Future Of Airborne Tactical Jamming SUBJECT AREA - Electronic Warfare CSC 95 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future of Airborne Tactical Jamming AUTHOR: LCDR Michael W. Ackerman, USN THESIS STATEMENT: By retiring the EF-111A Raven, the Air Force will have to rely on the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler for airborne tactical jamming support. DISCUSSION: The Department of Defense has experienced a large cut in the military budget since the end of the Gulf War. As a result, many very successful weapon system programs are finding it difficult to acquire needed funds. It is easy to justify keeping most weapon systems based upon their performance in the Gulf, but the nation needs to be smart about which systems it retains to ensure it is not sacrificing irreplaceable capabilities to keep redundant ones. Without a major threat like the Soviet Union, and because of the success of the Coalition in the Gulf War, it is hard to justify very expensive and redundant weapon systems. Utilizing funds to maintain redundant systems also reduces funds for the development of the next generation of weapons. This is where the Department of Defense is with the Air Force's EF-111A Raven tactical jammer. Both the Navy/Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler and the Air Force EF-111 proved themselves as force multipliers during Operation DESERT STORM. Both aircraft are now due for upgrades to ensure their electronic combat capabilities keep pace with technology. The problem is that the nation cannot afford to upgrade and maintain both aircraft. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has redirected funding from the Air Force's EF-111 program to the Department of the Navy directing that Navy EA-6Bs assume the land-based tactical jamming support missions for the Air Force. There are concerns that the EA-6B will not be able to replace the EF-111 because it is slower and has a shorter combat range. Proponents of the USN/USMC EA-6B point out that the EA-6B is a more capable tactical jammer than the EF-111, and also has communications jamming and high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) firing capabilities that the EF-111 does not possess. This paper reviews the two aircrafts performance in the Gulf War and addresses whether or not the nation will be adversely affected by having the EA-6B Prowler as the only airborne tactical jammer when the EF-111 retires. CONCLUSION: Because the replacement of the EF-111 with the EA-6B represents a substantial savings for the nation while increasing the Electronic Combat capabilities for the Air Force, the EA-6B can replace the EF-111 if sufficiently funded. TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 1 WORKING AS A TEAM 4 Operation DESERT SHIELD 4 Operation DESERT STORM 6 COMPATIBILITY 8 EA-6A Intruder 9 EA-6B Evolution 10 Air Force EF-111A Raven 11 Systems Improvement Program (SIP) Update 14 Lethal SEAD 15 Future Interoperability Capability 17 Tanker Incompatibility 18 Compatibility Conclusion 18 SUPPORTABILITY 19 Inventory of EA-6Bs 20 Supply-System Requirements 21 Intermediate Level Maintenance (I-level) 22 MANNING 23 Aircrew 24 Maintenance Technicians 25 CONCLUSION 26 APPENDIX A: AIRFRAME SPECIFICATIONS 32 NOTES 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 FUTURE OF AIRBORNE TACTICAL JAMMING MONEY, the reason the Department of Defense is transferring funds from the Air Force to the Navy for the tactical jamming mission is not based on need or capability, it is purely a budgetary decision. The Navy's EA-6B Prowler and the Air Force's EF-111 Raven, both of which performed well in Operation DESERT STORM, were due for upgrades to keep them viable into the next century. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) looked at the amount of money which was to be spent on the upgrades and decided to replace the EF-111 with EA-6Bs because it was cheaper. Will the military be adversely affected by this decision? Late in 1994, the Office of the Secretary of Defense issued Program Budget Decisions (PBD) 752 and 753 deleting Air Force EF-111A "Raven" funding after fiscal year 1997. The PBDs also transferred funding for an additional 20 EA-6B Prowlers and 1257 personnel to the Department of the Navy to assume all tactical jamming missions. On 21 January 1995, during a visit to the Puget Sound Shipyard, Admiral Mike Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, announced the Navy EA-6B would replace the EF-111A.1 The EA- 6B is currently flown by both the Navy and Marine Corps. It is assumed that the additional missions will be supported by the Navy since the Marine Corps is organized in support of the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF); however, the Marine EA-6B community is a good source for information on how to deploy the EA-6B land-based. This paper will first review the two aircrafts performance in the Gulf War then focus on three areas to determine if the military is going to be adversely affected by the EA-6B assumption of the EF-111 missions. These areas are compatibility, supportability and manning. The question of compatibility will be addressed by reviewing the evolution of the two aircraft and comparing their strengths and weaknesses. A comparison of aircraft capabilities is in Appendix A. While both planes share a common tactical jamming system, the services have developed different tactics concentrating on the strengths of each of the two planes. The EF-111 is a supersonic platform which has a tremendous combat radius because of its large internal fuel load. The EA- 6B is subsonic, with a much shorter combat radius, but it can carry high speed anti-radiation missiles (HARM), is capable of communications jamming and has a more capable tactical jamming system than the EF-111.2 The question is not "can the EA-6B replace the EF-111 using current Air Force tactics" but rather "can the EA-6B be integrated into Air Force tactics and perform the mission of the EF-111 without reducing the overall electronic combat capability of the Air Force?" There are several factors which must be explored to determine supportability. The Navy was funded for an additional 20 EA-6Bs, of which 16 are designated to replace the 24 EF-111s the Air Force currently deploys. These are not new aircraft being manufactured for the Navy as a result of the PBDs; instead, they are aircraft which were built when the Navy was going to have 15 Carrier Battle Groups. These additional EA-6Bs are not new planes which were parked and forgotten, but they are mostly planes in a configuration that is no longer being flown. As weapon systems are updated, aircraft with the new configuration replace aircraft with obsolete configurations. It does not make fiscal sense to update all aircraft if you are only going to utilize 75 percent of them. Funding to upgrade some of the additional EA-6Bs required for the Air Force mission has been authorized in the PBDs. Both services agree there is no way to maintain the current capability the Air Force possesses in electronic warfare (EW) by replacing 24 EF-111s with only 16 EA-6Bs; therefore, funding to upgrade additional EA-6Bs is being sought.3 A review of the inventory, or the number of EA-6Bs that are available to assume the Air Force's missions, will determine if the Navy can support this proposal. There are also maintainability issues associated because the Navy and Air Force have separate supply and maintenance systems. A breakdown of the supply and maintenance requirements needed to operate Navy EA-6Bs with the Air Force will be provided. If the EA-6B cannot be maintained when attached to the Air Force, then it does not matter how many are provided for the missions. Finally, who will man the squadrons? The Air Force, the Navy or a combination may be the best solution. This issue needs to be determined soon so training can begin. The Navy's EA-6B fleet replacement squadron, VAQ-129, will be utilized to train aircrew and technicians. Manning and