EA-18G "Growler"

[[email protected]]

Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
upgrades for the EA-18G.

See:

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/JAM11095.xml

[John Carrier]

There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.

R / John

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
> upgrades for the EA-18G.
>
> See:
>
> http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/JAM11095.xml
>

[Mike Kanze]

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" > wrote in message ...
There are limits to multirole capability. I still think the Rhino as tanker
is right up there with Alcoholic as bartender.

R / John

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Even though it hasn't been fielded yet, the Navy is already eyeing
> upgrades for the EA-18G.
>
> See:
>
> http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/JAM11095.xml
>

[[email protected]]

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...

v/r
Gordon

[[email protected]]

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?

[John Weiss]

> wrote...
>
> 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!

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Whoa there, Mike... I¹ll 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 , "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.

[Mike Kanze]

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" > wrote in message ...
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 , "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.

[C.D.Damron]

"John Weiss" > wrote in message
. ..

> 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.

[Jim Carriere]

C.D.Damron wrote:
> "John Weiss" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
> > 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 :)

[C.D.Damron]

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
.. .
> 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.

[Jim Carriere]

C.D.Damron wrote:
> "Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> 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.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Owl,

Of course, it¹s 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
, "Mike Kanze"
> 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.

[Peter Stickney]

wrote:

>
> 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.

[Mike Kanze]

Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

>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" > wrote in message ...
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 , "Mike Kanze" > 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.

[Thomas Schoene]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> 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.)

The way I recall it, the other pylon had a Rockeye rather than an iron
bomb. Certianly clusters have been found effective against small
surface cfraft, adn a whole lot easier to hit with than unitary bombs.

The S-3s went a lot more than 1-for-1 in Gulf War 1. IIRC, that same
S-3 had about a half-dozen bombing mission stencils next to the buddy store.

Thomas Schoene

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Okay, I¹ll play luffberry with you for a bit.

I agree with your point... FAC(A) may not the A-6¹s best mission. Night
interdiction was certainly the primary mission for the Intruder. AND since
it retired in 1997, I find this thread nothing more than a fun ³what might
have been² discussion.

But... And here¹s the fun part... The majority of the answer depends on what
sort of war we¹re fighting. If we¹re fighting the standard rollback
campaign, it will eventually degrade to CAS as the ground forces push in
close to the enemy. If the war is successful, deep strike interdiction
opportunities become fewer and CAS or SCAR becomes more prevalent.

That¹s where a FAC(A) Intruder with lengthy on-station time and lots of
rockets works. He helps pick out the targets, keeps an eye on the troop
movements and friendlies, and talks his buddies¹ eyes onto the hostiles on
the ground. Intruder... Would have been perfect for the mission.
Meanwhile, bring in the SLUF¹s or the Hornets to drop ordnance and generate
the actual CAS sorties.

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
>> >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.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Hey, one more thing.

I found myself wondering a couple of years ago how much more successful we
could have been in the recent conflict if we would have still had the mighty
thunderpig?

An Intruder with a smart MER or TER that was JDAM capable could have carried
a decent load of 10-12 JDAM easily‹provided we¹d have fielded the SWIP Block
1A upgrades.

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent
stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with
JDAM!

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" > wrote:

> Woody,
>
>> >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.

[John Carrier]

Re: EA-18G "Growler"SNIP>

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with JDAM!

--Woody

SNIP>

Woody!!!

Are you coming back from the "dark side?"

R / John

[Mike Kanze]

Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.

And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.

With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario, minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out for MERs.

Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse, or some other McNamara-forbidden target.

ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce pas?

--
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" > wrote in message ...
Hey, one more thing.

I found myself wondering a couple of years ago how much more successful we could have been in the recent conflict if we would have still had the mighty thunderpig?

An Intruder with a smart MER or TER that was JDAM capable could have carried a decent load of 10-12 JDAM easily-provided we'd have fielded the SWIP Block 1A upgrades.

In March-April 2003, Hornets were flying around with 2-4 bombs on parent stations. Imagine the striking power of the A-6 armed to the teeth with JDAM!

