JA Boomer

With the new EA-18G Growler coming on line in the next few years, replacing the long serving and seemingly effective EA-6B Prowler, the US Navy is certainly gaining some major capabilities. These include a fantastic new AESA radar, new self-defense capabilities that did not exist with the Prowler, new avionics, and a modern airframe requiring a fraction of the maintenance. As well as more speed, greater maneuverability, ect...

However, it seems to me that the Navy is also losing in a few categories. There are currently 2 electronic warfare officers in the Prowler, and I believe the copilot also helps out in this respect during missions. In the EA-18G, there is only one man running all the equipment, and the pilot will more than likely have his hands full most of the time. Reducing the manning from 2.5 to 1 in the electronic attack profile seems like a capability loss to me. Or maybe the new avionics and hardware can make up for this?

Also, there’s a big decrease in mission radius when going from the EA-6B to the EA-18G. I can't help but think this is a HUGE deal. This is a very important asset, and not having the same legs as the EA-6B will result in a less effective platform in my eyes. Less time on station, more tanking, to me is less effective.

Is it just me, or in the Navy's quest for a Super Hornet nest of a carrier wing, have they lost some of the best features of the current platform. The Navy is gaining in a lot of areas no questions, but the reduced crew and lack of range would seem to impair the EA-18G in its role. Thoughts?

Also, tactical fighters have become faster, more maneuverable, more lethal, yet their combat ranges seem to be dropping. I know the F-111 and A-6 were attack aircraft, but they had some monster ranges. Why is it that modern fighters like the F/A-18 seem to struggle with mission radius, or is that all in my head?

Thanks, Boomer

wabpilot

Automation is the difference. The slightly more modern EF-111 had only one operator. The EF-18G is considerably more modern than the avionics suite in the EF-111.

Inflight refueling. No strike package is going without it these days.

If you mean that more availablility is a bad thing, then the EF-18 is definitely a bad idea. Right now, the EA-6 takes multible manhours of service and maintenance per flight hour. Whereas the EA-18G should reduce that significantly. If experience with the F-18E/F is any guide, the difference will be the same as having half again as many aircraft.

The F/A-18 is NOT a replacement for the A-6 or F-111. The latter are medium attack aircraft. The F/A-18 is a light attack type. The F-18E/F is the medium attack aircraft of the near term, until the F-35C arrives. Do not attempt to compare light attack with medium. Different missions, different specifications.

JA Boomer

Ah yes, I forgot about the Raven, I guess one operator is not really an issue.

Yes, I know this, however, the loss of range from the EA-6B to the EA-18G means more tanking and less avaiable time on station in between tanking. I would think this would be a pretty big capability loss, although not critical given the amunt of refueling support as you mentioned.


I was certainly not comparing the F/A-18 to these aircraft, although the F/A-18 kinda did end up replacing the A-6, in some repects anyways. My point is that we had long ranged tactical aircraft (ok attack/bomber aircraft) designed many decades ago, so way do modern day tactical fighters sometimes seem to struggle with the combat range catagory. Is it just people complaining, and not an issue? Or does the design and mission of aircraft (let say Hornet) make range less of a priority. It just seems to me that gas is an afterthought in modern fighters, and they wind up with less space for it than they need (although I think the Raptor has decent range).

Jimmy

Not really. They dont need to be out there jamming for hours at a time. Just long enough to accomplish the mission at hand.

wabpilot

Again, you are mixing missions. The navy has two distinct offensive mission sets, light attack and medium attack. (There was once heavy attack, but that has been take over by the SSBN force.) Define which mission you are writing about. Then we can reply. But to criticise the F-18A, C or D for not being able to carry out the medium attack mission is a straw man argument. It can be offered for no reason other than to spark a fight.

JA Boomer

Sorry, I am not trying to spark a fight, nor am I trying to put down the Hornet (love the aircraft). And yes, I will agree it was clearly designed as an A-7 replacement for the light attack role. However, it just seems to me that tactical sized aircraft have less range now than some of them previously did. I guess that comes down to mission requirements changing -> design parameters changing -> not needing the same range.

As far as picking on the F-18A/B/C/D, the fact thats its roots are planted the the USAF light-weight-fighter program gave it a serious handicap in the range statistics. Just a fact, if it was designed from the ground up as the Navy's light strike platform (not here's the F-17A, see what you can do) things might have been different.

