Boeing rolls out new aircraft...

willc

willc

New Member
and it is not a commercial airliner. It is the new EA-18G "Growler" which will be replacing the aging EA-6B "Prowler". It was rolled out in St. Louis, MO on Aug 4th. The new "Growler" is essentially a F/A-18F Super Hornet with the added ICAP III Electronic Warfare suite. Some of the new differences are the ability to hold the three AN/ALQ-99 Jamming pods, the football tail jamming pod has been integrated into the wingtips and now looks like an oversized sidewinder missile, two wing tanks, two HARM missiles, and of course all of the great things the Super Hornet has to offer.

Another key difference is the crew. This aircraft will cut three ECMO's (Electronic Countermeasure Officer) down to one. To do this will inevitably mean the pilot will have to assume some of the EW role.

The basic timeline for the aircraft is to go to PAX river for testing until 2008. Then the Fleet Replacement Squadron VAQ-129 will have their Prowlers replaced. From 2009-2012 three squadrons a year will be replaced by the Growler. Here are a couple links and pictures detailing more.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q3/060804b_nr.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_EA18G,,00.html

http://www.navy.mil/view_photos_top.asp
^ (type in ea-18g in search box on right and hit GO)
 
nice to know one branch is on time and on budget with its aircraft development.

I'm looking at you, blue. F-22!

(should I rap?)
 
I'm not too fond of this "one size fits all" F-18 fleet replacement going on in the NAVY.

The Super Hornet is a great airplane. Is it a good F-14 replacement...no I say in my very limited knowledge.

The growler though spiffy looking is just another Chevy Cavalier which is the exact same car as the Pontiac Sunfire. Or the Grand Am which is the same car as the Oldsmobile Alero. Or the Chevy GEO which is just a Toyota Corolla.

I think my point is gotten. The Growler will always be a Hornet to me!

:)
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
I'm not too fond of this "one size fits all" F-18 fleet replacement going on in the NAVY.

The Super Hornet is a great airplane. Is it a good F-14 replacement...no I say in my very limited knowledge.

The growler though spiffy looking is just another Chevy Cavalier which is the exact same car as the Pontiac Sunfire.
Click to expand...

I think the big reason everyone is so uneasy about having an F/A-18 dominated fleet is because we are all used to looking at a carrier and seeing about 4 different aircraft all there to do the same job. Moving on...

As stated earlier, the point of the EA-18G was not to come up with a whole new aircraft. The mission effectiveness of Electronic Warfare really isn't affected by what is carrying the equipment. Just like the current Prowler isn't more than a bigger A-6 Intruder. If you already have a great platform that is proven and the only thing you have to do is slap on the equipment, why not. I don't think anyone is trying to play off the Growler as some whole new aircraft.

As for the 18 replacing the 14, here is my two cents. It's a great Air to Air interceptor that was made famous by Top Gun. The point of it was to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and shoot down enemies from up to 100 miles away. Now that there are not many foreign air forces that pose a formatable air to air threat, why do we need an aircraft that is 30 years old that has been turned into an air to ground asset? We have the 18 that was specifically designed to do Air to Ground and Air to Air.
 
willc said:
I think the big reason everyone is so uneasy about having an F/A-18 dominated fleet is because we are all used to looking at a carrier and seeing about 4 different aircraft all there to do the same job. Moving on...

As stated earlier, the point of the EA-18G was not to come up with a whole new aircraft. The mission effectiveness of Electronic Warfare really isn't affected by what is carrying the equipment. Just like the current Prowler isn't more than a bigger A-6 Intruder. If you already have a great platform that is proven and the only thing you have to do is slap on the equipment, why not. I don't think anyone is trying to play off the Growler as some whole new aircraft.

As for the 18 replacing the 14, here is my two cents. It's a great Air to Air interceptor that was made famous by Top Gun. The point of it was to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix missile and shoot down enemies from up to 100 miles away. Now that there are not many foreign air forces that pose a formatable air to air threat, why do we need an aircraft that is 30 years old that has been turned into an air to ground asset? We have the 18 that was specifically designed to do Air to Ground and Air to Air.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you about the EA-18G. No real need to create a new airframe when they can slap the EW equip on a current frame and modify it.

My main issue about the F-18 has nothing to do with Top Gun. Yea the movie was awesome. But the F/A-18 isn't a good enough replacement IMHO for the F-14. The air force is replacing the F-15 which is most arguably a more capable air-air fighter then the F-14 with a totally new 21st century airframe.

You don't see the Air Force trying to replace the aging F-15 with a new varient of the F-16. So why is the Navy going it?
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
But the F/A-18 isn't a good enough replacement IMHO for the F-14. The air force is replacing the F-15 which is most arguably a more capable air-air fighter then the F-14 with a totally new 21st century airframe.

