 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dumpster4@hotmail.com
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Carrier
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
 |
|
There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.
R / John
<dumpster4 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Kanze
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
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" <jxc2 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote
There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.
R / John
<dumpster4 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krztalizer@aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:45 am Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
Mike Kanze wrote:
| Quote: | 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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dumpster4@hotmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:10 am Post subject: Re: 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?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Weiss
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:15 am Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
<dumpster4 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote...
| Quote: |
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!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug Woody and Erin Beal
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:47 am Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
Whoa there, Mike... Iıll 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
Loftthat 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 [email]_eadnbLGJckGaeneRVn-ig (AT) comcast (DOT) com[/email], "Mike
Kanze" <mikekanze (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Kanze
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
Re: 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" <dougnerin (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote
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 [email]_eadnbLGJckGaeneRVn-ig (AT) comcast (DOT) com[/email], "Mike Kanze" <mikekanze (AT) comcast (DOT) net> 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.D.Damron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
"John Weiss" <jrweiss98155(at)@[nospam]comcast(dot).net> wrote
| Quote: | 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carriere
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
C.D.Damron wrote:
| Quote: | "John Weiss" <jrweiss98155(at)@[nospam]comcast(dot).net> wrote in message
news:CdCdncqpyNFD8ejenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com...
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 :)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.D.Damron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
"Jim Carriere" <jimcarriere (AT) yahoooo (DOT) nospam> wrote
| Quote: | 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Carriere
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
C.D.Damron wrote:
| Quote: | "Jim Carriere" <jimcarriere (AT) yahoooo (DOT) nospam> wrote in message
news:awqdf.61045$ty1.8319 (AT) bignews1 (DOT) bellsouth.net...
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doug Woody and Erin Beal
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
Owl,
Of course, itıs 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 roleheck, the Tomcat did it!
--Woody
On 11/12/05 11:29 AM, in article
[email]q7Gdnbg-ougNu-venZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com[/email], "Mike Kanze"
<mikekanze (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Stickney
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
[email]krztalizer (AT) aol (DOT) com[/email] wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Kanze
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:55 pm Post subject: Re: EA-18G "Growler" |
|
|
Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,
| Quote: | 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" <dougnerin (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote
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 [email]q7Gdnbg-ougNu-venZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d (AT) comcast (DOT) com[/email], "Mike Kanze" <mikekanze (AT) comcast (DOT) net> 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.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
