EA-18G "Growler"

What other options does the Navy have for a new carrier-based EW
aircraft?

The F-14's and S-3's aren't going to be around much longer. The
EA-6B's are old and getting older.

The JSF wouldn't be available in an EW version for a LONG time.
U(C)AV's won't be ready for a mission
like this for an even LONGER time.

It seems like an F/A-18-based solution is the only option left, unless
they want to rely on land-based
aircraft (EP-8?) for EW support.

Does the Navy have any better options than the Growler?

wrote...

Does the Navy have any better options than the Growler?

Probably not...

However, that is solely because of the politics and economics of the Navy's
failure to open the bid for the airplane to fair competition. That trend
started with the F/A-18E/F, and continues. We continue to be saddled with a
marginally aerodynamically suitable airframe for air-to-ground weapons delivery,
a marginally fuel-[in]efficient fighter/fleet defense aircraft, and a
potentially marginally effective EW platform because of it.

Yep! It's fun to fly!

Nope! It never met the specs!

"John Weiss" wrote in message
. ..

potentially marginally effective EW platform because of it.



What are your concerns and criticisms?

My father is in charge of the Growler program. I'd be interested in his
responses to your criticisms.

C.D.Damron wrote:
"John Weiss" wrote in message
. ..

potentially marginally effective EW platform because of it.



What are your concerns and criticisms?

My father is in charge of the Growler program. I'd be interested in his
responses to your criticisms.

My interpretation of his criticisms is the typical litany of E/F
airframe-based complaints: short range, not as fast as the F-18C let
alone the F-14. Maybe a cliche sums it up, "Mr. Right Now" instead of
"Mr. Right."

Not that I agree or disagree. Tacair, acquisitions, and program
management are not my areas of expertise. My working knowledge of those
is Janes/History Channel level

"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
My interpretation of his criticisms is the typical litany of E/F
airframe-based complaints: short range, not as fast as the F-18C let
alone the F-14. Maybe a cliche sums it up, "Mr. Right Now" instead of
"Mr. Right."

I guess there are two comparisons. EA-18G vs EA-6B and EA-18G vs something
else.

C.D.Damron wrote:
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
.. .
My interpretation of his criticisms is the typical litany of E/F
airframe-based complaints: short range, not as fast as the F-18C let
alone the F-14. Maybe a cliche sums it up, "Mr. Right Now" instead of
"Mr. Right."

I guess there are two comparisons. EA-18G vs EA-6B and EA-18G vs something
else.

I submit a third comparison. EA-18G vs nothing else (when the EA-6
fleet is finally too old). In other words, the G needs to get online
and everyone needs to get onboard with it because there is no other
viable option. Those decisions have already been made a few years ago.

I guess I'm not breaking new ground with these statements.