--Woody

On 11/13/05 5:55 PM, in article , "Mike Kanze" > wrote:


Woody,

>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.

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Owl,

Si. The many targets per one jet thing made jets with more bombs (e.g. BUF)
more attractive to ABCCC dudes.

The A-6 was used very handily in the shore-base expeditionary role in DS.
In fact, I seem to remember photos of USMC squadrons loaded with 10 x 82¹s
and 12 x Mk-20¹s. IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a ³ferry tail² given
that at least one drop tank was required for on station time‹at least in my
experience.

I¹m fairly sure the 500 lb JDAM has IOC¹ed (GBU-38). I haven¹t seen one yet
personally though. Good for Harriers mostly... And any other strike
platform that is concerned about CD.

--Woody

On 11/14/05 1:02 PM, in article
, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

> Woody,
>
> It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes
> was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.
>
> And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that
> give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per
> target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.
>
> With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly
> toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third
> house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout
> approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario,
> minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs
> the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary
> usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out
> for MERs.
>
> Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row
> of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking
> your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse,
> or some other McNamara-forbidden target.
>
> ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce
> pas?

[Mike Kanze]

Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,

>IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.

True...or lots of "give" available overhead. (My head is still locked in the Days of Wine and Roses, when each cycle had at least one EKA-3 and one or two A-6 duty tankers in orbit.)

******

Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.

And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new hypermorph.

--
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" > wrote in message ...
Owl,

Si. The many targets per one jet thing made jets with more bombs (e.g. BUF) more attractive to ABCCC dudes.

The A-6 was used very handily in the shore-base expeditionary role in DS. In fact, I seem to remember photos of USMC squadrons loaded with 10 x 82's and 12 x Mk-20's. IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.

I'm fairly sure the 500 lb JDAM has IOC'ed (GBU-38). I haven't seen one yet personally though. Good for Harriers mostly... And any other strike platform that is concerned about CD.

--Woody

On 11/14/05 1:02 PM, in article , "Mike Kanze" > wrote:


Woody,

It goes almost without saying that one of the Drumstick's finest attributes was as a carrier-capable long-legged flying dump truck.

And playing the "what might have been" along with you, the switch to weps that give platforms "targets per sortie" capabilities (versus the "sorties per target" days of the VN war) would further magnify the "dump truck" honorific.

With the air attack emphasis in the current conflict moving increasingly toward smaller, high-accuracy weps (take out the shed in the back of the third house in the block, instead of the entire block), the potential A-6 loadout approaches the old 28 weps-on-5-MERS configuration (and your FAC(A) scenario, minus the comparatively-inaccurate rockets). Further, this hypothetical begs the reintroduction of the A-6 into a USMC-style shore-based expeditionary usage. With no need to lug to/from the boat, more drop tanks are switched out for MERs.

Certainly a change from the days of "take out the center tank in the first row of the POL complex" and pray that your system didn't go squirrelly, taking your run over Uncle Ho's Happy Peoples' Convalescent Hospital & SAM Warehouse, or some other McNamara-forbidden target.

ISTR that a MK82 JDAM is in the works, or maybe already deployed, n'est-ce pas?

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

.... And that myth kept perpetuating. There were a few guys at China Lake
that were trying to plumb the Prowler for a Buddy Store. According to a
couple of mechs I used to socialize with, it was an O-level mod.

My contention (like yours) was that the Prowler was MUCH too valuable to be
relegated to tanker duty.

Now the P-3 on the other hand...

--Woody

On 11/15/05 1:20 PM, in article
, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:
>
> Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about
> to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they
> could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a
> "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an
> electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.
>
> And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new
> hypermorph.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:13:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>My contention (like yours) was that the Prowler was MUCH too valuable to be
>relegated to tanker duty.
>
>Now the P-3 on the other hand...

Hey, all you have to do is fit a hook and figure out how to fold the
wings!!!!! ;-)

Bill Kambic

[Mike Kanze]

Bill,

Not quite so simple.

First you have to wean the VP community from per-diem. Only when you have been successful in this can you consider the investment in airframe mods.

