EA-18G "Growler"

Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
upgrades for the EA-18G.

See:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ch...s/JAM11095.xml

There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.

R / John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
upgrades for the EA-18G.

See:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ch...s/JAM11095.xml

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.

--
Mike Kanze

"Inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened."

- Terry Pratchett, "Moving Pictures"


"John Carrier" wrote in message ...
There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.

R / John

wrote in message
oups.com...
Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
upgrades for the EA-18G.

See:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ch...s/JAM11095.xml

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...

v/r
Gordon

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!

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.

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

Whoa there, Mike... I¹ll agree with you that the gun was a bad idea, but the
rockets worked just fine.

I shot a bunch on a MAARP det in fall 1991... somewhere in the vicinity of 5
sorties firing Zunis and 2.75 in every mode we could think of except General
Loft‹that seemed like a bad idea. Even handed them off to the B/N in the
chute for one hop.

The jet was good at it and we got great hits.

--Woody

On 11/11/05 1:44 PM, in article , "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.

EA-18G "Growler"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.

--
Mike Kanze

"Inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened."

- Terry Pratchett, "Moving Pictures"


"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Whoa there, Mike... I'll agree with you that the gun was a bad idea, but the rockets worked just fine.

I shot a bunch on a MAARP det in fall 1991... somewhere in the vicinity of 5 sorties firing Zunis and 2.75 in every mode we could think of except General Loft-that seemed like a bad idea. Even handed them off to the B/N in the chute for one hop.

The jet was good at it and we got great hits.

--Woody

On 11/11/05 1:44 PM, in article , "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.