Big wing ISR, C2 recapitalization

[Clark Griswold]

From War on the Rocks:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/air-force-manned-reconnaissance-at-a-crossroads/

From the article:

The world today isn’t the Cold War world of yesterday, and Cold War requirements should not justify acquisition of new assets for tomorrow’s military needs. The RC-135’s innocence has long been compromised as it has evolved from its original peacetime role into a valuable combat asset, but both missions must be performed in the future. No single replacement solution can meet both of these disparate operational requirements. The U.S. Air Force must look beyond its obsession with warfighting to identify and procure a second manned big-wing peacetime replacement for the RC-135.

Overall the article was pretty good but the last point (last sentence of the article) I thought made a particularly interesting point, I think obsession might not have been the right verb for the AF approach, prioritization on warfighting (major conflict preparation has to be number one but not necessarily one that takes up a disproportionate amount of resources from other missions, contingencies, etc..) but it made the point that not everything is peer v. peer with double digit SAMs and 4/5 gen fighters weapons free lobbing missiles at anything that flies, there's a range of military operations.

Big Wing ISR/C2 may not fit into peer v. peer on Night 1 anymore but has a role to play in AF/Joint ops across the range.  

Recap would not be cheap but a new Iron Triangle based on a common platform (ideally) seems reasonable.

Thoughts?

[matmacwc]

I’ll have to think about it but “cutting” warfighting capability sounds stupid and agenda driven.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I’ll have to think about it but “cutting” warfighting capability sounds stupid and agenda driven.

I don't think it is a matter of cutting but the best / least bad allocation of finite resources to cover all the missions / responsibilities assigned to the AF.

Not sure if the author of the article is going to to follow up with his argument for another large manned aircraft with a discussion on what the requirements would be but from the cheap seats...

- Range / Endurance:   at least 4000 NM in mission configuration / 10 hours endurance unrefuelled

- Open Mission Architecture / Sensor flexibility / Growth potential

- Other capes (AR, Self-defense suite, etc..)

Basically a 737 NG platform.

[08Dawg]

The Navy has been hanging all kinds of pods off the P-8. Seems like a logical alternative for us too. 

[brabus]

G650...this problem has already been somewhat solved, just need the AF to commit.  Replace big wing ISR, EC-130, etc. with G650s - higher density to meet the demand with more capability.  Throw in some wedge tails to replace the E-3s.  Its ridiculous we haven't done this yet.

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Basically a 737 NG platform.

737 MAX....maybe boeing will sell it on the cheap!

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

Its ridiculous we haven't done this yet.

2

This photo sums that up perfectly:

An ally flying a new modern tanker, refueling a new modern C2 platform over an AOR supporting combat ops now... while we put 500 million dollar radars in 40+ yr old 707s using old motors, just now getting a very basic flight deck update being refueled by 50+ yr old tankers...

On fleet density vs larger fewer platforms... valid point.  

Keeping it real and trying to minimize risk, replace the E-3 with the E-7.  Good enough to support American platforms in a Coalition, good enough for the USAF to fly now.  

Smaller platforms to replace JSTARS, G-650 based sounds fine.  EA / ELINT G-650 also.

RIVET / COBRA / OPEN SKIES / CONSTANT PHOENIX etc...probably needs to be a 767 based platform for range, size, power, space, etc..

[SurelySerious]

51 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Keeping it real and trying to minimize risk, replace the E-3 with the E-7.  Good enough to *vastly outperform* American platforms in a Coalition, good enough for the USAF to fly now.  

 

[matmacwc]

The future is a widget they can put on all planes then network them, tough to do though.

[12xu2a3x3]

6x E-7 squadrons, with less tails to each, at more bases. Hill (or Travis), Langley (or McGuire), Lakenheath, Elmo, Kadena, and Tinker (w/depot). Real defensive suite. Maybe make it a white jet tour.

