EA-18G "Growler"

"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.

Owl,

Of course, it¹s 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.

wrote:


Mike Kanze wrote:
John,

Yet another illustration of the point that, just because you can do
it, it doesn't mean that it was a good idea to begin with.

Like hanging A/G rockets and gun pods on A-6s, among other follies.


Or rocket pods on S-3A's. The lil flip up "sight" on the dashboard
consisted of a 1"x 6" piece of plexi with lines inscribed on it, but
since there was no corresponding mark on the windshield or allowance
for pilot height, the entire concept had less to do with accuracy
and
more to do with a general feeling of futility. TLAR has been in use
for decades, and in the S-3, this continued on into the somewhat
modern
era. I think the S-3 would have been the modern equiv of the TBD
if
the balloon ever went up during the cold war out at sea. Can you
imagine VS-24 rolling in to attack a seriously defended anchorage,
or
warship with an AAW capability? With rockets?? Gruesome...

True 'nuff, but they did go 1 for 1 vs. the Iraqi Navy.
With the refueling store.

(As I Understand It, they were loaded 1 Buddy Pod + 1 1,000# bomb for
their refueling tracks. The War Hoover got called to deal with an
Iraqi boat making a break for it. Apparently during the run, the
Ports & Starbords got mixed up, and they dropped from the wrong
pylon. (Oops!) They made up for it though, by bullseyeing the boat,
and holing it from top deck to keel.)

One of those Bad News, Good News days.
--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

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.

Peter Stickney wrote:

True 'nuff, but they did go 1 for 1 vs. the Iraqi Navy.
With the refueling store.

(As I Understand It, they were loaded 1 Buddy Pod + 1 1,000# bomb for
their refueling tracks. The War Hoover got called to deal with an
Iraqi boat making a break for it. Apparently during the run, the
Ports & Starbords got mixed up, and they dropped from the wrong
pylon. (Oops!) They made up for it though, by bullseyeing the boat,
and holing it from top deck to keel.)

The way I recall it, the other pylon had a Rockeye rather than an iron
bomb. Certianly clusters have been found effective against small
surface cfraft, adn a whole lot easier to hit with than unitary bombs.

The S-3s went a lot more than 1-for-1 in Gulf War 1. IIRC, that same
S-3 had about a half-dozen bombing mission stencils next to the buddy store.

Thomas Schoene

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.