The Navy has, historically, relegated electronic warfare (EW) systems (SLQ-32 and the evolutionary SEWIP) on ships to a decidedly lower level of interest and importance. We’ve covered the developmental history of EW systems (see, “SEWIP Update”) and it’s depressing. We’ve also noted many times that historical data shows EW to be far and away the most effective form of anti-missile defense. That makes the Navy’s apathy all the more baffling.
Now, SEWIP appears to be having serious problems although, since DOT&E caved into pressure to hide test results, we have only tidbits of information that have leaked out from the unclassified but controlled version of the Congressionally mandated annual report.
The electronic warfare capability scheduled for installation onboard several classes of Navy warships experienced multiple problems while in use on an aircraft carrier during testing in April 2021 … [1]
… testing last year on the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford (CVN-78) showed the system reporting “extraneous contacts for the radio frequency emitters it detects” and misidentifying “non-radio frequency emissions as [anti-ship cruise missiles],” according to the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester.[1]
Unfortunately, I have no more information than that.
 |
| SEWIP Block III |
____________________________________
[1]Breaking Defense, “Disrupting the ‘critical linkage’: What is the Navy’s SEWIP?”, Justin Katz, 4-Apr-2022,
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/disrupting-the-critical-linkage-what-is-the-navys-sewip/
It's not surprising the Navy is not very interested in EW. The service is made up of "communities" that compete for budget and attention. Recruiting good junior officers into a field that doesn't do anything visible to the eye, is hard to explain to politicians, and doesn't produce explosions is naturally difficult. The appeal of things that go "Boom!" should not be underrated. The junior officers who enjoy the idea of being sneaky and indirect naturally go for submarines.
ReplyDeleteFord uses Blk II V6 right? At least Blk III switches over to Northrop Grumman gear so maybe there is some hope. Expensive hope, but I feel like Northrop Grumman tends towards expensive stuff more known for actualy working at this point.
ReplyDeleteThe Navy is laser-focused on EW compared to the Air Force....
ReplyDeleteI agree. I never understood why the USAF got rid of their EW aircraft and the Navy promised to support them with five Growler squadrons, which the Navy now plans to disband. Same with the Marines.
DeleteFalse positives are better than false negatives when it comes to missile alerts. As long as they don't shoot down a civilian airliner (again), anyway. I'll also take as "positives" that the Navy tested the system and reported that it didn't work as required. Given the last twenty years of Navy leadership neither of those things is a given.
ReplyDeleteA couple of cautions:
Delete1. Most industry safety analysts agree that false positives are far worse than false negatives because they quickly lead to ignoring alarms/targets/whatever. Most after-incident reports cite the routine existence of false positives as contributory factors. For example, the Navy Avenger mine ship that grounded on the reef in the Philippines issued many actual warnings that a grounding was about to occur but the navigation team had turned off, turned down the volume, and just ignored the warnings because the system routinely generated false positives.
A false negative is bad, without a doubt, but you still have a chance to identify it as real and recover. You can't recover from an atmosphere of false positives because you've already made up your mind that you're in no danger. Your system may miss a real target (false negative) but you're likely still alert and looking via other means (other sensors, reports from other ships, data links, lookouts).
2. The Navy didn't test the SEWIP system ... DOT&E did. DOT&E has been routinely testing and reporting problems on all systems for many, many years and the Navy has just as routinely been ignoring the reports of problems. The LCS problems were reported many years ago by DOT&E and yet the Navy went ahead with the program. The same is true for the Ford and Zumwalt.
In this case, the Navy has already issued production contracts for SEWIP Block 3 despite the existence of major Block 2 problems.
So, no, the Navy did not test and has had no visible response to the DOT&E failure reports. The Navy is continuing on as if everything is fine.
“Non radio frequency emissions”
ReplyDeleteCould this be a way of saying the electromagnetic catapult, electromagnetic elevators etc. That many have warned could be tracked, might also be affecting affecting their own radar?
There is an article in "Defense News" about the Air Force and Navy involved in the testing of a microwave missile.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/battlefield-tech/2022/07/01/us-navy-air-force-running-capstone-test-of-new-high-power-
microwave-missile/
Hopefully they will thoroughly test this technology .
I hadn't seen that one. Thanks!
DeleteWe will see if they try and find a shipboard application for this high powered microwave system. But I agree with thorough testing before manufacturing in quantity. In the case of SWIP block 2, it is a travesty what the navy did.
Delete