[FLEA]

I'm more with matamcwc. Why dont we put a radar on a dozen RPAs and fly them simoltaneoulsy in the battlespace while they broadcast their picture to fighters/CRC. I would add the same thing could be done with sigint packages and ground radars. Is it necceassary to have the C2 crew airborne? A network based construct like this allows for Fielding cheap/replaceable sensors in a redundant fashion. The biggest aim of AWACS to begin with was to leverage air powers third dimensional advantages on line of sight posturing but previously we never possessed a capability to relay that information over a broadcast. Now the recipients of sensor data can be anywhere in the world. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by FLEA

[brabus]

Networked data sharing is the future, and there is a lot of momentum behind it.  You are right, we will not need a bunch of large airframe C2ISR in the future.  Not to say it won't still have a place, but the paradigm is certainly shifting.

[SuperWSO]

Networked data is GREAT provided you have unrestricted access to the full EM spectrum because you’re fighting cavemen.  

Being able to do this would require the AF to prioritize EW.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1816024/air-force-announces-electronic-warfare-electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-ent/

[matmacwc]

11 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm more with matamcwc. Why dont we put a radar on a dozen RPAs and fly them simoltaneoulsy in the battlespace while they broadcast their picture to fighters/CRC. I would add the same thing could be done with sigint packages and ground radars. Is it necceassary to have the C2 crew airborne? A network based construct like this allows for Fielding cheap/replaceable sensors in a redundant fashion. The biggest aim of AWACS to begin with was to leverage air powers third dimensional advantages on line of sight posturing but previously we never possessed a capability to relay that information over a broadcast. Now the recipients of sensor data can be anywhere in the world. 

You’re not thinking big enough padawan.  I’m thinking some sort of widget attached to everything Delta owns, It’s better than that, but use your own imagination.  

[MechGov]

Being able to do this would require the AF to prioritize EW.
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1816024/air-force-announces-electronic-warfare-electromagnetic-spectrum-superiority-ent/

Jesus. I don’t know if the Air Force could pack any more management level buzzwords into a short article before it bends space-time into an AFSO21 black hole.

[Day Man]

3 hours ago, matmacwc said:

You’re not thinking big enough padawan.  I’m thinking some sort of widget attached to everything Delta owns, It’s better than that, but use your own imagination.  

like this?

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, matmacwc said:

You’re not thinking big enough padawan.  I’m thinking some sort of widget attached to everything Delta owns, It’s better than that, but use your own imagination.  

Tricky through. As soon as you put military hardware in a commercial jet it becomes a legal target. But maybe I'm not flowing your train of thought. 

[war007afa]

I love DoD wants to create a system of network-based solutions, yet struggles to maintain any semblance of network security on multiple domains. Does this stuff not make your skin crawl even a little?

[SurelySerious]

10 minutes ago, war007afa said:

I love DoD wants to create a system of network-based solutions, yet struggles to maintain any semblance of network security on multiple domains. Does this stuff not make your skin crawl even a little?

Bingo. And network/connectivity denial is relatively easy. 

[FLEA]

We are better at it than most people think. Our problem is DISA and NSA block the components from really maintaining or managing a service specific warfighting capability. It has to go up to SECDEF anytime a service component wants to do something outside the reigns of these two organizations and it normally comes back denied because the correct service leader is unable to argue against an agency head in front of the JCS. 

[SurelySerious]

56 minutes ago, FLEA said:

We are better at it than most people think. Our problem is DISA and NSA block the components from really maintaining or managing a service specific warfighting capability. It has to go up to SECDEF anytime a service component wants to do something outside the reigns of these two organizations and it normally comes back denied because the correct service leader is unable to argue against an agency head in front of the JCS. 

So what you’re saying is, we’re actually not very good at it because of bureaucracy. Doesn’t sound like it will be effective for war fighting. 

[Clark Griswold]

What the other side of the pond is thinking about:

Airbus looking at a family of big wing ISR/C2/Patrol/VIP based on A320neo

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2018/07/Airbus-evaluates-an-A320neo-multi-mission-version.html

https://defpost.com/airbus-evaluates-military-multi-mission-version-a320neo-airliner-a320m3a/

Just grist for the mill, 320s are built now in Mobile so the made in the USA container is checked (parts from subs are another issue) but maybe Big B needs a loss to re-focus on not delivering new jets with FOD in them, little details like that...