training issued will be discussed to find the best solutions and help to determine if the EA-6B community can expand quickly enough to man the squadron(s). If the squadron(s) cannot be manned sufficiently by June of 1997, which is the month established for the EA-6B to assume all of the EF-111s commitments, then the military will be adversely affected by this decision. Remember, the decision to retire the EF-111 was an economic one. Is there an economic benefit to the nation by replacing the EF-111s with the EA-6Bs? If the price of expanding the EA-6B force to cover the mission is more expensive than retaining the EF-111, then the EF-111 needs to be retained. Also, if the military is adversely affected because there are not enough Prowlers around or if it is determined that they cannot be maintained because of the differences in the supply and maintenance systems, then the proposal needs to be revisited. Lastly, if the squadrons cannot be manned sufficiently by 1997, then the proposed turnover of missions from the EF-111 to the EA-6B needs to be revised. We will begin with a review of the aircrafts performance during the Gulf War. WORKING AS A TEAM Operation DESERT SHIELD The Navy quickly established sea superiority in the Persian Gulf and ensured control of the sea lines of communications (SLOC). The SLOCs were critical to the logistical build up of the Persian Gulf region. Ninety-five percent of all cargo was delivered by sealift. Naval forces on the scene also kept Teheran neutral by quickly demonstrating U.S. resolve by establishing a preliminary air defense screen between Iran and the Arabian peninsula.4 Besides allowing the build-up of Coalition forces, the DESERT SHIELD period allowed intelligence agencies an opportunity to learn as much as possible about the Iraqi integrated air defense system.5 This information was relayed to decision makers who understood its significance. In previous campaigns, this data was used to target specific systems or avoid exposure to attacking aircraft. In the Iraqi assessment, intelligence was used to identify critical weaknesses which could be exploited for the express purpose of causing maximum damage to the Iraqi structure with the smallest expenditure of resources. In electronic combat, this process is known as "critical node analysis."6 A detailed knowledge of the very capable Iraqi IADS was necessary for the Coalition's SEAD campaign planning. During the DESERT SHIELD period, Iraqi vulnerabilities were identified as:7 The rigid top-down nature of the command and control system and the inability of Iraqi forces to operate in autonomous modes; An air defense system that could be surprised by stealth and overwhelmed by massive lethal and electronic warfare air attacks; Ground forces and logistics vulnerable to air attack in desert conditions; A generally defensive approach to battle; Inexperience at sustaining offensive forces over great distances; Despite pre-stockage, an overextended and cumbersome logistics system; Faulty understanding of the full operational capabilities of Coalition forces; Inability to interfere with US space-based assets; Limited air offensive capability; and Ineffective foreign intelligence. The theater strategy was broken down into three phases, the first phase was to gain and maintain air superiority to permit unhindered air operations. This included attacking the strategic air defense systems including radar sites, air defense control centers, airfields and air forces.8 The electronic battle plan was designed to systematically destroy Saddam's eyes and ears.9 Plans envisioned that EA-6Bs and EF- 111s would be instrumental in this phase of the war. When the war started the Navy had 13 EA-6Bs aboard three carriers in the Persian Gulf and 14 aboard 3 carriers in the Red Sea. The Marine Corps had 12 EA-6Bs at Shaikh Isa, Baharan, while the Air Force had 18 EF-111s located at At-Taif, Saudi Arabia and six EF-111s at Incirlik, Turkey.10 OPERATION DESERT STORM Uninterrupted and extensive use of electronic warfare was the deciding factor in reducing the effectiveness of Iraq's air defenses. . .gaining supremacy of the frequency spectrum determined the success of gaining supremacy in the air. General Mal'tsev, Soviet Air Defense Forces The first two days of the SEAD plan consisted of 25 large-scale strikes. On one representative strike, Air Force aircraft attacked targets south of Baghdad, and Navy aircraft from the Red Sea attacked targets in the vicinity of Al Taqaddum. This was a multi-axis attack used to cause a reaction from the IADS and then destroy the radars. EF- 111s established jamming orbits in the south while BQM-74 drones were released to stimulate the IADS. Wild Weasels tasked to destroy high- threat mobile SAMs fired 60 HARMs on that mission. Simultaneously, EA- 6Bs established jamming orbits to the west. A-6s launched tactical air launched decoys, while A-7s and F/A-18s fired 51 HARMS to destroy the Iraqi IADS.11 The Joint Forces Air Component Commander (JFACC) tasked apportioned SEAD sorties to ensure a coordinated, effective, and prioritized SEAD effort. SEAD conduct was not an isolated effort but rather an integrated attack by coalition forces to destroy the entire Iraqi integrated air defense system (IADS).12 Electronic intelligence data for the period 16 January to 10 February showed a lot of electronic activity which decreased dramatically 48 to 72 hours into the war.13 While only 3 percent of the tactical aircraft in the war were dedicated SEAD platforms (EA-6B, EF-111A, F-4G, EC-130H), over 50 percent of the force was dedicated to the SEAD effort for the initial phases of the war.14 The real measurement of success was the extremely low loss rate of coalition aircraft during Operation DESERT STORM. There were about 40 out of 50,000 fixed-wing sorties lost due to the enemy. This equals a loss rate of less than 0.9 per 1,000 sorties. In comparison, the loss rate during Vietnam was 2.7 per 1000 sorties. The high and medium- altitude SAM threats were virtually eliminated by an effective and unrelenting SEAD campaign.15 "After [the] first night, no medium or high-altitude missiles were ever again fired at Allied aircraft in a controlled launch because of the effectiveness of the suppression campaign."16 "Once the lethal combination of jamming, high-speed anti- radiation missiles (HARMs), decoys, Tomahawk land attack missiles (TLAMSs), and precision-guided weapons sufficiently suppressed Iraqi air defenses, allied aircraft were free to strike targets virtually at will throughout Iraq."17 HARM missiles along with Stealth/Low Observability, Laser-Guided Bombs, Aerial Refueling and the STU-III, a secure telephone, were selected as the five technologies that worked the best during the Gulf War.18 The Air Force fired 1,067 HARMs, while the Navy and Marine Corps fired 894. While jamming was effective in reducing the enemy's capability to acquire targets, lethal SEAD with HARMs had an important deterrent effect. After the first days of the war, Iraqi radar operators would only turn on their radars for brief periods for fear of being attacked by HARMs. The operators would also turn off their radars if they knew a HARM-carrying aircraft was in the area.19 For coalition forces, the availability of EA-6Bs also became "go" or "no go" criterion in the Kuwait Theater of Operations (KTO), which means that the unavailability of electronic warfare aircraft was a reason to abort an attack mission.20 Since jamming is only effective while it is being transmitted, EA-6Bs were more instrumental in degrading the Iraqi IADS and protecting coalition aircraft during the Gulf War than the EF-111s because of their HARM threat. Red Sea EA-6Bs generated 1.2 sorties a day per aircraft, with an average length of five hours per sortie. Persian Gulf Prowlers generated 1.3 sorties a day per aircraft, with an average length of three hours per sortie. USMC Prowlers generated 1.3 sorties per day per aircraft, with an average length of three hours per