power (see below).

Active Array

NGJ’s development needs to leverage a lot of technologies from current active arrays used on ships and AESA radars like the APG-79 (Super Hornet) and the APG-81 (F-35 Lightning II).

Active arrays present unique challenges. An AESA radar used for ground mapping and air-to-air search works best with a large � at plate because this enables the systemto focus a lot of energy and form a goodbeam. Electronic attack is really no different.The major difference is the need for almost100% duty cycle or continuous wave activearray. Most AESA radars use pulse power ata 25-30% duty cycle. NGJ will use the samearray technology as radar but rather thanpulsing on and off like radar, NGJ requirescontinuous wave power to conduct full-onjamming at nearly 100% duty cycle. Thatrequires a lot of ef� ciency and cooling toavoid excess heat creation and ampli� erburn-out.

The arrays themselves encompass three requirements: prime power, jammer ef� ciency

Growler Supplement

The ALQ-99 jamming pod’s low-band antennas are housed in a profi led radome while those for the high-band antennas are straight (see image below). The Growler will operate with two types of Next Gen Jammer pod, one for high and one for low-band jamming. Paul Ridgway

81

and the exciter, each of which needs a technological solution.

Prime Power

NGJ has to generate its own power just like the ALQ-99. Existing jammers (US and international) are smaller than the ALQ-99 and draw power from the aeroplane. But in general those systems require 10kW of power or less. “We need tens of kilowatts. Ideally we would like to have 150 even 200kW of power, but we do not have that amount of power organic to the aeroplane available,” explained Capt Green.

The navy’s new jammer requires advanced techniques to � nesse potential adversaries when possible. Intelligence on an adversary’s IAD system is only so good, or the most up to date information may not be available. Such a scenario requires an electronic attack capability to have the ability to power through an adversary IAD system and protect a strike package.

NGJ’s power requirement is so great that it would require close to 50% of the power generated onboard the aircraft.

Growler simply can’t allocate that much power to the NGJ because much of it is taken by systems such as the mission-critical APG-79 AESA radar.

PMA-234 studied the possibility of upgrading the generators but it was not feasible. Instead the programme of� ce has

opted for a ram air turbine or RAT – a system that has successfully worked on the ALQ-99. It comprises an externally mounted propeller that turns on the front and internal electronic controls that provide a steady stream of power to the ALQ-99 jammer.

On NGJ, the RAT will be internally mounted in the mid-section because active arrays cannot be mechanically steered and therefore require a clear � eld of view and need to be mounted in the pod’s forward and aft sections.

Opting for a ducted ram air turbine capable of generating 100kW (or more) of power requires a sophisticated design. PMA-234 has partnered with two SBIR (small business innovative research) organisations, and two of the four contractors are each working with one

of the two SBIRs.“It’s been a huge success because it was a

challenge area that we’ve pretty much solved,” said Capt Green.

But has the use of the new inlet and internal ram had an impact on the overall size of the NGJ pod? “More weight than size,” replied Capt Green, “so we have encouraged our contractors to reduce the weight of the ram air turbine and the generator behind it to the greatest degree possible.”

Faced with an overall design weight that must be adhered to, the contractors are proposing to use composite materials for the overall pod architecture and the strong back that carries the load, and other lightweight materials for the ram air turbine.

“Most of our contractors are combining the beamformer power ampli� er and the aperture itself into an overall array package much like the APG-79 and APG-81 radar as part of this design,” said Green.

NGJ has a requirement for a queued-receiver. Some contractors are using AESA radar-like TR (transmit-receive) modules on the array to accomplish that and some have a dedicated cued-receiver.

Jammer Efficiency

With the exception of the RAT, nothing in NGJ is mechanical, it’s all electronic, and that’s driving the requirement to operate gain ampli� ers in near continuous wave and

emitting power to levels ten times greater than the ALQ-99, an ef� ciency level that has not previously been accomplished. Ef� ciency in the system is measured in terms of amps; power taken in from the ram air turbine versus power put out. Any inef� cient aspect ends up being wasted or as heat which in a fairly small pod creates a lot of problems – in some cases the amount is more than can be shed.