On whether or not to recapitalize or not with a large manned aircraft vs. going with a purely distributed networked system... from the original article:

The Air Force must instead divide the RC-135 recapitalization into wartime and peacetime requirements and choose at least one new manned big-wing aircraft, just as it has in seeking a replacement for the Open Skies Treaty OC-135s and approving a replacement for the Constant Phoenix “nuke sniffer” WC-135s. But what should this peacetime airplane look like?

IMHO, it's not an either or situation but rather both but then how much of each and then what are the new requirements for the current/projected operational environment that each will operate in?

Distributed and networked systems are fine to add to existing manned/unmanned platforms (assuming no undue burden for joining them into a network) and bringing RPAs on-line for augmenting the delivery of C2 and theater level ISR with AMTI, GMTI, MMTI, ELINT, etc... however that new capability due to the advancement/miniaturization of sensors & links doesn't displace the need for a large, specialized ISR / C2 family of platforms, with them being manned IMHO being the best approach.

New big wing manned platforms coupled with RPAs integrated into the ISR/C2 platform community will bring:

- Room for growth in equipment and space for additional crew members if necessary for new sensors.

- Always incorporate some or all of the PED process via their crews to make the intel they collect usable to the customer directly and timely.

- Flexibility that unmanned systems will likely be unable to answer in the near term (next 10-15 years).  Satellite footprints, link vulnerability to EA, airspace restrictions on unmanned systems, downlink spectrum access in host nations, logistical challenges for unmanned systems, etc... also, sometimes it is just easier to send a manned platform for a short time vs. the fairly involved process to get an RPA to a new op location.  If you wanna maintain X CAPs for the next 15 years, set up RPAs; if you want to monitor yearly military exercises for 1-2 weeks then go home, deploy a manned platform.

- Viable career community for the crews and specialists.  With manned and unmanned, there's a larger place to develop well rounded leaders and experienced crews / specialists, they will likely spend a larger portion or the entire career in this community.  

All that said, there is a valid requirement for fielding operational systems that we know can not go into a A2AD environment, not all of the AF's missions are in those environments.  

We (the AF) have a tendency to get infatuated with some new technology or idea and then just go all in without being a bit cautious about departing from ways of business that have done well for us in the past and we should be prudent about abandoning.  Dropping our large, manned platforms for ISR/C2 for as yet not operational way of performing this mission (distributed networked sensors) with no corollary operational experience from which to confidently infer should give us pause.  

A bit skeptical attitudes to radical changes, prudent feasible improvements and a realistic approach to requirements... 

[brickhistory]

Hmmm:

-Need new nukes and delivery systems

- Need a new tanker which is finally, and slowly, being delivered.

- Need new C2 and ISR

- Need new and more fighters

- Need infrastructure replaced/repaired

All the bills are coming due now despite literal decades of senior leadership being told of the upcoming financial iceberg.

And people of all AFSCs are voting with their feet.

Somebody tell me more about this Air Force leadership expertise?

[SurelySerious]

13 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Hmmm:

-Need new nukes and delivery systems

- Need a new tanker which is finally, and slowly, being delivered.

- Need new C2 and ISR

- Need new and more fighters

- Need infrastructure replaced/repaired

All the bills are coming due now despite literal decades of senior leadership being told of the upcoming financial iceberg.

And people of all AFSCs are voting with their feet.

Somebody tell me more about this Air Force leadership expertise?

They’re pushing for new uniforms. 

[Clark Griswold]

Europe thinking about AWACS recapitalization:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-airshow-nato-awacs/nato-faces-big-bill-if-it-does-not-pick-awacs-successor-soon-officials-idUSKCN1TG0C1

Get a volume discount and Boeing needs the business, re-cap AF with 737 NG based platforms