Advocate Summary

Issue:  EA-6B Prowler Replacement
Advocate:  House Appropriations Committee – Subcommittee on Defense – Greg Walters
Date of Interview: 8/14/02

Basic Background
The need for a follower to the Prowler has been with us for about fifteen years, just like every major aircraft, they’re flying the wings off of them. Back in ’93 or ’94 the Department made the decision to discontinue operations on the Airforce’s EF-111 and at that time they decided that all electronic jamming, that entire mission, for the services is going to be conducted by the Prowler and the Marine corps and the Navy. And so it has been a busy war since 1994, all sorts of air campaigns we’ve been getting into and the fleet is old, currently there are two big issues; engine reliability and then the center wing span cracked, and that has forced groundings of entire squadrons so right now it’s a Band-Aid fleet we patch them up as best we can. And so there is really a need for newer technology and just a plain new platform. What’s driving it is, it’s not so much that we have exciting new electronic warfare technology out there, I mean there are certainly improvements but the basic EW algorithms and technologies with how we fight are being upgraded into something they call ICAP 3 which is the improved capability version. There is kind of a dispute in the field is this the limits of what we can do with technology in the next decades, some people think we can make another jump in the capabilities, other people are saying no, we’re kind of there for now lest there be other breakthroughs in the field. So that’s what’s happening now, the study of alternatives is at a very early stage, they just conducted initial studies that are ongoing right now. They’ve requested in the budget this year monies to go ahead and get some contracts for people to examine these various concepts. And it could be just about anything right now imaginable on the drawing board which is appropriate at this point in the process. The principle alternatives that I am aware of are, and I think this is the Navy and Marine’s preferred solution is going with a variant of the F18 E and F, using something they are going to call the F18 G, the Growler that would do the EW mission. The Es and Fs are just being introduced to the fleet right now in the fighter attack role, so that’s one way to go. The other way is to use unmanned air vehicles to do the mission, the Department is looking at a variety of UAVs, you’ve probably heard of the Predator in Afghanistan, and there is something that can go at a higher altitude called the Global Hawk. And in the trade space some people are discussing, let’s put this on Global Hawk and then we’ll have something capable of hovering over an area for extended periods of time, you don’t have to endanger crew lives performing the mission, so that’s an alternative. And then the third thing, and the most expensive approach is just a clean sheet of paper, let’s design something brand-new and go forward. But it is very, very early right now, I can’t really say where it will go, and then other folks are looking at a combination; UAVs and then something new and we’ll figure out how to push the mission up or down. I think this year there is roughly 30 million in the budget to push those studies along. In the ’03 request when we get back to conference and do a final version of the defense bill, we’re considering putting another 10 million dollars in to get some of the risk reduction going right now. I was down at the Naval Air Systems Command where they’re going to be evaluating a lot of these concepts, and they feel that they are all ready to go, there are teams of government evaluators and it is just a mater of letting the contracts and starting to see what the clever ideas might me and then we’ll go forward from there. I’m not sure on the timeline but clearly, the A6B are going to start attriting, I think there are about a 120 of the craft world wide, spread out over different squadrons, some here some based abroad but the structure and reliability problems just get worse every year, and there are just continual groundings and it is just beyond the point that you can repair it anymore, there’s just no economic value to patch it. And having said all that, oh by the way, they are some of the busiest planes in the fleet, they are what they call high-demand, low-density assets, they are just literally being used all the time in support of the things we do whether it is flying combat air patrol on watch in Iraq or flying in Afghanistan and in Kosovo in previous years. They are continually going to be called on. 

If you look at the beginning days of the Afghan campaign, the Navy was held there by themselves with four carriers, and they had to have integrated packages; you launch your strikers, you launch air-to-air defenders and you have to launch the EW guys and they all go in as a package and they do the jamming, so they have to be carrier capable and if it ends up being the F18 G, that by definition is carrier capable. 

Prior Activity on the Issue 
[Obviously familiar with past funding of the Prowler and the EW mission generally]

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
Usually, the committee at this stage in the game, is content with just seeing the ideas evolve. We are pretty focused on the day to day stuff, what we have to do to patch up the fleet and do things to the basic core EW capability by including more frequencies, that sort of thing, so you’ll see us adding a little money here and there to do that, to keep it going. 

So without getting into classified stuff we get to see what the new capabilities would be and how if everything works right in the future we would be able to use less planes in the mission, thus freeing up the planes to actually drop bombs et cetera. So we see mission effectiveness analyses and all sorts of things that suggest that with some of the new capabilities why the pilots are going to be in less danger if we get on with the new thing. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
None mentioned.