NGJ pod’s physical size will not differ fundamentally from the current ALQ-99. The ALQ-99 weighs around 1,000lb (454kg) while the mid-band NGJ will weigh about 1,200lb (545kg) with a smaller sub-500lb (227kg) high-band pod planned for later in the programme. The latter will be carried on the EA-18G’s outer

wing stations 2 and 10.The amount of energy put out by NGJ

is classi� ed but the level achieved with using gallium nitride (GaN) technology is unprecedented. NGJ is on the cutting-edge of GaN technology. Over the past � ve years the contractors involved with NGJ have moved away from gallium arsenide toward GaN technology for power generation capability.

Some of the latest radars use all-electronic chips containing silicon to generate power amps. A lot of the previous-generation radars use gallium arsenide in the chip to generate power amps. Gallium nitride is fundamentally not much different in terms of how power is generated on a Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit chip, abbreviated as MMC and pronounced mimic. What is fundamentally different about gallium nitride are the levels of power and ef� ciency that were simply unobtainable from gallium arsenide.

GaN technology formed a big part of a $30 million project launched by the Of� ce of Naval Research (ONR) in 2008 designed to get ahead with research. Today the NGJ programme has bene� tted from the research by not having to wait. Combined with the SBIRs, introduced to help with the design of the ram air turbine, the PMA-234 effort on NGJ is peaking just at the right time.

The Of� ce of Naval Research based in Arlington, Virginia is the research department of the navy. It undertakes a lot of research into technology classed in what the navy terms readiness levels one, two and three, all of which tend to be at the very earliest stage of development.

Using this business model, the navy is able to achieve some technology growth and reduce the associated risk before it gets to the PMA-234 programme of� ce. It’s a two-way process allowing PMA-234 to make certain that ONR is investing in the right areas and that PMA-234 is providing ONR with enough of its requirements to ensure everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. Capt Green told AIR International: “It’s been absolutely outstanding, a great partnership. They are helping us and our contractors to peak at just the right time, to create a next-gen jammer that’s very effective.”

Exciter

Exciters are used in a lot of other applications and not just jammers to generate waveforms. Exciter technology has grown, probably ten fold, from the types � tted in the current ALQ-99, which is good for the navy and NGJ. The required investment for NGJ is much less because of the existing growth in exciter technology. This growth is being driven by non-kinetic warfare and a huge interest in the electromagnetic spectrum from all of the US armed services.

The US military requires exciters in its arsenal with the capability to generate waveforms that are very smart, which at times are arbitrary, and sometimes very pro-forma, ie, it looks like a certain pro� le. This latter requirement is a tool for deceiving a potential adversary with waveforms that look like a certain radar. That is a capability that is currently not available with the ALQ-99 which

Growler Supplement

The straight profi le radome of the ALQ-99’s

high-band antennas. Paul Ridgway

82

has an analogue paradigm.“NGJ will be a 100% digital system

allowing us to react and fool a potential adversary’s radars, data links and systems in ways that we could not have done with the ALQ-99,” said Green.

But how much effort is being placed into the NGJ to ensure it keeps up with ongoing technology in terms of its future capability and upgradeability to counter the perceived threats from around the world? Capt Green was quick to reply: “We’ve had a lot of success with the ALQ-99 because of our ability to react and create new techniques. We do a lot of testing every year to understand our potential adversary’s systems, and then to be able to react and create new techniques. That will continue.”

Modular Open System ArchitecturePMA-234 is also focussing on MOSA or modular open system architecture. Capt Green explained: “We’ve got to be able to upgrade components and pieces of the system over the next 40 years. That’s a very dif� cult challenge as we move towards performance-based contracting.

“It used to be that the DoD bought all the data rights we needed on everything we designed. The ALQ-99 was really borne out of that era. We own all the data rights on the ALQ-99 so it was very easy to issue a tender to competing contractors for any particular piece that required upgrade.

“The DoD has kind of moved away from that over a course of about 20 years and it really has to get back to it now. Senior leadership at the OSD and the navy are pushing programmes across the DoD to be as modular and use as much open system architecture as possible so that we will be able to do that and not become beholden to a single contractor.

“We want to make sure that we can upgrade the arrays and even the sub- components of the array to include GaN ampli� ers and beam-formers in the future.