sortie.21 Air Force EF-111s generated 1.1 sorties a day per aircraft (average length not available.)22 Prowler and Raven crews working together were sucessful in systematically defeating the Iraqi integrated air defense system. The Herculean SEAD effort by the Coalition forces helped establish air superiority early in the war. The outstanding performance was the result of the nations commitment to the Electronic Combat mission and years of training in preparation for this type of SEAD campaign. The EA-6Bs flew more sorties per aircraft per day than the EF-111 and presented a greater threat to the Iraqi IADS because of their HARM carrying capability. For these reasons, the EA-6B outperformed the EF- 111 in the Gulf War. Could the EA-6B have replaced the EF-111 during the Gulf War? The EA-6B proved it could be used in a campaign warfare and excel. A comparison of the two aircraft follows and will be used to determine if the EA-6B is capable of supporting Air Force strikes without adversly affecting the Electronic Combat capability the nation had during the Gulf War. COMPATIBILITY A basic knowledge of both the EA-6B's and EF-111's capabilities is required before analyzing whether or not the EA-6B is compatible with the Air Force. One central theme to remember during the discussion of the evolution of the two aircraft is the difference between the mindset of the two services and how the differences effected the weapon systems. The Air Force plans for and conducts campaign warfare.23 The designing and purchasing of single-mission capable airplanes which combine to conduct a more complex mission is referred to as a Federated approach to procurement and is based upon the treat they will face. USAF designers required the EF-111 be a tactical jammer able to transit long ranges and support attacks for extended periods of time. The Raven thus became a single-mission aircraft which relies upon its high speed for self- protection from enemy attack. The Naval services have a raid mentality with their tactical aircraft.24 The preferred tactics are quick and decisive. The Navy also has limited space on the carriers; therefore, multiple-mission capable platforms are needed. The F/A-18 strike fighter is the latest example of this evolution. The success of the multi-mission capability requirement by the Navy was illustrated on 17 January 1991 when a division of F/A-18s encountered 2 Mig-21s near their target. The pilots were able to identify and destroy both MIGs, acquire their assigned targets and successfully attack those targets with MK-84 bombs.25 The EA-6B is also a multi-mission platform capable of jamming or destroying enemy equipment by carrying jammer pods, communications jamming equipment, HARM anti-radiation missiles or a combination of these. This provides flexibility for the Carrier Battle Group or MAGTF Commander. The use of Navy and Marine Corps EA-6Bs in support of the joint forces air component commander (JFACC) to suppress Iraqi air defenses during Operation DESERT STORM indicates that the EA-6B is also capable of conducting campaign warfare. Most dedicated electronic warfare platforms are modifications to aircraft designed for other missions. Although the EA-6B is similar in appearance to the A-6 and shares some minor components, it was designed and built specifically for the EW mission. This review will highlight the capabilities and weaknesses of the EA-6B for comparison later with the EF-111 to determine if the military will be adversely affected by the replacement of the EF-111 with the EA-6B. EA-6A Intruder The predecessor for the EA-6B Prowler was the EA-6A Intruder which was a Grumman designed and modified two seat A-6 bomber to fill the EW requirement of the Marine Corps. The EA-6A entered service in 1963. The first combat missions flown in the EA-6A were with the Marines of VMCJ-1 deployed to Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam, in November 1966. A detachment of this squadron remained in Vietnam until January 1973. The Marine EA-6A squadrons were responsible for pioneering and developing many of the EW concepts and tactics used by EA-6B crews today. Other than the two Navy reserve squadrons, VAQ-209 and VAQ-309, the Navy did not employ the EA-6A until 1979, and then it was only as a supporting and training role in VAQ-33 and VAQ-34. Only the Marines deployed aboard carriers with this airframe.26 EA-6B Evolution The Navy realized the EA-6A was a capable system but did not think it had the capacity for future growth due to its small size and two-man crew. In November 1965, the Navy issued a formal requirement which Grumman designed into the four-seat EA-6B Prowler. The crew consists of a pilot and three Electronic Countermeasures Officers (ECMOs). The first aircraft was delivered to the Navy in January 1971. Prowlers first saw combat with VAQ-132 on 12 July 1972, supporting an Alpha Strike with Air Wing 3 off the USS Saratoga against North Vietnam.27 The first production EA-6Bs were called the Standard version. From the beginning, the Navy has been committed to upgrading the weapon system to keep it at the cutting edge of electronic warfare. The next version, Extended Capability (EXCAP), was soon accepted by the Navy. The first EXCAP deployment occurred in January 1974. EXCAP doubled the number of frequency bands that the Prowler could receive and influence over the Standard version. As the EXCAP was entering the fleet, development of the follow-on was underway. The Improved Capability (ICAP, later known as ICAP I) version was a major change from the EXCAP and Standard versions. Previously, the front seat ECMO was responsible for the tactical jamming system (TJS) as well as navigator/copilot duties. The two backseat ECMOs assisted with the TJS and ran some communications equipment. ICAP placed the TJS operations exclusively with the two rearseat ECMOs, allowing ECMOI to assume more of a copilot function. ICAP also improved the weapon system electronically by adding "digitally tuned receivers, fully integrated computer controlled EW system, and improved displays."28 ICAP II came in January 1984. Major improvements allowed two separate frequency band coverage from a single jammer pod, updated the main computer and installed an Inertial Navigation System (INS). During this time, the Prowler gained a HARM shooting capacity to offset the loss of that capability upon the retirement of the A-7 Corsair. The ICAP II/Block 86/89 that followed were still new production aircraft. While the Block 86 offered some new radios, the major improvements were in the computer software. The last production aircraft rolled off the assembly line on 29 October 1990. "It is generally accepted that the EA-6B's capability is superior to that of the EF-111, even though both aircraft are equipped with the Eaton Corporation, AIL Division AN/ALQ-99 jamming system."29 Air Force EF-111A Raven In the late 1960's, the USAF studied a modification of the EB-66 known as the Interim Tac Warning System (ITEWS) for the EW mission. Air Force studies determined this program was too costly and impractical. From 1968-1970 the study concentrated on a purchase of Navy EA-6B Prowlers to meet its tactical jamming needs but eventually rejected the EA-6B because of its lack of speed and relatively short combat radius.30 A modified version of the ALQ-99 tactical jamming system used in the Prowler would eventually be used by the Air Force in the EF-111A. After rejecting the EA-6B Prowler, the Air Force continued to search for a tactical jammer. The program gained some priority in 1973, when the Israelis armed with U.S. weapons lost large amounts of aircraft and equipment during the Yom Kippur War. The Egyptians and Syrians had launched a massive offensive to crush the 25-year-old state and regain control of the Suez Canal and Golan Heights. The Soviets had designed and deployed a "mix-and-match, layered, integrated air defense network, which sorely challenged the Israeli-flown, US-supplied, state-of-the-art fighter-bombers' countermeasures