Prowler squadrons cuts

[[email protected]]

I've just found it on NavyNewsStand:

"From Commander, Naval Air Forces Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Commander, Naval Air Forces has identified an
excess of student naval aviators (pilots) in the training pipeline,
based on current and near-term fleet needs. Starting immediately,
several steps will be taken to meet future fleet requirements.

Commander, Naval Air Forces and Commander, Naval Education and
Training Command are committed to identifying and training the number
of aviators necessary to meet fleet requirements. The reduced
requirements are due to several factors, including the accelerated
transition to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the F-14 Tomcat, the
sundowning of the S-3 Viking community, and the disestablishment of
two EA-6B Prowler squadrons. [...]"


The most of these facts seem obvious, but what about these two
deactivated Prowler squadrons? One of them is expeditionary
(land-based) VAQ-128, but what about the other? Do you have any ideas?

Best regards,

Jacek

[Ogden Johnson III]

wrote:

>The most of these facts seem obvious, but what about these two
>deactivated Prowler squadrons? One of them is expeditionary
>(land-based) VAQ-128, but what about the other? Do you have any ideas?

Purest speculation on my part, based on some things I know, and
some I suspect. The EA-6B is, and has been since the USAF
ditched its EF-111As, the only proven, operating, ECM/ECCM asset
the US has. There were a finite number of EA-6Bs made, years
ago; and they have been heavily used over the past few years -
more I suspect, than anyone in the DoD et al NCA precincts
predicted when they acceded to the USAF's desire to ditch the
EF-111A. Water under the bridge. But it means that until a
follow-on replacement for the EA-6B is firmly underway - and
right now there's a lot of inter-service infighting going on,
combined with the ever-present budgetary worries, over whether
it'll be an "EF-18 Growler", an F-22 variant, or whatever. So I
suspect that the Navy [either at the behest of DoD, or on its own
hook] is deactivating those two Prowler squadrons [remember,
EA-6B squadrons are only 5 aircraft] to put 10 EA-6Bs in the
"bank", for reactivation a few years down the road as the ones
remaining active start to face end-of-useful life problems due
flying the heck out of them in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq,
and ghods only know what's to come.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

Actually, the other VAQ squadron was VAQ-143 which never moved beyond the
precommissioning stage. So, the jets and the training throughput were used
elsewhere in the community. However, the replacement is the EA-18G. IOC
for this aircraft is supposed to be 2009. Although, the Navy is currently
buying only 90 aircraft. This means that the expeditionary role is going
away at least on paper. The 90 aircraft will give 5~6 jets per CV squadron
and about 20 for the FRS. That remaining number of aircraft will constitute
both aircraft in depot and losses. But we see how it fairs on the budget
for 2006.
-Moe

"Ogden Johnson III" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>The most of these facts seem obvious, but what about these two
>>deactivated Prowler squadrons? One of them is expeditionary
>>(land-based) VAQ-128, but what about the other? Do you have any ideas?
>
> Purest speculation on my part, based on some things I know, and
> some I suspect. The EA-6B is, and has been since the USAF
> ditched its EF-111As, the only proven, operating, ECM/ECCM asset
> the US has. There were a finite number of EA-6Bs made, years
> ago; and they have been heavily used over the past few years -
> more I suspect, than anyone in the DoD et al NCA precincts
> predicted when they acceded to the USAF's desire to ditch the
> EF-111A. Water under the bridge. But it means that until a
> follow-on replacement for the EA-6B is firmly underway - and
> right now there's a lot of inter-service infighting going on,
> combined with the ever-present budgetary worries, over whether
> it'll be an "EF-18 Growler", an F-22 variant, or whatever. So I
> suspect that the Navy [either at the behest of DoD, or on its own
> hook] is deactivating those two Prowler squadrons [remember,
> EA-6B squadrons are only 5 aircraft] to put 10 EA-6Bs in the
> "bank", for reactivation a few years down the road as the ones
> remaining active start to face end-of-useful life problems due
> flying the heck out of them in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq,
> and ghods only know what's to come.
> --
> OJ III
> [Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Ogden Johnson III]

"MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:

>Actually, the other VAQ squadron was VAQ-143 which never moved beyond the
>precommissioning stage. So, the jets and the training throughput were used
>elsewhere in the community. However, the replacement is the EA-18G. IOC
>for this aircraft is supposed to be 2009.

