| Zephyr Net http://jkpeterson.net/forum/ |
|
| E/A-18 Growler http://jkpeterson.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=599 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | CrazyIvan [ Tue Sep 09, 2003 08:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | E/A-18 Growler |
While I was searching for pictures of the VFA-2 CAG Aircraft, I stumbled across some information on the E/A-18G Growler, I didn't know if anyone had posted it or not. According to this artical released by the House of Rep., the schedule for procurement has been moved from 2008 up to 2006. http://www.house.gov/akin/release/20030328.html I also read that the USAF wanted the EA-6B replacement to be an EA version of the F-35 but the Navy refused due to cost and time issues. The E/A-18 could defenitly be in service by 2008, while it wouldn't be until 2013 that the EA F-35 was in service. - Chris |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Wed Sep 10, 2003 13:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
So IOC of the EA-18 would be 2006 huh? Will it have any letter assigned to it as in E/A-18G Growler or E/A-18A Growler... By the way is there any data on it other than its an F/A-18F, it has no gun, and it is meant to carry 3 ALQ-99 pods, 2 fuel tanks, 2 HARM missiles, 2 AIM-120s, and 2 AIM-9s. BUMP REQUEST #: 1 |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Wed Sep 10, 2003 14:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
Their has been discussions about changing the offensive loadouts, etc... Navy rejected basing the Growler on the JSF, due to the fact that any jamming aircraft would be radiating and therefore would defeat any benefits offered by stealth... so why waste the higher funds allocated on stealth aircraft for a non stealthy mission? |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Sep 10, 2003 17:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
yeah the jury is still out on the F-35 Marauder (hee hee) it may well be able to do all it's own jamming but probly not powerfull enough to jam for others. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Wed Sep 10, 2003 19:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
Well I would think that the F-35 would employ jammers as a last resort.. Otherwise it would totally defeat the reason to be stealthy i fyou are radiating a jamming spike! |
|
| Author: | Centurian57_369th [ Wed Sep 10, 2003 23:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
Does anyone know the answers to the questions I posed? |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Sep 11, 2003 01:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
I was talking about the AESAs ability to jam/comm/illuminate etc Cent I didnt even know it isnt supposed to have a gun!! |
|
| Author: | CrazyIvan [ Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
I've done a lot of reading on the F/A-18G - E/A-18, and it sometimes feels like Boeing doesn't even know what all is going to be in it yet. They started off with just trying to take an F/A-18F, add a couple items, and make it a jammer. I think that they found out, it won't work the way they hoped and are now looking at changing some extra pieces around. Notice they are now going a lot more with E/A-18 then F/A-18G which seems to make it sound like an entirely new aircraft. I imagine in the end, it will be as similiar to the F/A-18E/F as the EA-6 is to the A-6. - Chris |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Thu Sep 11, 2003 14:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
Actually I am way behind on this bird myself. I did not know it was approved for production yet? The last I had read, they were still having troubles with the ALQ-99 pods surviving the rigors of life on the Superhornet. They snap the small power props off the noses everytime they go up! I know they were working on a fix, but I llost interest at that point. Has anyone gone to ACIG to ask about the status? |
|
| Author: | Centurian [ Fri Sep 12, 2003 13:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
I asked ACIG about the EA-18 on their old board but didn't get many places. Let me try to get the link back. |
|
| Author: | CAG Hotshot [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 20:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
I also went to ACIG... I really believe they are to biased against teh Super Hornet to give a realeastic answer on the Growler versions capabilities... You notice how they gloss over the now combat proven E/Fs? They still talk about it in comparison to the Tomcat as if it hasnt even dropped on bomb yet, much less doubled the combat sorties of the F-14 squadrons!... CAG out.. |
|
| Author: | CrazyIvan [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 22:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
If you think about it, it's kind of unfair to compare the F/A-18 Super Hornet to the F-14 Tomcat. Just for the simple fact that the Tomcat was designed soley for Fleet Air Defense while the Super Hornet was designed as a multi-mission aircraft. - Chris |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Wed Sep 17, 2003 23:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
nope, the Tommy had a multi-mission capability from the very begining, but it was never allowed to develope it MOSTLY because we already had A-6,A-7,A-4,and F-4 on board ship(A-7 may have come later than F-14 not sure) Why send an expensive and somewhat rare F-14 to punch it out with SAMs and AAA when a relatively cheap A-4 could get the job done. Those other planes couldent do the fleet defence duty nearly as well as Tommy Two Tails so F-14 held CAP and fleet defence while the others got thier feet dirty. |
|
| Author: | CrazyIvan [ Thu Sep 18, 2003 00:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
What I'm saying is, is that the F-14A/B's were specialized to be only Air Defense Fighters. Everyone always knew the cat would be a great Air to Ground aircraft but the Navy wanted an Air Defense Fighter, not a multi-mission aircraft. So when they came out of that plant at Grumman Aerospace they weren't really designed to do Air to Ground missions. It wasn't until the F-14D came around that the idea of making the Tomcat a strike/fighter was dusted off. Then all the Tomcat's were upgraded to be able to do strike missions. It's to bad that they did not make all Tomcat's A2G & A2A from the begenning because we probably wouldn't be retiring them all off now. So what I'm getting at is, the Super Hornet was able to be designed as a Strike Fighter where they could change the aircraft's structure around. The Tomcat's were just upgraded to be able to do that, which is why they have such a limited Air to Ground ordnance list. - Chris |
|
| Author: | KAPTOR [ Thu Sep 18, 2003 03:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: E/A-18 Growler |
Quote: It's to bad that they did not make all Tomcat's A2G & A2A from the begenning because we probably wouldn't be retiring them all off now. your right, we would have been retiring them long ago instead of now !! If you added AG training and combat sorties, they would be worn out already but the BIG problem is cost, the Tommys are from between 3 and 5 times more expensive (and time consuming) to maintain than Hornets, thier mission readiness rates have apparently been near horrible throughout it's lifetime due to all the maintainence. It's been a great plane ,and the best interceptor ever, but it's eating itself out of house and home in the USN. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|