equipment."31 The sheer number of aircraft lost shook the US Department of Defense. This event, matching U.S. made equipment against a new mix of Soviet equipment, was instrumental in the decision to proceed with a tactical jamming platform for the USAF. The only land-based dedicated electronic combat aircraft the U.S. had was the aging Douglas EB-66 Destroyer which was scheduled for decommissioning in early 1974. The USAF began an extensive research program looking for defense- suppression, stand-off weapons-delivery and electronic combat aircraft. These programs were collectively known as "Pave Strike."32 The Pave Strike programs included design of the F-4G "Advanced Wild Weasel" to provide the stand-off weapon-delivery capability as well as the search for an advanced jammer for electronic combat to replace the aging Destroyer. The USN/USMC EA-6B Prowler was again seriously considered, but rejected because the Air Force demanded a high speed penetration jammer which ruled out the subsonic Prowler. There was much speculation that the EA-6B Prowler was rejected because the Air Force did not want another aircraft which the Navy helped design after what had happened with the F-111. In 1961, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara had designated the F-111 program, then known as the TFX, as the core of a joint-service design to improve commonality between aircraft, thus reducing cost. The Navy offshoot, TFX-N, would replace the USN and USMC F-4s and F-8s, while the Air Force design was to replace the "Century Series" aircraft. A commonality of 85 percent and a proposed production of 3,000-plus, including foreign military sales, promised attractive unit cost. The Navy insisted on three features: the crew escape capsule, side-by-side seating, and the weapons bay. These items eventually made the F-111 so large that it could not operate off aircraft carriers as a fighter-bomber, so the Navy was able to extricate itself from the program after spending $238 million on seven airframes. Interestingly, the AWG-9 Radar and AIM-54 Phoenix weapon system designed for the TFX-N became the basis for the F- 14 Tomcat fighter (tandem ejection seats and external wing stations for stores) the Navy would eventually buy from Grumman.33 The Air Force's solution was to install a modified EA-6B tactical jamming system (TJS) into the supersonic F-111. The jamming system built by Eaton AIL and installed by Grumman became the ALQ-99E. This system was more automated than the Navy system because the EF-111 had one dedicated system operator compared to the EA-6B's three. In the early 1980s Grumman claimed "a force of five EF-111s could radiate enough power to affect most of the Warsaw Pact's air-defense radars from the Baltic to the Adriatic."34 The Air Force converted a total of 42 F-111s from 1979 to 1983 at an average cost of about $21 million each. Putting the ALQ-99E TJS into the EF-111 proved to be quite a challenge to the engineers at Grumman. The system added 6,000 pounds to the basic airframe, and test flights required 700 pounds of ballast in the nose wheel area to balance the center of gravity changed by the addition of the system's receivers in the "football" on top of the vertical stabilizer. The EF-111 flies three principal profiles: stand-off, strike escort, and close air support.35 Without HARM-firing capability, the Raven is restricted to the non-lethal suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) role. During a "stand-off" profile, the aircraft generally operates independently from a safe distance while strike aircraft destroy enemy air defenses. Fewer jammers can cover a wide area to protect several strikes. Due to the arrangement of the transmitters in the weapons bay, the EF-111 has less airframe interference/blocking while providing jamming off its wings. This makes it most effective in the stand-off jamming profile. Maximum protection is provided when the jamming aircraft has geometric alignment with the striking aircraft and the enemy radar. This alignment is provided when the jammer and strike aircraft are on the same relative bearing from the threat radar, which is achieved with the strike escort profile. The jamming aircraft will fly in formation during the strike escort role and provide close in area jamming support in the close air support role. Airframe masking from the fuselage makes the Raven less effective in this role, although the close alignment allowed by flying formation with the strikers into the threat area offers more protection to the entire strike group. In contrast, the EA-6B has fuselage interference from the outboard jammers when perpendicular to the threat axis because the jammers are carried on the wing stations, and experiences no masking when jamming nose or tail- on to the threat axis. The ability for the EA-6B to escort high speed Air Force strike packages in this profile is one of the main contentions between EA-6B and EF-111 supporters. While the jamming transmitters on the EA-6B are more effective because there is no aircraft masking on the strike escort profile, the aircraft has a combat airspeed from 420-480 knots compared to the EF-111s combat airspeed of 510-570 knots (see Appendix A). Systems Improvement Program (SIP) Update The EF-111 SIP was designed to improve the reliability, maintainability, and flexibility of the electronic warfare suite as well as to improve jammer effectiveness. The first fully operational EF-111 SIP aircraft was scheduled to fly in September 1993 but was delayed nine months for software problems. The initial delay put the program in jeopardy, causing an additional 30-month delay due to budget stretchout. These delays resulted in a program cost increase from an initial $219 million to about $375 million. To prevent further delays, the upgrade was divided into two phases. The phased program would result in initial production during fiscal year 1999. The first phase upgrade would mean 100 times the tracking capability, 100 times faster processing speed and 50 percent reduction in system response time. Phase two of the upgrade was aimed at jammer improvements. The new digital-based exciter would have resulted in significantly more jammer spots, increased the systems effective radiated power by "orders of magnitude" and would have been capable of jamming coherent radars. The EF-111 SIP would also gain band 9 capabilities which the EA-6B currently possesses.36 However, the SIP was cancelled by the Air Force to save funds for the F-22 program. Senators D'Amato, Moynihan and other senators, in a letter to Secretary of Defense William Perry on 17 January 1995, requested a 60-day delay after they received a report from the Air Force detailing the USAF "strategy for keeping the EF-111 a modern and viable platform through 2015," before action is taken on the SIP contract.37 The 60 days was to allow the senators time to ensure the Air Force did not act prematurely when it allowed the EF-111 SIP to be cancelled. General Fogelman, chief of staff of the Air Force, has also expressed his doubts about the cancellation plans.38 As a result, the SIP program is being reviewed. Lethal SEAD Lethal SEAD physically destroys or incapacitates critical parts of the air defense system such as radar antenna and communications links. The Navy's desire for the EA-6B to have the ability to render a weapon system useless goes back to its war-fighting mentality. While the Air Force was satisfied with the single-mission capability of the EF-111, the Navy required more capable and flexible assets on the carriers. The EA-6B carries the AGM-88 high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) as well as tactical jamming pods. This gives the Prowler greater flexibility on missions. The evolution of the Navy's suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) program during the design of the Prowler and the HARM carrying capability of the aircraft are important to understand when comparing the Prowler to the Raven. It is also