You don't see the Air Force trying to replace the aging F-15 with a new varient of the F-16. So why is the Navy going it?
Click to expand...

Sorry, what's IMHO?

I can see your point on the debate. I honestly think that the direction the Navy is going is to phase in the in the Super Hornet for all of the aging aircraft and then replace the Legacy C/D model Hornets with the JSF in 10-15 years. In addition, it's a whole other argument as to the fact that the Super Hornet IS a completely different aircraft. But I am not arguing any of that, just stating the point.

As far as the commoner is concerned, a Hornet is a Hornet, a Growler is a Hornet, you just can't call it that because now you are calling three different versions of the plane a Hornet. At the boat a Super Hornet is a "Rhino" not a "Hornet". I suppose it's like comparing apples, they are the same thing but different.
 
frog_flyer said:
'tis true, 'tis true. I could get a lot of lap dances for $270 million though... :bandit:
Click to expand...

What is this, a quote from a future press release about Iain winning $269,000,000 in the state lottery? :)

"Buggers, mate, I won $269 million quid but now I'm bloody $1,000,000 in debt to some strippa!"
 
willc said:
Sorry, what's IMHO?

I can see your point on the debate. I honestly think that the direction the Navy is going is to phase in the in the Super Hornet for all of the aging aircraft and then replace the Legacy C/D model Hornets with the JSF in 10-15 years. In addition, it's a whole other argument as to the fact that the Super Hornet IS a completely different aircraft. But I am not arguing any of that, just stating the point.

As far as the commoner is concerned, a Hornet is a Hornet, a Growler is a Hornet, you just can't call it that because now you are calling three different versions of the plane a Hornet. At the boat a Super Hornet is a "Rhino" not a "Hornet". I suppose it's like comparing apples, they are the same thing but different.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't the JSF just a 21st century Hornet/Viper. Not meaning they share the same airframe or avionics just that the JSF mission is the same as the Hornet/Viper i.e. light to medium multi-role support fighter.

I think that the JSF works well in conjunction with the Rator. Kinda like how the F-16 worked well in its support mission with the Eagle!
 
Although I like the Hornet, I also hate it at the same time, because its the killer of all of the cool aircraft, Tomcat, Viking, Prowler, now all of the aircraft onboard carriers are going to look the same.
 
NW004 said:
Although I like the Hornet, I also hate it at the same time, because its the killer of all of the cool aircraft, Tomcat, Viking, Prowler, now all of the aircraft onboard carriers are going to look the same.
Click to expand...

Reguarding the F-14 its a 1960's design and couldn't compete in todays high tech 21st century military. Most of the war planes we grew up with can't thats why their slowly being replaced. What with 21st technology like stealth or "super cruise" or thrust vectoring.

The F-14's airframes being as old as they are I'm sure it wasn't cost effective to attempt to "A350" the Tomcat up to SU-27 standards.

Having said that I agree that the Tomcat will always hold a very special and dear place in my heart and will until a more capable plane replaces it always be the pre-eminate fleet interceptor/aggressor in the Navy.
 
I too, am sad to see the F-14 being phased out. What is going to happen to all the AIM-54's, now that nothing else can carry them?

I am not in the miltary but the guys that I have talked to don't like the 18. Two guys I ran into a ways back that were previous 14 drivers had nothing but negatives to say about the 18.

I would have loved to see them redesign the 14 from the ground up using today's technology.

Anyone out there that can comment professionally on the abilities of these jets head to head?
 
Maximillian_Jenius said:
You don't see the Air Force trying to replace the aging F-15 with a new varient of the F-16. So why is the Navy going it?
Click to expand...

Finances...finances... The Navy has to maintain pretty much everything the Air Force does, PLUS maintaining a blue water ocean going fleet of cruisers, destroyers, carriers, auxiliaries. Ever check the cost of a nuclear submarine? Horrific maintenance and upkeep costs is what's going to keep all the cool flying toys out of the Navy.
 
fludy12 said:
Finances...finances... The Navy has to maintain pretty much everything the Air Force does, PLUS maintaining a blue water ocean going fleet of cruisers, destroyers, carriers, auxiliaries. Ever check the cost of a nuclear submarine? Horrific maintenance and upkeep costs is what's going to keep all the cool flying toys out of the Navy.
Click to expand...

Thats a great point.
What does the Air Force have to support: AIRPLANES
What does the Navy have to support: Airplanes, Ships, and Subs.

I tend to forget that the Navy is more than just flying. Us Naval aviators tend to be a little self-absorbed. By the way, the cost of a Los Angeles class sub is on the order of $900 million dollars. Shoot man I gots that in my wallet. :insane:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top