--
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


> wrote in message ...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:13:53 GMT, "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal"
> wrote:

>My contention (like yours) was that the Prowler was MUCH too valuable to be
>relegated to tanker duty.
>
>Now the P-3 on the other hand...

Hey, all you have to do is fit a hook and figure out how to fold the
wings!!!!! ;-)

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:20:28 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
> wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Not quite so simple.
>
>First you have to wean the VP community from per-diem.

<making the Sign of the Cross> Get thee behind me,
Satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

>Only when you have been successful in this can you consider the investment in airframe mods.

Well, OK, as long we don't have to give up the galley.

Bill Kambic

[[email protected]]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,
>
> >IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.
>
> True...or lots of "give" available overhead. (My head is still locked in the Days of Wine and Roses, when each cycle had at least one EKA-3 and one or two A-6 duty tankers in orbit.)
>
> ******
>
> Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.
>
> And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new hypermorph.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze

Speaking of hypermorphing...An interesting article in the Sept. 2005
Proceedings, "Creatively Bridging the Gap" by Captain Gordon E. Van
Hook, USN, and Captain Thomas C. Cropper, USN, declares that the
APS-130 on the EA-6B makes it useful in an ASW/SSSC role (like it's not
tasked in too many roles already). Also, "Every aircraft in CVW-11 is
an ASW aircraft".

[Mike Kanze]

Same as what happened in the mid-1970s, when we migrated to the CV deck (from the split CVA / CVS dedicated decks). Among other taskings was that the A-6s would become secondary SSSC platforms, and the primary delivery platform for the later-cancelled CAPTOR (encapsulated torpedo) weapon.

Deja-vu all over again.

--
Mike Kanze

"Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way."

-- Homer Simpson

> wrote in message oups.com...
Mike Kanze wrote:
> Re: EA-18G "Growler"Woody,
>
> >IMHO the 28-bomb loadout was almost a "ferry tail" given that at least one drop tank was required for on station time-at least in my experience.
>
> True...or lots of "give" available overhead. (My head is still locked in the Days of Wine and Roses, when each cycle had at least one EKA-3 and one or two A-6 duty tankers in orbit.)
>
> ******
>
> Nasty crack that circulated in the early 1970s, just as the EA-6Bs were about to make their first sea deployment, was one that asked how much "give" they could offer. On at least one occasion, this sort of comment came from a "heavy" who had never taken the time to notice that the EA-6B was an electron-chaser by design, and not a hypermorph like the Whale had become.
>
> And now it appears we are coming full-circle, with the Growler being the new hypermorph.
>
> --
> Mike Kanze

Speaking of hypermorphing...An interesting article in the Sept. 2005
Proceedings, "Creatively Bridging the Gap" by Captain Gordon E. Van
Hook, USN, and Captain Thomas C. Cropper, USN, declares that the
APS-130 on the EA-6B makes it useful in an ASW/SSSC role (like it's not
tasked in too many roles already). Also, "Every aircraft in CVW-11 is
an ASW aircraft".

[Thomas Schoene]

Mike Kanze wrote:
> Same as what happened in the mid-1970s, when we migrated to the CV deck
> (from the split CVA / CVS dedicated decks). Among other taskings was
> that the A-6s would become secondary SSSC platforms, and the primary
> delivery platform for the later-cancelled CAPTOR (encapsulated torpedo)
> weapon.

Regarding CAPTOR, "later canceled" must mean "served for more than 20
years and was retired". CAPTOR was fielded in 1979 and phased out
around 2002.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Mike Kanze]

Tom,

I had heard otherwise, but then I've been gone from the Canoe Club for 30 years now. Thanks for the correction.

--
Mike Kanze

"Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way."

-- Homer Simpson

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message k.net...
Mike Kanze wrote:
> Same as what happened in the mid-1970s, when we migrated to the CV deck
> (from the split CVA / CVS dedicated decks). Among other taskings was
> that the A-6s would become secondary SSSC platforms, and the primary
> delivery platform for the later-cancelled CAPTOR (encapsulated torpedo)
> weapon.

Regarding CAPTOR, "later canceled" must mean "served for more than 20
years and was retired". CAPTOR was fielded in 1979 and phased out
around 2002.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"