important that we understand where the USAF is going with their lethal SEAD program upon the retirement of the F-4G because the Air Force will not only get a more capable tactical jamming system with the EA-6B, but will also be able to permanently destroy enemy weapon systems which will reduce the need for jammers as a campaign is prosecuted. During the Vietnam War, the Navy developed the A-6B equipped with radar homing weapons to destroy the Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) radar systems. Nineteen A-6's were modified to perform the "Iron Hand" mission. This platform proved very successful temporarily. The Soviets soon changed the frequency on which the radar operated to one the A-6B weapon system could not target. The EA-6B was being developed during this period, and the ability of the Soviets to alter their system to render one of our newest EW targeting systems ineffective resulted in the design of a tactical jamming system for the Prowler that could quickly react to changes and had sufficient capacity for future upgrades. Meanwhile, the Air Force was using F-100F and F-105F and G "Wild Weasel" aircraft equipped with anti-radiation missiles designed to "home-in" on radar signals and destroy the critical nodes of weapon systems (like the Navy A-6B). The F-4G "Advanced Wild Weasel" eventually replaced these aircraft. The Air Force contacted McDonnell Aircraft Company and General Dynamics in 1986 to develop a replacement for the aging F-4G Wild Weasel. These two companies recommended putting the F-4G's APR-47 system into the two-seat F-15E and two-seat F-16. The Air Force concluded that the F-15E would be modified with the APR-47 to maintain the capabilities of the F-4G. However, this proposal was cancelled in 1989, even though the F-4G would retire in 1993. The decision not to modify the F-15E was made to save funds for the F-22 and B-2. USAF Air Combat Command was again tasked with developing a replacement for the F-4G. A three phase plan was developed. Phase one was F-16s equipped with the HARM Targeting System (HTS), which has been accomplished, phase two was two-seat F-15Es equipped with the "radar- hunting, Precision Direction Finder (PDF),"39 and phase three was for F- 16s equipped with a variant of the PDF system. This approach would leave the Air Force with less lethal SEAD capability than it currently has with the F-4G. The Air Force has since terminated the F-15E PDF program and recommended a single-seat F-15C with a modified PDF-like system be used for SEAD.40 The Air Force has also reduced SEAD program funding by 50 percent through the 5-year defense plan.41 The Air Force is PAI funded for 36 F-4Gs which are being retired and 72 HTS equipped F-16s in fiscal year 1995. This compares to 512 USN/USMC F/A-18s and 60 USN/USMC EA-6Bs funded for fiscal year 1995, which are all capable of firing HARMs. Supporting the Air Force with HARM capable EA-6Bs greatly enhances their dwindling lethal SEAD posture. Having the EA-6B arrive in support of the Air Force with a lethal as well as non-lethal SEAD capability will be a force multiplier. Future Interoperability Capability On 19 May 1994, a specially configured Prowler attached to VAQ- 209, a Navy reserve squadron, was successful in passing beyond-line-of- sight off-board sensor targeting data to a HTS equipped F-16. The F-16 pilot successfully launched a HARM in the "Range Known" mode using this targeting data.42 Targeting data was transmitted between aircraft on the improved data modem which is an addressable protocol capable of directing information to hundreds of receivers across the battlespace. The A-10 and F-16 Block 50 aircraft currently have the improved data modem which is compatible with Army aviation and artillery fire control systems. The MH-53, MC-130, P-3C and EA-6B aircraft are being equipped with the multi-mission advanced tactical terminal to receive off-board targeting data. E-8C JSTARS and several tactical aircraft communities including E-2C, F/A-18, F-15E and S-3 are pursuing capability to receive off-board targeting data.43 The ability for the Prowler to receive off- board targeting data and direct multiple F-16 HTS and F/A-18 HARM shooters in the conduct of joint SEAD strikes, provides a major force multiplier for future conflicts. Tanker Incompatibility Air Force tanking was singled out as one of the five technologies that worked best during the Gulf War.44 There is a problem of compatibility between Navy and Air Force refueling systems, though. The Navy, Marine Corps and most other Coalition aircraft in Operation DESERT STORM rely upon a basket or drogue assembly45 which the pilot engages with the refueling probe by maneuvering the plane. In contrast, on the Air Force's system the pilot flies the receiver aircraft into position behind the tanker and a boom operator on the tanker maneuvers a refueling probe into a refueling receptacle on the receiver aircraft. KC-10 tankers are equipped with both probe and drogue assemblies to accommodate either refueling system, but KC-135s have a single boom for refueling which must be equipped with either a probe or a drogue assembly prior to flight. The solution to the KC-135 problem is a wing drogue to accommodate Navy, Marine Corps and, in Operation DESERT STORM, a majority of coalition aircraft. The KC-135 drogue system has been funded for the last three years, but the funds have been diverted into other Air Force programs. These funds need to be utilized for the KC- 135 drogue system if the Air Force plans to support the attached EA-6Bs. Compatibility Conclusion The military is downsizing as a result of a diminished Soviet threat. Because of the reduction, the remaining weapon systems must do more than the systems they replace. Lt Col James R. Brungess, USAF, refers to this as a shift from a threat-based continuum to one that is capabilities-based.46 The Navy and Marines have always tended to [the capability-based end of the spectrum]....and the Air Force toward the threat-based end. The Air Force is moving toward the capability-based end for two reasons: an uncertain threat and diminishing fiscal resources that mitigate against acquiring mission-specific weaponry. A generalized capability-based JSEAD-though explainable on the basis of economic pragmatism-is dangerous because it makes American air power vulnerable to technological surprise. ...However, the move toward capability-based JSEAD provides opportunities...in that it forces a more flexible distribution of assets and it aids in the development of more innovative tactics.47 Lt Col Brungess also makes the point that SEAD strategy is tactics- driven. "SEAD planners must determine what can and cannot be done with: the tools at hand....Each tool has absolute limits, but using the tools in different combinations may reveal different synergies.48 With (1) the KC-135 tanking compatibility problem resolved, (2) the fact that the EA-6B has a better tactical jamming system than the EF-111, communications jamming capability, and the ability to employ HARMs,plus (3) the pending loss of the F-4G and the negative impact that will have on the Air Force's lethal SEAD capability, and (4) the understanding that SEAD strategy is tactics driven and the use of different "tools" based upon their capabilities will lead to the development of more innovative tactics leads to the conclusion that the EA-6B is compatible with the Air Force and will not adversely affect the military by using it to replace the EF-111. SUPPORTABILITY A look at the number of EA-6Bs available and the configuration of those aircraft will be the first part of our study on supportability. As stated in the beginning, the 16 EA-6Bs now funded for the direct support of the Air Force will replace 24 EF-111s which are currently used for those commitments are insufficient. Funding for additional EA- 6Bs is being pursued.49 A look at the total number of Prowlers available will give us a better feel for the true expansion capability of the EA-6B community. A