USN in case you missed it

[Rudd]

Here's a couple of possibly little known facts.

1. from https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea ... ler-02427/

April 24/14: The US Navy’s Carl Vinson [CVN 70] Carrier Strike Group will conduct a 3-day exercise in May, in order to test paper analysis that says raising the number of EA-18Gs Growlers on an aircraft carrier from 5 to 7-8 would be more effective overall. If the results confirm the paper analysis, an added buy in FY 2015 becomes a lot more likely. Sources: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “New Growler construction may depend on upcoming Navy exercise”.

Currently 5 EA-18Gs per carrier, may go to 7-8 if 22 more get approved, and I guess if above exercise supports it.

2. from http://www.msc.navy.mil/pm1/

Since 2000, commercial helicopter detachments have supplemented Navy helicopters in providing logistics and vertical replenishment services from CLF ships. These detachments free up active duty Sailors and Navy aircraft to focus on warfighting missions.

They fly commercial/civilian SA.330Js


plenty more official USN pics here http://www.navy.mil/gallery_search_resu ... page=1&r=4

[thewood1]

I have always wondered about the switch from the Prowler to the Growler. The Growler seems to be more multi-role as well as more effective in its primary role. And since those type of craft are somewhat force multipliers, what is the right balance now.

[Juramentado]

Growler could keep up with the current Strike Packages, which are all Superbugs. That was one very compelling operational reason. It also simplified the logistical and maintenance chains aboard the ship, increasing commonality across squadron types.

[thewood1]

Yeah, but my point/question was does the multi-capability of the Growler mean that you can have more of them without sacrificing as much raw strike/fighter power as bringing more Prwolers on board. How close is the Growler in capability to the Superbug so that bringing three more ECM aircraft on board does not limit you in striking power like the same exchange with the Prowler.

[jdkbph]

I would think this is an addition to the complement, not a substitution. There is space on the boat. The current CAWs are limited by budget not real estate.

JD

[thewood1]

So if they are limited by budget, it is the same question. Can you have half Growlers and half E Hornets with only a slight decrease in striking power. Does having an ECM aircraft that is close in capabilities to your main strike/fight aircraft buy you some budget/resource/space flexibility? If yes, is the USN moving in that direction?

I have never really looked at the loadouts in comparison and will do that to see if I can answer my own question.

[jdkbph]

The fly away costs are similar to the F model, and the only thing they're really missing is the gun. I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be feasible to replace any future F procurements with the G.

JD

[JRyan]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph
and the only thing they're really missing is the gun.

I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be feasible to replace any future F procurements with the G.

JD

You just did.

[Tomcat84]

And theres the question of the aircrew training. I havent ever flown a Super Bug or a Growler, but I can imagine that the Growler backseater needs to do some different specialized training than a Super Hornet backseater.

Question would be also then if it is feasible to train people to do full scale of Super Hornet task and full scale of Growler task and be good enough in all. Right now I cant imagine that Growler crews train much in CAS or Strike etc.

Plus it's good to have a gun


btw here's an interesting story that is related to this as well on wether or not the jammers are a good idea to fly with F-35s or not:

http://onforb.es/1iIdoBR

[AlmightyTallest]

Nice Article Tomcat84, I've seen similar ones posted as well. The big advantage of the Growlers is the wide spectrum of jamming they are capable of versus the smaller, usually x band self defence jammers on tactical aircraft.

In Command, the F-35's are amazing and very versatile aircraft on their own, but they become so much more capable when a few growlers are with a strike package to jam radars and communications over a wide spectrum and fire Harm's to keep the radar operators on their toes. They also serve a secondary function of limiting the jammed targeted sensors from seeing incoming cruise missiles and other ordinance, so you use up less ordinance in your strike to get the job done.

For me the 4 Growlers are indispensable when making strikes on the enemy, having 8 per carrier like they are thinking about really multiplies the ability of the entire ship's air wings to penetrate defenses and protect other strike packages.

[jdkbph]

ORIGINAL: JRyan

ORIGINAL: jdkbph
and the only thing they're really missing is the gun.

I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be feasible to replace any future F procurements with the G.

JD

You just did.

Yeah. I've been trying to figure out for some time now why the Navy went to the trouble of developing and buying both one and two seat versions of these airplanes. The F's, being two seaters, are supposedly better in the A2G role because of the extra set of eyes and work load distribution.

The biggest differences (that I am aware of) is the E's don't do the FAC mission (USN restriction... the plane is capable) and it carries a few minutes of gas more than the F. But for everything else the one and two seat versions are pretty much interchangeable, with no appreciable loss of capability between them.

Despite the fact that it doesn't make sense (to me... but I'd love to have it explained if anyone knows) it remains that there are a large number of both E and F squadrons, split roughly 60/40 in the fleet. It's my assumption that the F squadrons would (or should) specialize in the A2G role - because that's where the differentiation lies - where losing the gun in favor of a huge upgrade to ECM/SEAD capability, would not only not be a major deal, but a tremendous advantage overall. That's what leaves me wondering why they don't discontinue the F in favor of the G.

Admittedly, all speculation on my part. Trying to get anything concrete out of the guys who actually fly these things invariably results in a d|<k measuring contest between them.

[:)]

JD

[ExNusquam]

The F is more expensive than the E, due to it's increase in cockpit equipment and the extra ejection seat, and it is also carries 700 pounds of fuel less than the E, or about 5% less internal. It is my understanding that the Navy purchased enough F's to cover the FAC(A) role as per their SOP (USMC/USAF both do single seat FAC(A)), then used the slightly cheaper E's for all the other squadrons.

As for using G's instead of F's remember, the Growler has a few more differences than just missing a gun. It's got a few minor aerodynamic changes on the wing, as well as mounting the AN/ALQ-218 receivers on the wingtips. This means that without tip AIM-9s or a gun, the Growler usually carries no short-range dogfight weapons. The Growler also has different mission systems than the standard Rhino. Growler front seaters do not train with other (Super)Hornet pilots, but do all training on the jet at Whidbey. The mission equipment also tacks on about an extra $2 million to the price tag for the G, in addition to requiring the extra training.