View Single Post
  #3  
Old November 7th 07, 02:34 PM posted to aus.aviation,aus.politics,aus.services.defence,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Super Hornets: I don't get it

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:11:24 GMT, "Praetorian"
wrote:

"David Moss" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
writes...

You don't send strikers in on their own. That's what EW is for. Did you
know that there is a Wild Weasel version of the Super Hornet going into
production. (The EA18G "Growler") that will replace the EA6 Prowler and
the (now retired) EF111 Raven.


Growler, Prowler and Raven are NOT Wild Weasels. Weasels are NOT
jammers. Weasels are hunter/killers.

Just imagine, a EW platform with 100% in common with the rest of the
strike package.


Why? No real benefit. Different mission, different weapons, different
supply chain, different training, different profile, different
tactics. All you really need is airfield and tanker compatibility.

Electronic Warfare packs emit radio signals designed to jam or confuse
enemy radar. Notice the word "emit". Anything that emits RF can be
triangulated using very basic equipment.


That's why you separate your Weasels from your strikers.


That's why EW aircraft aren't Weasels.

Thats the downside of using EW: you let people know precisely where you
are. Generally people leave EW
packs


Hmmm, yeah, on-board EW kits, yes. I was talking about dedicated EW
aircraft. The ones with the really good EW voodoo.


Why do you need high-power broadband blasting when you can be stealthy
and only need to confuse the defense when it's in end-game? Big
dedicated EW blasters are SOOOO yesterday.

The SU34, which is not currently an option for anyone but Russia, is a
true F111 replacement. It is a long range fighter bomber that allegedly
has a semi stealthy shape


Doubtful. It doesn't exhibit much of the faceting you normally see on a low
RCS airframe.


Not much faceting on B-2....or F-22. Faceting was the first solution.
Compound curves were too difficult to machine consistently when the
F-117 was designed. Technology evolved.

and low level terrain following capability.


You do realise that terrain following is a good ground-based radar counter
measure, but not so good against a decent look-down radar on say....
Wedgetail?


Pulse doppler radars have provided excellent look-down/shoot down
since the late '70s. Ground clutter for an airborne platform simply
does not exist.

I learned that very impressively one day while tooling down the New
Mexico desert at 75' and 500 knots with one wing-tip nestled against
Mockingbird Ridge for vertical shielding enroute to a target. Got
nailed by a pair of F-15s that had me locked for the last fifteen
miles.

Ed Rasimus
Society of Wild Weasels #2488

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com