JA Boomer

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know which aircraft carries more fuel on a full tanker loadout:

Guessing here on the drop-tanks, but I think it would be...

Super Hornet with 5 drop-tanks or the Viking with 2.

I'd be assuming they're both carrying a fuel internal fuel loadout (and external with the drop-tanks), a single buddy refueling drop-tank, and no weapons on an air-to-air refueling mission.

Thanks, Boomer

JA Boomer

On a somewhat related note, does anyone know which aircraft carries more fuel on a full tanker loadout:

Guessing here on the drop-tanks, but I think it would be...

Super Hornet with 5 drop-tanks or the Viking with 2.

I'd be assuming they're both carrying a full internal fuel loadout (and external with the drop-tanks), a single buddy refueling drop-tank, and no weapons on an air-to-air refueling mission.

Thanks, Boomer

wabpilot

Strike is a very different mission. One, which I will discuss in only a limited fashion in an open forum. I will say that the F-4B and F-4J were well suited to the role.

JA Boomer

Mmm...would you be able to elaborate on how the Navy/Air Force (or yourself) terms its air-to-ground missions. To me, I see it like this...

Close Air Support: destruction of enemy ground forces near blue forces usually with the direction of friendly forces on the ground.

Air Interdiction: destruction of enemy ground forces well away from the front lines where the targets and their locations are known before hand.

Strike: destruction of an enemy fixed target where the target and its location are known and the mission is entirely pre-planned.

Attack: destruction of enemy forces (be it ground forces or fixed targets) where the target and/or its location are not entirely known. Just kinda go see what you can get kinda thing.

This is what always comes to my mind when I think of these missions. I realize these are probable not at all correct. I also realize that there are many different types of air-to-ground missions not mentioned in my 4 catagories above. I am interested in why you specifically are wary of discussing the "strike" mission?

The point I am trying to make with all this, is that with the multi-role fighters that are the standard these days, it does not make sense for an aircraft to fulfill the "light attack" or "medium strike" role. The light/medium/heavy designations may signify the warload or range, but I don't see any reason to label an aircraft with an attack/strike/interdiction mission, as they will probably do all of these plus more.

wabpilot

Strike missions call for the use of special weapons which may or may not have been aboard our carriers. Beyond confirming that the F-4B and F-4J were subject to SALT I, II and START limitations, I don't intend to discuss it. Everything else I know is classified. It would take me longer than I care to look up an open source for anything I wanted to write about.

You may not see the point, but then you are not BUAER. They specified a light attack aircraft. Thus, you are stuck with their set of specifications.

JA Boomer

Thanks for your responses wabpilot...I didn't know the nuclear option was considered the "strike" mission in the Navy. Just wondering, what would a standard bombing mission on a fixed target be called in the Navy, simply "attack"?

I understand that organizations need to attach some sort of designation and specification to their aircraft projects. When designing an aircraft, without firm aircraft goals and roles, nothing would ever get designed...let alone getting a prototype off the ground, because you would be constantly trying to make it do new and better things.

Aircraft usually get new missions and capabilties after they become operational, hence the multi-role tactical fighters we see today. This is why I don't see much point in attaching these designation to modern fighters, because for the most part they can perform a variety of missions. But I see the need to have a concrete set of goals when designing a new aircraft.

Jimmy

Interesting. AF types use "strike" and "air interdiction" interchangeably.

JA Boomer

Just wondering Jimmy, what type of missions does "strike" or "air interdiction" mean in the AF? fixed target, ground forces, known locations? Or does it apply to almost any air-to-ground bombing mission aside from CAS?

Jimmy

Pretty much everything besides CAS or Dynamic Targeting/Time-Sensitive Targeting. DT would be where a B-52 or something just loiters waiting for a target to pop up. TST would basically be a high-priority DT with a limited window of opportunity...the perfect example was a couple of years ago when a B-1 bombed a little cafe in Baghdad and missed Saddam Hussein by like 2 minutes. That specific event is why TST has become such a hot item in the AF.

Typically a strike mission would be a preplanned mission, usually organized a couple of days in advance.

Getting a little further into the weeds, flying a strike mission automatically involves other assets...You have your strikers, the OCA mission (escorts, basically), SEAD mission, tankers, etc. They're all their own "mission" but its not completely incorrect to call the whole thing a "strike mission."