look at possible ways to support the aircraft while deployed with the Air Force will be used to determine if the EA-6B is supportable with current Navy or Air Force maintenance and supply systems or if some changes are required in those areas. The solutions outlined for the supply and maintenance systems may not be the best solution but are "a solution" used to determine supportability. If there are not enough EA-6Bs available, or if they cannot be properly supported while deployed, then the proposal to replace the EF-111s with EA-6Bs will adversely affect the military and should not be done. Inventory of EA-6Bs There are 130 EA-6B airframes remaining. Seventy have the ICAP II Block 82 configuration, 57 have the ICAP II Block 86/89 configuration and 3 are experimental. All EA-6Bs would be upgraded to a common configuration.50 Sixty are primary aircraft inventory aircraft (PAI).51 PAI denotes aircraft authorized to combat units for performance of their basic missions; it excludes aircraft for other purposes, such as training, testing, attrition replacements, and reconstitution reserves.52 These deployable Prowlers are distributed to nine Navy and four Marine squadrons with an average of four to five aircraft each. To put it in perspective, 27 Navy and 12 Marine EA-6Bs deployed for Operation DESERT STORM.53 There are currently 27 additional Prowlers available which could be updated to assume the Air Force mission. Projected service life on the EA-6B airframes is 2015, the same as the EF-111. The two program budget decisions (PBDs), which transferred funds from the Air Force to the Department of the Navy for the tactical jamming mission, authorized funding to operate and maintain twenty additional EA-6B Prowlers. The breakdown was for 16 aircraft to assume the Air Force mission, PAI, and for 4 additional aircraft to be assigned to the Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRS) for the training of additional personnel to man these new squadrons. If additional Prowlers are funded, there are a sufficient number of EA-6Bs which can replace the EF-111s. Rework needs to begin now to ensure properly configured aircraft are available in the near future. While the Air Force deployed to the Persian Gulf with 100 percent of their PAI EF-111s, the Navy had about 20 additional PAI aircraft in reserve to respond if needed. Those 20 additional PAI aircraft does not include the assets that will be reworked for the Air Force support missions. Supply System Requirements Without an adequate supply network to support the EA-6Bs working with the Air Force, availability of fully mission capable tactical jammers will decline and the military will be adversely affected. Therefore, a workable logistics tail must be established to support those assets if the Navy EA-6Bs are to replace the EF-111. Marine aviation forces deploy with a Fly-In Support Package (FISP) which contains a 30 day supply packout. Each FISP is aircraft peculiar to ensure a tailored support package is available. They may also deploy with a larger 90 day Contingency Support Package (CSP). The FISP and CSP, coupled with the common support organic to the MAGTF, allow Marine EA-6Bs to operate as an expeditionary force.55 An expanded FISP could be the solution for readily available repair parts without having to depend on the Air Force supply system. The Air Force supply system needs to be searched for spare parts that are used on the EF-111 and are common to the EA-6B. Identifying those parts may prevent the removal of them from the supply system if the EF-111 is replaced by the EA-6B. Excess parts should then be incorporated in the Navy supply system. The mothball status of the Raven is also of interest to Navy logisticians. If the aircraft are not required to be preserved intact, common parts may be removed for use in the Prowlers. Some of the major items that the Navy needs are the jammer transmitters located in the bomb bay and the receivers located in the "football" on top of the tail. The identification of spare parts for use by the EA-6B will save the Department of Defense funds and result in a greater availability of tactical jammers. Currently the USAF supports EF-111 detachments in Incirlik, Turkey, and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, with daily flights from Dover AFB.56 This allows the Air Force to deploy with a minimum of spare parts. Usual turnaround is two days for parts, though it takes longer for some. McChord AFB, south of Seattle, WA, would be the nearest supply integration point for spares coming from NAS Whidbey Island, WA, en route to Dover AFB. Will the Navy supply system be capable of supporting these planes or will the Air Force supply system need to accommodate their needs? Spare parts are too expensive to maintain an adequate inventory in two separate supply systems. The Air Force should supply common items, but a supplemented packout upon deployment and a responsive Naval supply system should meet most contingencies. A higher priority for spares parts may be all that is required. Intermediate Level Maintenance (I-Level) Some spare parts replaced on the flight line by organizational level maintenance technicians are repairable. These repairs are accomplished by intermediate level technicians in vans uniquely equipped to support specific aircraft systems. The Navy and Marine Corps currently own 18 EA-6B van sets. Thirteen are assigned to carriers, four belong to the Marines and one is stationed at NAF Washington (Andrews AFB) with the reserve EA-6B squadron VAQ-209.57 The functional capabilities of the afloat and ashore vans are identical. Ashore configurations differ by the type of support equipment like air conditioners or generators that are required. There are five major EA-6B specific vans per set. These are primarily used to troubleshoot and repair components of the tactical jamming system. The Marines also have vans which are a shared asset of the FSSG. These additional shared vans support Communication, Navigation, Component Repair, Instrumentation, Electrical and DECM systems and components. Navy squadrons utilize aviation intermediate maintenance depots (AIMD) repair facilities on board the carriers for these systems when deployed. Expanded van sets which contain EA-6B specific vans and vans which support the systems that are normally serviced by the carrier's AIMD need to be procured. Air Force maintenance support for these non-EA-6B specific systems needs to be identified to prevent a duplication of capabilities. The possibility of modifying the test benches currently used to repair EF-111's ALQ-99E components for use on the USN/USMC ALQ- 99, needs to be researched. These modified benches could then be installed in vans for future deployments. With additional van sets, funding for spare parts, and access to common items from the Air Force supply system, the Navy supply system can support EA-6Bs deployed with the Air Force. Allowing the Navy to remove critical parts from EF-111s would reduce cost to the Department of Defense and provide for a more supportable tactical jammer force. MANNING The program budget decisions (PBD) which gave the tactical jamming mission to the Department of the Navy included funding for an additional 1257 personnel. The PBDs implied the additional personnel were for the new EA-6B mission. