A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #1  
Old February 15th 08, 09:37 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.

Fading Signal: The Neglect of Electronic Warfare.
Lexington Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1223.shtml

When you consider how much money Americans spend on defense -- about
$4 trillion so far in this decade alone -- it's amazing what a poor
job we do of maintaining our military arsenal. In the years since the
cold war ended, the Navy's fleet has shrunk by half to fewer than 300
ships, the Air Force's planes have "matured" to twice the age of the
commercial airline fleet, and the Army has largely abandoned the
production of heavy armored vehicles. There's a simple reason for all
these signs of military decay: the threat went away. No peer
adversary has taken the place of the Red Army or the Imperial Navy.

The decline of electronic warfare is harder to explain, because there
the threat never went away -- it got worse. Electronic warfare is the
fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum, the medium via
which all of our communications and information systems operate.
During the cold war, each military service nurtured a community of
specialists adept at blocking or manipulating enemy transmissions
while countering enemy efforts to do the same to us. They jammed
radars, disrupted command links, confused sensors and in general made
it difficult for adversaries to employ any electronic device.

When you're really good at electronic warfare, your enemy is nearly
helpless. He can't see, he can't hear, he can't even turn on the
lights. Electronic warfare is the reason why Syria's military didn't
know it was under attack last year until Israeli bombs began exploding
at its sole nuclear-weapons facility -- even though the jets dropping
the bombs had to transit Syrian air space to get to the target. Like
cyber warfare, it's the kind of warfighting skill that only a
technologically advanced country can be really good at, so you'd think
U.S. military planners would want to exploit it for maximum
leverage.

Well, guess again. Aside from the U.S. Navy and a small band of
dedicated congressmen called the Electronic Warfare Working Group,
this arcane specialty has become an orphan in the budgeting process.
The Air Force walked away from electronic warfare when it decided that
stealthy aircraft could be invisible to any radar (it later learned
that wasn't entirely true). The Army aborted plans to build an
"aerial common sensor" that could find hostile emitters on the
battlefield, only to discover that insurgents in Iraq were using cell
phones and electronic bomb detonators to great effect. And the
Marines just stopped thinking about the subject.

The Navy held on, developing a replacement for the aging Prowler
jamming plane called the Growler (a variant of the F/A-18 Super
Hornet). Part of the reason was that naval aviators weren't as
impressed with stealth as their Air Force counterparts, and so they
continued investing in other approaches to defending aircraft. The
Army has now rediscovered electronic warfare as a result of setbacks
in Iraq, and has sent soldiers to train with Navy specialists. But
even the Navy has lagged in funding next-gen capabilities, which
probably require unmanned aircraft that can get closer to hostile
emitters.

Perhaps the time has come to put the Navy in charge of all joint
electronic warfare activities. The other services don't have their
acts together, and the Navy is less stressed at the moment than the
ground forces. That could change, but the problem right now is that a
vital skill is being neglected, and the Navy may be the only service
with enough expertise and imagination to keep it alive.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CG(X) And The Future Of Naval Warfare. Mike[_1_] Naval Aviation 0 December 14th 07 06:28 PM
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy Mike Naval Aviation 0 December 27th 05 07:23 PM
GPS - losing signal Hilton Piloting 6 October 23rd 05 07:18 PM
Fading Rocker Switches O. Sami Saydjari Owning 2 February 16th 04 04:54 PM
asymetric warfare phil hunt Military Aviation 505 January 23rd 04 01:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.