04-09-2025, 09:29 AM
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/more-e...riorities/
I posted about these aircraft previously. IMO 10 such aircraft are not anywhere close to enough. In the event of a major war we are going to need lots of missions from EA capable aircraft. The USAF, in its "wisdom" elected to forgo any "penetrating" EA aircraft, retiring the EF-111 with no replacement. The reasoning probably was that with stealth aircraft available it wasn't necessary. Some knew then, and all know now, that isn't the case. Delusionally the USAF asserted that Navy EF-18s could fulfill that need if it arose. What are the odds the Navy won't be using every one they have and crying for more?
The EA-37 is a "standoff" system. It doesn't accompany airstrikes (at least in theory). However it can provide useful jamming and confusion of enemy long-range radar systems. That is very valuable because radars operating in L band and below have a much greater chance of detecting (but not targeting) inbound stealth aircraft. It can play the historical role of the EB-66 in Vietnam. It can "get closer" than an EC-130 could, but it can't accompany the strike. It is a relatively lower performance aircraft and very visible target. An EF-111/EA-6/EF-18 it is not.
The C-130 Compass Call was most effective as a communications jammer in the conflicts in the Middle East. This was undoubtedly partly due to the "primitive" state of enemy communications and the fairly quick success of the US SEAD efforts. If you had asked me before the Ukraine war whether the Compass Call aircraft would have much success jamming Russian communications, I would have been skeptical. Ukraine has demonstrated that Russian communications are not nearly as "advanced" as we all assumed they would be. I suspect China actually will be very "advanced". In any event, the EA-37 has at least the same communications jamming capability, with the possible exception of lower effective radiated power (ERP). I am not at all sure sure of lower ERP, I am guessing based on an assumed lower on-board "house power" capability due to a smaller aircraft.
The EA-37 has more sophisticated receivers, exciters, and software than the EC-130 did for radar jamming. It can do a "better" job closer to the front. However, 10 aircraft aren't near enough. The aircraft and aircrew can't fly every day, let alone twice or more a day. The USAF will want to operate at high tempo for many successive days. We have enough strike aircraft and aircrews to do that. We don't have enough EA-37s and aircrews to support them. 3 days "on", 1 day "off" (for crew rest and maintenance), 1 mission per day is about the maximum an aircraft of this type can sustain, and even that is stressful on maintenance and aircrew personnel. There will undoubtedly be aircraft that "break", i.e. 100% availability isn't going to happen. Sadly, there probably will be losses. The USAF definitely needs more of these aircraft.
I posted about these aircraft previously. IMO 10 such aircraft are not anywhere close to enough. In the event of a major war we are going to need lots of missions from EA capable aircraft. The USAF, in its "wisdom" elected to forgo any "penetrating" EA aircraft, retiring the EF-111 with no replacement. The reasoning probably was that with stealth aircraft available it wasn't necessary. Some knew then, and all know now, that isn't the case. Delusionally the USAF asserted that Navy EF-18s could fulfill that need if it arose. What are the odds the Navy won't be using every one they have and crying for more?
The EA-37 is a "standoff" system. It doesn't accompany airstrikes (at least in theory). However it can provide useful jamming and confusion of enemy long-range radar systems. That is very valuable because radars operating in L band and below have a much greater chance of detecting (but not targeting) inbound stealth aircraft. It can play the historical role of the EB-66 in Vietnam. It can "get closer" than an EC-130 could, but it can't accompany the strike. It is a relatively lower performance aircraft and very visible target. An EF-111/EA-6/EF-18 it is not.
The C-130 Compass Call was most effective as a communications jammer in the conflicts in the Middle East. This was undoubtedly partly due to the "primitive" state of enemy communications and the fairly quick success of the US SEAD efforts. If you had asked me before the Ukraine war whether the Compass Call aircraft would have much success jamming Russian communications, I would have been skeptical. Ukraine has demonstrated that Russian communications are not nearly as "advanced" as we all assumed they would be. I suspect China actually will be very "advanced". In any event, the EA-37 has at least the same communications jamming capability, with the possible exception of lower effective radiated power (ERP). I am not at all sure sure of lower ERP, I am guessing based on an assumed lower on-board "house power" capability due to a smaller aircraft.
The EA-37 has more sophisticated receivers, exciters, and software than the EC-130 did for radar jamming. It can do a "better" job closer to the front. However, 10 aircraft aren't near enough. The aircraft and aircrew can't fly every day, let alone twice or more a day. The USAF will want to operate at high tempo for many successive days. We have enough strike aircraft and aircrews to do that. We don't have enough EA-37s and aircrews to support them. 3 days "on", 1 day "off" (for crew rest and maintenance), 1 mission per day is about the maximum an aircraft of this type can sustain, and even that is stressful on maintenance and aircrew personnel. There will undoubtedly be aircraft that "break", i.e. 100% availability isn't going to happen. Sadly, there probably will be losses. The USAF definitely needs more of these aircraft.