“The challenge on a system like NGJ – where there’s a lot of integration with the aeroplane – is that we don’t want to have to go back and do thousands of hours of testing in chambers. In addition there may be occasions when, because of hazards to the aeroplane, we might have to jettison the pod. So store separation has to be included in that testing, which is very, very expensive to re-do.

“So we’ve got to get it right � rst time. We’ve got to create an outer mould line [for the pod] that can be re-populated with new electronics, perhaps even a ram air turbine and generator at some point so that we can stay relevant to the threat. That’s a very tricky business and a huge… if not the… number one focus area for us on the next-gen jammer.”

How do you begin to look into the future that might be 40 years out when technology evolves so quickly? “We looked to the air-to-air radar community and at other mission areas forecasting to make sure we didn’t go for technologies that are stale, and spent a lot of time during the AOA [analysis of alternatives] looking at the work already being done on travelling-wave tubes, which arrays

can be built with. [A travelling-wave tube is an elongated vacuum tube used to amplify radio frequencies.]

“But we determined that was not going to be as big a growth area and was not going to be as upgradeable towards the end of the NGJ’s service life as a full solid-state solution. That’s why we opted for the full solid-state solution, down to the lower sub-component level. We believe we can get somewhere between three and four decades of use from the active arrays before we have to potentially go to something else.”

Capt Green also explained that ownership of the interfaces between components is the other critical piece: “We want to make sure that’s at the lowest level possible and that we own the interfaces coming out of the box, or coming out of the software piece, otherwise we bump against something that’s proprietary and they [the manufacturer] sometimes can’t – for very important business reasons – shareit with us.

The Department of the Navy and OSD have undertaken a huge teaming effort with the contractors including communications focused on owning those interfaces within the government.

Supportability

What is PMA-234 doing with respect to the long-term supportability of NGJ which is a massive concern? Capt Green replied: “Some of our contractors are already doing accelerated lifetime testing on the electronics and we really applaud that. In some cases they are doing it as part of our contract and in other cases they are doing it on their own. That’s very important because GaN [gallium nitrate] is a cutting-edge technology.

“GaN is really at the heart of the system. We will be driving the GaN mimics to some pretty high levels so they’re going to get very hot. In some scenarios we may have to do jamming for a couple of hours at a time. That’s very hard on the electronics. The contractors are already doing a lot of testing on that.

“We are also trying to minimise the amount of uploading and downloading of the NGJ

pod. The ALQ-99 can only carry so many transmitters at a time so our maintainers have to upload and download the transmitters within a pod fairly often to suit the mission. With NGJ we have tried to adopt an architecture where that is minimised to the greatest degree possible.”

Growler will � y for the most part with mid-band pods which are very wide band and cover most of our threats, so a lot of uploading or downloading of components is not anticipated. The pod will be built in a modular form so that in the future a high-band [not as yet designed] array can be swapped in if required as a contingency, not a regular day-to-day activity. “That’s really going to minimise the wear and tear on this weapon system,” said Capt Green.

“The two critical pieces are making sure we are building it with the required reliability in all components particularly in the GaN mimics, and minimising the amount we have to upload and download.”

Growler Supplement

Unlike the nose-mounted ram air turbine or RAT

fi tted to the current ALQ-99 jamming pod,

the navy’s next gen jammer will feature an

internally-mounted RAT housed in the pod’s

mid-section. Paul Ridgway

83

Aircraft Modifications

Despite its mould line and design, the NGJ will require some minor modi� cations to be made to the EA-18G. PMA-234 is currently undertaking studies of conformal tanks that would allow a wider � eld of view, and improved � bre optic wiring to ensure its data path travels at lightning speed.

“Use of conformal fuel tanks is the most extreme modi� cation proposed. It could prove to be very costly, so the cost-bene� t analysis is very important.

“Many of the known modi� cations are in the software. How the jammers are controlled is one example. This will differ from the ALQ-99. We are not starting software integration with any pre-conceived notions – we want to � y it in a way that is fully optimised. The study currently under way is being jointly undertaken with PMA-265, the Growler programme of� ce and Boeing.”

Balance of SurvivabilityNGJ is a part of the navy’s overall balance of survivability which focuses on stand-off jamming, defensive jammers, signature reduction and speed.