How many has Congress funded, appropriated the money for
construction, and are underway at Boeing? Last I heard, USAF is
still pushing the F-22 variant, or, worst case, insisting some of
their gear be used on the EA-18G in addition to, or vice some of,
the Navy gear. And remember [and this is neither pro- or
anti-Bush, just recognizing a fact of Congressional life], while
Iraq is going on, the military ain't gonna get the toys they
thought they were going to get, pre-Iraq. Not without Congress
cutting lots and lots of pork projects that they ain't gonna cut.
"Supposed to be" were almost the right words. I'd add a "was" in
front of that.

Too long [gack!, twenty-mumble years] out of the USMC, all of it
spent watching Ft Fumble and the workings of the "greatest
deliberative body in the world"/"the greatest pork production
body in the world" on Capitol Hill across the river for sport, I
won't believe in the EA-18G, or its IOC, until the first
production aircraft rolls out of the Boeing hangar doors.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

[Thomas Schoene]

Ogden Johnson III wrote:
> "MICHAEL OLEARY" > wrote:
>
>> Actually, the other VAQ squadron was VAQ-143 which never moved
>> beyond the precommissioning stage. So, the jets and the training
>> throughput were used elsewhere in the community. However, the
>> replacement is the EA-18G. IOC for this aircraft is supposed to be
>> 2009.
>
> How many has Congress funded, appropriated the money for
> construction, and are underway at Boeing?

Two prototypes building now, I believe, with additional test aircraft in the
next couple of years.

You and I both know that Congress doesn't fund procurement in advance and
the program isn't at the stage where mass production is possible. But there
was something like $400 million in the FY 05 Appropriations bill for EA-18G
development, and it looks like the EA-18G is included in the current
multiyear procurement authority for Super Hornets. So it's not a certainty,
but it's far from vaporware.

Last I heard, USAF is
> still pushing the F-22 variant,

Unless they've hung an arresting hook on the plane, it's not a starter for
the USN. In any case, what has been talked about for the USAF in the same
timeframe is more likely B-52s with jammer gear. The JSF/F-35 is also being
talked about. I've seen no one mention the F/A-22 as a jammer recently.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[D]

----------
In article et>, "Thomas
Schoene" > wrote:

> You and I both know that Congress doesn't fund procurement in advance and
> the program isn't at the stage where mass production is possible. But there
> was something like $400 million in the FY 05 Appropriations bill for EA-18G
> development, and it looks like the EA-18G is included in the current
> multiyear procurement authority for Super Hornets. So it's not a certainty,
> but it's far from vaporware.
>
> Last I heard, USAF is
>> still pushing the F-22 variant,
>
> Unless they've hung an arresting hook on the plane, it's not a starter for
> the USN. In any case, what has been talked about for the USAF in the same
> timeframe is more likely B-52s with jammer gear. The JSF/F-35 is also being
> talked about. I've seen no one mention the F/A-22 as a jammer recently.

USAF is struggling simply to preserve the F-22's it has. Looking for new
missions for them, especially when it will cost additional development
money, is not going to work.

You're right that the USAF is considering B-52's with jammer pods. Another
option being considered is supplementing these with UAV's for close in
jammer work, but they don't have a lot of power to spare.

The USMC is conducting a study of using the F-35 in this role as well,
because they do not want to buy the Growler. I have no idea how they can
claim that they lack the money to buy Growlers but will somehow find the
money to develop a dedicated F-35 variant. But studies are relatively
cheap. I expect that in the end, if the EA-18G can be made to work, the
Marines will eventually buy some.




D

[John Dallman]

In article et>,
(D) wrote:

> The USMC is conducting a study of using the F-35 in this role as well,
> because they do not want to buy the Growler. I have no idea how they
> can claim that they lack the money to buy Growlers but will somehow
> find the money to develop a dedicated F-35 variant.

Perhaps they aren't claiming that, but want a STOVL EW platform, so that
it can operate off the same ships/bases as their F-35s? The Royal Navy
might even fancy a few, if it can be made to work.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[D]

----------
In article >,
(John Dallman) wrote:

>> can claim that they lack the money to buy Growlers but will somehow
>> find the money to develop a dedicated F-35 variant.
>
> Perhaps they aren't claiming that, but want a STOVL EW platform, so that
> it can operate off the same ships/bases as their F-35s? The Royal Navy
> might even fancy a few, if it can be made to work.

According to Aviation Week, it is a money issue. However, clearly the USMC
must want to have it operate alongside their other F-35s.



D