EA-18G "Growler"

EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

Of course, it's academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty decent FAC(A) platform.

Again, no argument here.

My point remains, though. Unless there's NOTHING else available, why tie up a system-centric weapon (like the A-6 was) in a mission where the only "system" needed is the MK1 eyeball and its owner's ability to successfully prosecute a rocket attack?

The "NOTHING else available" qualifier goes almost without saying. It's why we carried and trained with FFARs ad even Sidewinders occasionally, it's why the A-6 community fooled around with the SSSC mission in the mid-1970s (backup for the Hoovers in the very new and then-unproven CV airwing concept), it's why we hung buddy stores on A-7 wing parent stations, etc. It's also why the Tom became an attack platform, as you point out.

IOW, good to know that you had the capability, but not something you should do as a normal course of business.

Hey, let the SLUFs have a bit of fun, too.

--
Mike Kanze

"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson."

- Bart Simpson



"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Owl,

Of course, it's academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty decent FAC(A) platform. It had the requirements: a strike trained crew of two, legs, and the ability to mark (e.g. rockets). I think the Intruder would have worked just fine in that role-heck, the Tomcat did it!

--Woody

On 11/12/05 11:29 AM, in article , "Mike Kanze" wrote:


Woody,

Rockets are fun, I agree, but why burden Medium Attack (which had better things to do with its system) with a day-VMC mission when the SLUFs and the Bugs could do it as well / better?

BTW, I have four evil Commie bus hulks on the B-17 range complex at Fallon to my credit, denied to the enemy by FFAR strikes.

Okay, I¹ll play luffberry with you for a bit.

I agree with your point... FAC(A) may not the A-6¹s best mission. Night
interdiction was certainly the primary mission for the Intruder. AND since
it retired in 1997, I find this thread nothing more than a fun ³what might
have been² discussion.

But... And here¹s the fun part... The majority of the answer depends on what
sort of war we¹re fighting. If we¹re fighting the standard rollback
campaign, it will eventually degrade to CAS as the ground forces push in
close to the enemy. If the war is successful, deep strike interdiction
opportunities become fewer and CAS or SCAR becomes more prevalent.

That¹s where a FAC(A) Intruder with lengthy on-station time and lots of
rockets works. He helps pick out the targets, keeps an eye on the troop
movements and friendlies, and talks his buddies¹ eyes onto the hostiles on
the ground. Intruder... Would have been perfect for the mission.
Meanwhile, bring in the SLUF¹s or the Hornets to drop ordnance and generate
the actual CAS sorties.

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Woody,

Of course, it’s academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty
decent FAC(A) platform.

Again, no argument here.

My point remains, though. Unless there's NOTHING else available, why tie up a
system-centric weapon (like the A-6 was) in a mission where the only "system"
needed is the MK1 eyeball and its owner's ability to successfully prosecute a
rocket attack?

The "NOTHING else available" qualifier goes almost without saying. It's why we
carried and trained with FFARs ad even Sidewinders occasionally, it's why the
A-6 community fooled around with the SSSC mission in the mid-1970s (backup for
the Hoovers in the very new and then-unproven CV airwing concept), it's why we
hung buddy stores on A-7 wing parent stations, etc. It's also why the Tom
became an attack platform, as you point out.

IOW, good to know that you had the capability, but not something you should do
as a normal course of business.

Hey, let the SLUFs have a bit of fun, too.

Hey, one more thing.

I found myself wondering a couple of years ago how much more successful we
could have been in the recent conflict if we would have still had the mighty
thunderpig?

An Intruder with a smart MER or TER that was JDAM capable could have carried
a decent load of 10-12 JDAM easily‹provided we¹d have fielded the SWIP Block
1A upgrades.

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent
stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with
JDAM!

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Woody,

Of course, it’s academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty
decent FAC(A) platform.

Again, no argument here.

My point remains, though. Unless there's NOTHING else available, why tie up a
system-centric weapon (like the A-6 was) in a mission where the only "system"
needed is the MK1 eyeball and its owner's ability to successfully prosecute a
rocket attack?

The "NOTHING else available" qualifier goes almost without saying. It's why we
carried and trained with FFARs ad even Sidewinders occasionally, it's why the
A-6 community fooled around with the SSSC mission in the mid-1970s (backup for
the Hoovers in the very new and then-unproven CV airwing concept), it's why we
hung buddy stores on A-7 wing parent stations, etc. It's also why the Tom
became an attack platform, as you point out.

IOW, good to know that you had the capability, but not something you should do
as a normal course of business.

Hey, let the SLUFs have a bit of fun, too.

EA-18G "Growler"SNIP

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with JDAM!

--Woody

SNIP

Woody!!!

Are you coming back from the "dark side?"

R / John

EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.

And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.

With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario, minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out for MERs.

Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse, or some other McNamara-forbidden target.

ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce pas?

--
Mike Kanze

"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson."

- Bart Simpson

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Hey, one more thing.

I found myself wondering a couple of years ago how much more successful we could have been in the recent conflict if we would have still had the mighty thunderpig?

An Intruder with a smart MER or TER that was JDAM capable could have carried a decent load of 10-12 JDAM easily-provided we'd have fielded the SWIP Block 1A upgrades.

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with JDAM!

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike Kanze" wrote:


Woody,

Of course, it?s academic now, but rockets would have made the A-6 a pretty decent FAC(A) platform.

Again, no argument here.

My point remains, though. Unless there's NOTHING else available, why tie up a system-centric weapon (like the A-6 was) in a mission where the only "system" needed is the MK1 eyeball and its owner's ability to successfully prosecute a rocket attack?

The "NOTHING else available" qualifier goes almost without saying. It's why we carried and trained with FFARs ad even Sidewinders occasionally, it's why the A-6 community fooled around with the SSSC mission in the mid-1970s (backup for the Hoovers in the very new and then-unproven CV airwing concept), it's why we hung buddy stores on A-7 wing parent stations, etc. It's also why the Tom became an attack platform, as you point out.

IOW, good to know that you had the capability, but not something you should do as a normal course of business.

Hey, let the SLUFs have a bit of fun, too.

Owl,

Si. The many targets per one jet thing made jets with more bombs (e.g. BUF)
more attractive to ABCCC dudes.

The A-6 was used very handily in the shore-base expeditionary role in DS.
In fact, I seem to remember photos of USMC squadrons loaded with 10 x 82¹s
and 12 x Mk-20¹s. IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a ³ferry tail² given
that at least one drop tank was required for on station time‹at least in my
experience.

I¹m fairly sure the 500 lb JDAM has IOC¹ed (GBU-38). I haven¹t seen one yet
personally though. Good for Harriers mostly... And any other strike
platform that is concerned about CD.

--Woody

On 11/14/05 1:02 PM, in article
, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

Woody,

It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes
was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.

And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that
give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per
target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.

With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly
toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third
house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout
approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario,
minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs
the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary
usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out
for MERs.

Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row
of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking
your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse,
or some other McNamara-forbidden target.

ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce
pas?

EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.

True...or lots of "give" available overhead. (My head is still locked in the Days of Wine and Roses, when each cycle had at least one EKA-3 and one or two A-6 duty tankers in orbit.)

******

Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.

And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new hypermorph.

--
Mike Kanze

"There's no such thing as a soul. It's just something they made up to scare kids, like the boogeyman or Michael Jackson."

- Bart Simpson


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Owl,

Si. The many targets per one jet thing made jets with more bombs (e.g. BUF) more attractive to ABCCC dudes.

The A-6 was used very handily in the shore-base expeditionary role in DS. In fact, I seem to remember photos of USMC squadrons loaded with 10 x 82's and 12 x Mk-20's. IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.

I'm fairly sure the 500 lb JDAM has IOC'ed (GBU-38). I haven't seen one yet personally though. Good for Harriers mostly... And any other strike platform that is concerned about CD.

--Woody

On 11/14/05 1:02 PM, in article , "Mike Kanze" wrote:


Woody,

It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.

And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.

With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario, minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out for MERs.

Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse, or some other McNamara-forbidden target.

ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce pas?

.... And that myth kept perpetuating. There were a few guys at China Lake
that were trying to plumb the Prowler for a Buddy Store. According to a
couple of mechs I used to socialize with, it was an O-level mod.

My contention (like yours) was that the Prowler was MUCH too valuable to be
relegated to tanker duty.

Now the P-3 on the other hand...

--Woody

On 11/15/05 1:20 PM, in article
, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about
to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they
could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a
"heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an
electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.

And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new
hypermorph.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:13:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
wrote:

My contention (like yours) was that the Prowler was MUCH too valuable to be
relegated to tanker duty.

Now the P-3 on the other hand...

Hey, all you have to do is fit a hook and figure out how to fold the
wings!!!!! ;-)

Bill Kambic

Mike Kanze wrote:
EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.

True...or lots of "give" available overhead. (My head is still locked in the Days of Wine and Roses, when each cycle had at least one EKA-3 and one or two A-6 duty tankers in orbit.)

******

Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.

And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new hypermorph.

--
Mike Kanze

Speaking of hypermorphing...An interesting article in the Sept. 2005
Proceedings, "Creatively Bridging the Gap" by Captain Gordon E. Van
Hook, USN, and Captain Thomas C. Cropper, USN, declares that the
APS-130 on the EA-6B makes it useful in an ASW/SSSC role (like it's not
tasked in too many roles already). Also, "Every aircraft in CVW-11 is
an ASW aircraft".