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has been requested to specify that the manpower increase was for the direct support of the transition plan. Because the military is downsizing, there are concerns that the funding may migrate to other programs if it is not clearly earmarked.58 Retention of EA-6B trained aircrew and technicians will be critical to prevent a severe manpower shortage. Aggressive retention programs aimed at the EA-6B community must start now because specialized training of new members in this airframe needed to begin before now. If the squadron(s) cannot be manned sufficiently to assume the Air Force tactical jamming missions, then the military will be adversely affected and a the rate of turnover needs to be revised. Aircrew Aircrew training should have begun a year ago to produce the additional pilots and flight officers (ECMOs) required for the aircraft needed to assume the EF-111 mission upon its decommissioning in fiscal year 1997. Working backwards from June 1997, the month the Naval services will assume the final Air Force commitments, we will construct a time line using averages for training. The average new pilot takes approximately 9 months to complete the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS); this means the pilot should finish flight training by October 1996. Average training time for a jet pilot is 24 months, which means initial flight training should start by October 1994. This example shows that we are a minimum of one year behind, assuming a new pilot could be recruited and start training by October 1995. Closed-loop detailing, or the use of only Prowler crews to man Prowler jobs to the exclusion of other career enhancing billets, could be a short term solution to this shortage. Additional instructors, as well as experienced aircrews for the Air Force support squadron(s) will be needed. Another solution may include the cross training of EF-111 pilots and EWOs in the EA-6B. USAF crews give the squadron(s) corporate knowledge into Air Force doctrine and will assist in the transition from EF-111 to EA-6B support of the tactical jamming commitments. The Marine Corps also has a pool of trained EA-6B pilots and ECMOs. Maintenance Technicians The same problem exists for maintenance technicians. The A-6 community would be a valuable resource area for technicians since that community is being decommissioned, leaving a pool of enlisted in the Whidbey Island area. Similarities between the A-6 and EA-6B aircraft would save training time for some jobs, but the more technical fields like the technicians who work on the Tactical Jamming System are uniquely trained. The time line from recruit training to becoming a productive troubleshooter takes several years. Currently, Navy and Marine Corps fleet EA-6B squadrons take a team of highly specialized technicians qualified for intermediate level (I- level) maintenance.59 Navy I-level technicians are provided in detachments from the Aviation Intermediate Maintenance Department (AIMD) SEAOPDET section. The SEAOPDET is attached to the carrier's AIMD when embarked. They either work in common shops with members from other SEAOPDETs or, for EA-6B unique technicians, they work in an assortment of "vans." These vans contain test benches equipped to repair electronic circuitry and mechanical systems which are removed and replaced by the organizational level (flight line) troubleshooters. Some of the I-level maintenance performed is unique to an aircraft type, while other procedures are common to several airframes. It is necessary to identify common I-level maintenance available from the Air Force as well as determining additional requirements that may have been common to Naval aircraft but will be considered unique when operating with the Air Force. Knowing what procedures the deploying Prowler squadron(s) will need to be able to perform will ensure that manning is correct. Training the pilots and ECMOs for the new squadrons can be accomplished if they are identified now and proceed through the established syllabus. The Navy will have to augment the squadrons with aircrew who are currently EA-6B qualified until replacement aircrew are available. The real challenge for the Navy is to identify the technicians that are required when working with the Air Force that are not currently a member of the fleet squadrons. A squadron manning document must be designed to include those rates. A delay in designing the new manning document will further delay the process of recruiting and training additional personnel in those rates. Personnel in technical ratings must be identified and begin training now to prevent a critical shortage later. Training of adequate numbers of new personnel and aggressive retention programs aimed at the EA-6B community need to start now. Manning is the critical link in the ability of the Navy to assume the new missions. Retraining A-6 technicians and EF-111 pilots and EWOs, as well as closed-loop detailing of EA-6B aircrew should provide sufficient manpower for the EA-6B Air Force support squadron(s). CONCLUSION FACT: The EA-6B is slower than the EF-111. FACT: The EA-6B has a shorter combat radius than the EF-111. FACT: The EA-6B has a more capable tactical jamming system than the EF- 111. FACT: The EA-6B carries communications jamming equipment which the EF- 111 does not. FACT: The EA-6B has a lethal SEAD capability with the HARM which the EF-111 does not. FACT: The EA-6B was designed for raid type warfare. FACT: The EF-111 was designed for campaign warfare. FACT: The EA-6B proved it was able to participate and excel in a campaign type war during Operation DESERT STORM. FACT: The EA-6B is less expensive to operate than the EF-111. FACT: There are sufficient EA-6Bs available to replace the EF-111. FACT: The military is in a period of downsizing. The EA-6B is not an EF-111. The major weaknesses of the Prowler when comparied to the Raven are the slower speed and shorter range. In contrast, the major strengths of the Prowler when comparied to the Raven are its superior tactical jamming system, communications jamming capability, and HARM carrying ability. Tanking was identified as one of the nation's strengths during Operation DESERT STORM. The EA-6B has a greater combat radius than the F-4G Wild Weasel and tanking was provided to ensure the Wild Weasel could be used against the Iraqi integrated air defense system (IADS). Accommodating the EA-6B by allowing it to be based near the battlespace and providing tanking assets would ensure sufficient electronic combat coverage for Air Force and Coalition strike packages. The solution to the KC-135 tanker is a wing drogue to accommodate Navy and Marine aircraft which has been funded and needs to be purchased if the Air Force plans to support the attached EA-6Bs. Air Force tactics can evolve to accomodate the speed differences. During the Gulf War, the Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B squadrons generated more sorties per aircraft per day than the Air Force did with its EF-111 force. The EF-111 and EA-6B jammers flew similar flight profiles against the same Iraqi targets, which means that the systems were similar enough that they could be intermixed. The real advantage belonged to the EA-6B because of its deterrent effect due to its HARM carrying capability. The EA-6B could have easily replaced the EF-111 in Operation DESERT STORM. Since the EA-6B is compatible with the Air Force, supportable while deployed, can be adequately manned, is less expensive and causes no adverse affect on the military, the Prowler is a suitable replacement for the EF-111; therefore, the EA-6B Prowler is the future of airborne tactical jamming. Click here to view image NOTES 1. Mary Kay Doody, "Prowler Gets a New Job," Whidbey News-Times, 25 January 1995, A1. 2. Wayne P. Gagner, "Black Art Electronic Systems Prove Merit in Gulf Air War," Signal, April 1991, 28. 3. Paul Mann, "Washington Outlook: Jamming Upgrade," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 3 April 1995, 25. 4. James Blackwell, Michael J. Mazarr, and Don M. Snider, The Gulf War: Military Lessons Learned (Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1991), 19. 5. Brungess, 38. 6. Brungess, 39. 7. Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: An Interim Report to Congress (Washington, DC: GPO, 1991), 2-4,5. 8. DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict, 2-6. 9. CDR William Luti, USN, "Battle of the Airwaves," Proceedings, January 1992, 54. 10. DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 106-110. 11. Department of Defense, Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume 4: Weapons, Tactics, and Training (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993), 186-188. 