USAF on jamming

[Henry J Cobb]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=906
> The Prowler, he added, was designed to support Navy strike operations,
> not every service’s strike missions. The upshot is that the fleet is
> wearing out faster than planned, creating problems for the airframes,
> the electronics, the engines and other basic parts.
....
> “The Air Force did not realize they had to play with EW, but after the
> meeting with Aldridge they realize they do.”
....
> The service, for example, has a large jamming aircraft, the Compass
> Call, based on a C-130 medium-lift cargo plane. “They take a C-130 and
> fill them with intelligence officers and jammers. With a large,
> non-fighter airframe, range and radiation become a huge issue. ... It
> doesn’t matter how big the jammer is, if you are far away it doesn’t
> work.” The bigger the jammer, the bigger the radiation problem, he
> said.

Don't the same restrictions apply to the EB-52?

So if we must reduce the total numbers of heavy bombers in order to put
a bigger crew than the Growler's at risk, why not a B-1B based jammer?

The Lancer has basic stealth and the ability to run away at supersonic
speed when the situation gets too hot.

-HJC

[BUFDRVR]

HJC wrote:

>Don't the same restrictions apply to the EB-52?

A BUFF can go *many* places an EC-130 can't.

>So if we must reduce the total numbers of heavy bombers in order to put
>a bigger crew than the Growler's at risk, why not a B-1B based jammer?

A BUFF can go anywhere a Bone can go, the Bone has AC power issues and the
EB-52 will not lose the capability to drop weapons, not even a reduction in
load out.

>The Lancer has basic stealth and the ability to run away at supersonic
>speed when the situation gets too hot.

The BUFF has a much higher altitude capability and an already robust ECM suite.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"