“Look at what the navy has done with Super Hornet, and now with the Growler, in terms of cost and focusing on survivability features, it creates an aeroplane that is very balanced and it doesn’t drive you to the extremes in any one area. A very credible, stand-off mod escort jammer, like Next Gen Jammer, is a huge part of that balance of survivability.

“And we believe it works beyond the bounds of the navy. We know that we will continue to be used as a joint asset, as the ALQ-99 is used today. Any time a strike package has to go over the beach, especially against a robust IAD, whether that’s navy, air force or marine corps, it’s

protected by the ALQ-99. The Next Gen Jammer will continue that.”

The OSD has undertaken a lot of analysis in conjunction with the air force to show what’s required to protect different types of aircraft. “We work very closely in those combined studies to make sure that we are going to be relevant to fourth and � fth generation � ghters and protect everybody adequately,” said Capt Green.

Current Programme StatusFour contractors are currently working on a technology maturation contract awarded in July 2010. PMA-234 saw such great potential in what the four contractors were developing that it granted a one-year extension through April 2013.

NGJ will be introduced to the � eet in increments, the � rst of which will be mid-band (the bands are classi� ed in terms of frequencies) covering the majority of the existing threats. The target date for the Block 1 IOC is 2020.

Block 2 will be an upgrade to the current, very robust low-band capability. This upgrade is necessary because of the sheer amount of targeting activity that goes on in the low-band spectrum for which NGJ will need coherent and fast reactive capabilities.

All aspects of the NGJ contracts to date and the contract award most likely in the early summer of 2013 support the weapon system achieving its Block 1 2020 IOC.

“We have a solid path forward not only because of investments made on the government side, but also some very signi� cant investments being made by our contractors. These are going to serve the programme well when, during the TD competition, we award to one contractor.

“The original plan was to go from four competing contractors, to two, to one but that was going to be quite expensive to do. Now

the contract will go from four, straight to the winning contractor.

“We’ve seen a level of technology maturation that supports us going to one vendor at a risk level that’s very acceptable. We took that information to Mr Kendall [Frank Kendall currently serves as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics] in December 2011 and he approved our strategy change based on how we were doing and how we were maturing the technologies,” said Capt Green.

This summer PMA-234 will award a contract for technology development which forms the next two-year phase.

This is designed to mature the required technologies to what the navy calls technology readiness level six and a preliminary design review. The two aspects will support a milestone B decision that will take NGJ into its engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. This is a Milestone Decision Authority-led review that is undertaken at the end of a technology development phase. Its purpose is to make a recommendation or seek approval to enter the EMD phase and is considered the of� cial start of a programme.

“That will check and balance what we have built into the acquisition system. We’ll take that to the navy and OSD leadership for review in the summer of 2015, which will facilitate us [PMA-234] going into the EMD phase.”

Before EMD, PMA-234 and its contractor will test a preliminary pod design during the two-year technology demonstration phase in the anechoic chamber. This will validate that the design is capable of putting out the required level of power and metrics contained within the design proposal submitted.

EMD will involve producing prototype pods to allow aircraft integration and � ight testing. This is a signi� cant stage of the entire project because the results will make or break the programme.

Capt Green told the author that PMA-234 would buy about nine prototype pod sets that will be tested in labs, in the anechoic chamber and on the aeroplane throughout the test programme, which should run until the 2019 time frame. Two will end up being destroyed during the test-to-failure stage of reliability testing.

“We will start to buy the � rst low-rate production units in 2018 for use in the operational test and evaluation scheduled for 2020. Success in the operational testing will facilitate rolling out NGJ and delivery to the � eet in late 2020.”

The programme timeline is critical because of the growth of double-digit SAMS and IADS worldwide. Many countries can build a very credible surface-to-air system to protect their borders at a fraction of the cost of operating � ghter aircraft for the air-to-air role.

The four contractors currently funded for the technology maturation phase of the NGJ project are ITT Exelis, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Capt Green commented on the work they have undertaken so far: “We’ve been very pleased with their performance on technology maturation and we expect some big things from the winner of the TD.” Mark Ayton

Growler Supplement

Jamie H

unter