12. Keaney, 240. 13. DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 164. 14. Brungess, 43. 15. Norman Friedman, Desert Victory: The War For Kuwait (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991), 148. 16. Maj James Blackwell, USA (Ret.), Thunder in the Desert (New York: Bantam Books, 1991), 132. 17. Luti, 50. 18. Keaney, 223. 19. Keaney, 229-230. 20. Luti, 53. 21. DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 687. 22. DoD, Gulf War Air Power Survey, volume 5, 375. Sortie rate was determined by taking 1105 EF-111 sorties divided by 42 days, then dividing by 24 airplanes. 23. Lt Col James R. Brungess, USAF, Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint War Fighting in an Uncertain World (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 1994), 105. 24. Brungess, 105. 25. Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress (Washington, DC: GPO, 1992), 708. 26. James Wogstad and Phillip Friddell, Grumman EA-6B Prowler and EA-6A Intruder (San Antonio, TX: Aerophile, 1985), 20-21. 27. Wogstad. 28. Wogstad. 29. Gagner. 30. Bill Gunston, An Illustrated Guide to Spyplanes and Electronic Warfare Aircraft (New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1983), 80-85. 31. Anthony Thornborough and Peter Davies, F-111 Success in Action (London: Arms & Armor Press, Ltd., 1989), 85. 32. "General Dynamics EF-111, The 'Earth Pig'," World Airpower Journal, Volume 14 (Autumn/Fall 1993), 49. 33. "General Dynamics EF-111, The 'Earth Pig'," 50-51. 34. Martin Streetly, World Electronic Warfare Aircraft (United Kingdom: Jane's Publishing Company Limited, 1983), 68-70. 35. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft, Volume 1, under "Grumman/General Dynamics EF-111 Raven." 36. Stanley W. Kandebo, "Redefining EF-111 SIP to Fly Next Spring," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 10 October 1994, 69. 37. Senator Moynihan, Senator D'Amato and others, letter to the Secretary of the Department of Defense William Perry, concerning: "EF-111 SIP Program," 17 January 1995. 38. Steven Watkins, "There's hope for the EF-111," Air Force Times, 10 April 1995, 21. 39. John D. Morrocco and David A. Fulghum, "Radar-Killing F-15 May Fall to Budget Ax," Aviation Week and Space Technology, 12 September 1994, 75. 40. Morrocco. 41. U. S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses: Air Force Plans, September 1993, GAO/NSIAD-93-221, 5-6. 42. CDR Randy Nees, USNR, "Talon Sword- Keeping Their Heads Down," Proceedings, December 1994, 78. 43. Nees, 79. 44. Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993), 223. 45. DoD, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 173. 46. Brungess, 147. 47. Brungess, 148. 48. Brungess, 190. 49. Mann. 50. Mann. 51. DoD, Report of the Secretary of Defense, 208. 52. DoD, Report of the Secretary of Defense, 202. 53. Department of Defense, Gulf War Air Power Survey, Volume 5: A Statistical Compendium and Chronology (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993), 197. 54. Assuming these assets would be assigned to VAQ-129, the only EA-6B training squadron. VAQ-129 is manned by Navy and Marine instructor aircrew and technicians; as well as maintenance personnel from both services. 55. Lt Col Bill Hamlin, USMC, "Marine Maintenance Support Group," lecture presented at the CONOPS meeting, Oak Harbor, WA, 25 January 1995. 56. Transition Coordinator, Electronic Combat Wing Pacific memorandum to Commander, Electronic Combat Wing Pacific, subject: "Cannon AFB Trip Report," 16 February 1995. 57. Information provided to Commander Electronic Combat Wing Pacific, subject: "EA-6B I-Level Van Set Compliment," 16 January 1995. 58. Joint EA-6B Concept of Operations Meeting. 25-26 January 1995. Oak Harbor, WA. 59. Hamlin. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blackwell, James, Maj, USA (Ret.). Thunder in the Desert. New York: Bantam Books, 1991. _______,Michael J. Mazarr, and Don M. Snider. The Gulf War: Military Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1991. Brungess, James. Setting the Context: Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Joint War Fighting in an Uncertain World. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, 1994. Coulam, Robert. Illusions of Choice: The F-111 and the Problem of Weapons Acquisition Reform. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977. Coyne, James P. Airpower in the Gulf. Arlington, VA: Air Force Association, 1992. Department of Defense. Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: An Interim Report to Congress. Washington, DC: GPO, 1991. ____. Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress. Washington, DC: GPO, 1992. ____. Gulf War Airpower Survey, volume 4, Weapons, Tactics, and Training and Space Operations. Washington, DC: 1993. ____. Gulf War Air Power Survey, volume 5, A Statistical Compendium and Chronology. Washington, DC: GPO, 1993. ____. Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the Congress, February 1995. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995. Encyclopedia of World Military Aircraft, Volume One, under "Grumman: EA- 6B Prowler." ____. Volume One, under "Grumman/General Dynamics: EF-111 Raven." Friedman, Norman. Desert Victory: The War For Kuwait. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991. "General Dynamics F-111: The 'Earth Pig'." World Airpower Journal, Volume 14 (Autumn/Fall 1993): 48-101. Gillis, Lt Col, USAF (ACC Langley). "USAF Requirements for Jammer Aircraft." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 26 January 1995. "Grumman A-6 Intruder & EA-6B Prowler. " World Airpower Journal, Volume 12 (Spring 1993): 34-95. Gunston, Bill. An Illustrated Guide to Spyplanes and Electronic Warfare Aircraft. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1983. Hallion, Richard P. Storm Over Iraq. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1992. Hamlin, Bill, Lt Col, USMC (HQMC). "Marine Maintenance Support Group." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25 January 1995. Keaney, Thomas A., and Eliot A. Cohen. Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report. Washington, DC: GPO, 1993. Kelso, Admiral Frank and General Carl Mundy, Jr. Department of the Navy 1993 Posture Statement. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy. March 1993. Knaack, Marcelle. Post-World War II Fighters 1945-1973. Washington,DC: Office of Air Force History, 1985. Krech, Ken, CDR, USN. "Joint Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25 January 1995. Maxwell, CAPT, USN (NAVAIR). "EA-6B Phased Maintenance Plan and Service Life Expectancy." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25 January 1995. Miller, Albert, CDR, USN, (N880C3). "Focus for EA-6B/EF-111 Transition CONOPS meeting." Lectures presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25-26 January 1995. Naval Air Forces Pacific (Code N834). Memorandum to Electronic Combat Wing Pacific Code N3. Subject: "Flt Hour Funding for Additional EA-6Bs." 02 February 1995. Powell, James, CAPT, USN, (J-33). "EA-6B/EF-111 Missions and Joint Requirements." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25 January 1995. Rann, Lt Col, USMC, (HQMC). "Marine EW-Expeditionary." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 25-26 January 1995. Schmidt, CDR, USN, (N-889G). "Personnel, Training, Logistics and Maintenance Considerations." Lecture presented at CONOPS meeting. Oak Harbor, WA, 26 January 1995. Streetly, Martin. World Electronic Warfare Aircraft. United Kingdom: Jane's Publishing Company Limited, 1983. Transition Coordinator, Electronic Combat Wing Pacific. Memorandum to Commander, Electronic Combat Wing and others. Subject: "U. S. Navy EA-6B Support to USAF." 4 November 1994. Thornborough, Anthony, and Peter Davies. F-111 Success in Action. London: Arm & Armor Press, Ltd. 1989. Wogstad, James, and Phillip Friddell. Grumman EA-6B Prowler & EA-6A Intruder. San Antonio,TX: Aerophile, Inc., 1985.