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
[Said he couldn’t say individual member names, confidential]
Believe it or not, I mean there are caucuses for everything in Congress, and there is actually an Electronic Warfare Caucus and there is also an industry association, called the Old Crow Association they are a bunch of retired EW guys, pilots, specialists and that sort of thing. And they will do white papers and do grassroots and that sort of thing, for the mission area, not any particular thing but keep those funding levels up. We hear from every member in Congress come markup time, but just the Missouri delegation in general, and then we’re getting into confidential, what people ask of this committee is a closed thing, but in general, without using names the Missouri delegation has been interested in extra money for this, for pressing it along. 

Targets of Direct Lobbying
None mentioned.

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
Not applicable.

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
Not applicable.

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
There are some people in congress that are real UAV enthusiasts. Let’s just say there are supporters in each camp that would like to see that go forward. And again like I said if I had to bet a dollar today about what’s going to happen, and this isn’t indicating preference or anything but I think it’s going to be a version of E and F, the platform is already there in another year or two operations are going to be very mature on them, and it’s just what the Navy’s going to want to do, so I think that is the leading candidate for it right now. And if you think of it as pure parochial politics; you’ve got contingents from the Missouri delegation you have Boeing, and that’s where the E and F are being built right now, they’d probably like to see that go forward. You’ve got folks out in California where the UAV Global Hawk is being manufactured, and they would like to push that as a solution. And then you’ve got various constituencies in the Navy too, the carrier community, you’ve got the intelligence electronic warfare specialists, that sort of thing. The one thing that everybody agrees on is that we have to do something and we are doing something right now. And one last vested interest is the Naval Air Depots, where things get repaired, believe it or not, members that have these major air work facilities or depots in their districts or their backyards sometimes resist the introduction of new technology because that means the repair work and the workload that they’re doing on the old stuff in their backyards is going to necessarily go down too. The Air force is kind of sitting on the fence, they’re content to see watch evolves just as long as their mission gets fulfilled and it is one less thing that they have to spend money on if the Navy and Marine Corps support it. And I think even the Marine Corps themselves have a preferred solution yet. And then, and it goes with any mission area, but there are some people who like UAV and others that don’t because they say “oh only a pilot a can do this right, you can’t do this remotely and autonomously. So it’s not like some issues we have around here where it is the B22 or the F22, there aren’t any clearly defined camps or raging controversy yet. If it was just even a year from now when these initial studies come up it might be clear but right now it’s pretty early in the game. So Boeing has given us briefings on what the G might look like and the people Teldi-Rian (?), now part of Northrop Grumman I think, telling us about what the UAV is like and those are the only ones, other than briefings from the program office, nobody has come in and said my idea is brighter or greater than anybody else’s right now. 

there is also an industry association, called the Old Crow Association they are a bunch of retired EW guys, pilots, specialists and that sort of thing.

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
The main argument is that the existing fleet is dangerously old. And you can make that argument for just about anything the Navy flies but there is truth to it. But even a couple of years ago they established some training squadrons, there were two squadrons of EA-6Bs just dedicated to training new pilots and specialists and they disbanded a training squad so they could use the assets to redeploy world wide and they’re doing more things simulation or OJT just so that they could have the planes out there. And this year’s budget documents outline the problems with the fleet and what they are requesting for modifications and repairs and that sort of thing, and it is pretty compelling what needs to be done here.  

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
And there is like this sub-argument about why we need extra money in ’03, they feel that we are going to be able to get through this study phase very quickly and not take the typical 18-24-36 months to get through it, and that the technologies are mature enough that we should go into full speed development sooner rather than later, and that’s why people are making arguments about adding an extra, anywhere fro 10 to 30 million dollars to the existing request. We did not do that in this committee but I think the Senate did add extra funds, about 10 million dollars. So the bill had 30 million in it, we approved it and the Senate added an additional 10 million. 

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
No, I think it is universally agreed that we need to get on with things. 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
Not applicable.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
Not applicable.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
Not applicable.

Described as a Partisan Issue
No.

Venue(s) of Activity
House Defense Appropriations
Senate Defense Appropriations

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
The ‘03 Defense Appropriations Bill will resume in conference following the August break.

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Supports funding for an alternative to the EA-6B, but not partial to any particular alternative.

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
Not obtained.

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous

Suggested I also talk to Minda Fife, “she is my counter part on the Senate Appropriations committee, she was instrumental in adding the additional funds so she might be able to amplify what I’ve told you”