VAQ-129 EA-18G Paint Scheme

Hot off the press.

http://damrontech.com/vaq129.ppt

The wingtip stations do have the receivers on them in the photo. The rest
of the stuff looks correct. I also agree that the EA-6B needs to be
retired!
-Moe

"fudog50" wrote in message
...
Pretty cool artistry.
Hey! I see 2 HARM's and an empty outboard wing station! Pretty sure
that is where the 99 receivers and antennas will go. Everytime I see a
picture of a G, it excites the hell out me, lets get this jet fielded!
I was a Prowler guy (MMCO) for a tour and currently onboard a carrier.
Last cruise, Prowlers were our heaviest hitters for logistics, that
is, per aircraft. C/D squadrons overall require the most support but
have more jets. E/F is great, other than the P.O.S. APG-73. Prowlers
need to go away fast!

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:36:10 GMT, "C.D.Damron"
wrote:

Hot off the press.

http://damrontech.com/vaq129.ppt

Pretty cool artistry.
Hey! I see 2 HARM's and an empty outboard wing station! Pretty sure
that is where the 99 receivers and antennas will go. Everytime I see a
picture of a G, it excites the hell out me, lets get this jet fielded!
I was a Prowler guy (MMCO) for a tour and currently onboard a carrier.
Last cruise, Prowlers were our heaviest hitters for logistics, that
is, per aircraft. C/D squadrons overall require the most support but
have more jets. E/F is great, other than the P.O.S. APG-73. Prowlers
need to go away fast!

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:36:10 GMT, "C.D.Damron"
wrote:

Hot off the press.

http://damrontech.com/vaq129.ppt

"MICHAEL OLEARY" wrote in message
news:bjz9e.23801$jd6.10548@trnddc07...
The wingtip stations do have the receivers on them in the photo. The rest
of the stuff looks correct. I also agree that the EA-6B needs to be
retired!

Retirement will start in 2009 and the last Prowler is scheduled for
retirement in 2014 if current timetables hold up.

That PowerPoint presentation was given to me by the head of the EA-18G
program, so I would hope that he would have noticed any obvious problems
with the portrayals.

I understand your enthusiasm about EA-18G ;-) - it could be called an
"F/A-18F Plus" rather than "EA-6B replacement".

First version of the story was that EA-18G was incapable of carrying
AIM-9X (having wingtips EW pods permanently attached), but now appears
it can do anything F/A-18F can do, plus missions requiring dedicated
electronic warfare equipment not available in F version.

That would be a plane for every day of the war - from the start, when
jamming, recce, SEAD/time-critical strike missions are especially
important, until the later phase, when it could support F/A-18E/F on
tanker, strike, or fighter duties. It could also act as a Forward Air
Controller (Airborne) or UAV control platform.

The only question is: will it be as effective jammer as Prowler is?

Best regards,

Jacek

wrote in message
oups.com...
The only question is: will it be as effective jammer as Prowler is?


I'll ask my father, he is head of the Growler program and is a former
Prowler ECMO.

In article Obgae.9310$WI3.5518@attbi_s71, C.D.Damron
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
The only question is: will it be as effective jammer as Prowler is?


I'll ask my father, he is head of the Growler program and is a former
Prowler ECMO.

upgraded ICAP III system and ALQ-99 pods. Why not?

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
news:220420052058559276% upgraded ICAP III system and ALQ-99 pods. Why not?

I'm curious about crew workload going from 2-3 ECMO's to 1.

The only question is: will it be as effective jammer as Prowler is?

Not really the only question.

When the Prowler came into service in the early 1970s, the question in some
misinformed quarters was:

"How much gas can it give?"

This was actually a very serious question coming from folks accustomed to
operations with the Electric Whale (EKA-3B). With tanking assets at a
premium, I am sure this question will resurface with the Growler if it
hasn't already.

--
Mike Kanze

"When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."

- Claude Swanson (Secretary of the Navy, second Roosevelt administration)


wrote in message
oups.com...
I understand your enthusiasm about EA-18G ;-) - it could be called an
"F/A-18F Plus" rather than "EA-6B replacement".

First version of the story was that EA-18G was incapable of carrying
AIM-9X (having wingtips EW pods permanently attached), but now appears
it can do anything F/A-18F can do, plus missions requiring dedicated
electronic warfare equipment not available in F version.

That would be a plane for every day of the war - from the start, when
jamming, recce, SEAD/time-critical strike missions are especially
important, until the later phase, when it could support F/A-18E/F on
tanker, strike, or fighter duties. It could also act as a Forward Air
Controller (Airborne) or UAV control platform.

The only question is: will it be as effective jammer as Prowler is?

Best regards,

Jacek

In article ybhae.10294$r53.7704@attbi_s21, C.D.Damron
wrote:

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
news:220420052058559276% upgraded ICAP III system and ALQ-99 pods. Why not?

I'm curious about crew workload going from 2-3 ECMO's to 1.


I've only flown the Growler sim a couple times, one a very early
version circa 96 in St. Louis and once the latest road show version in
early 04 and it's come a long ways in that time. I have about 2200
hours (ECMO) in the Prowler starting with the baseline ICAP II and
finished up with the block 89A as a reference point . Given the changes
in the ICAPIII system and that the pilot will now have more tasks than
currenty in the Prowler my own opinion is the job can be done pretty
easily by two folks.

Of course, cross countries may be less fun with less of your buds along!

Pugs