It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


F/A-18G "Growler"(EA-18 Airborne Electronic Attack Aircraft )

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 05:50 AM
The new EA-18 or F/A-18G is a good idea in my oppinion. It will allow the millitary to condense the EW mission into a more efficient package. If they do it right, the new EA-18 will also have SEAD capibility in it. Now we can jam them and shoot them with one plane. I think the Navy and the Air Force should use the same plane. If it works, use it!


posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 12:13 PM
Great graphic :

The prototype :

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:04 AM
Just a question. It would be pretty logical that the G would be a 1 seated aircraft and H would be the 2 seated version. But why is the G 2 seated?

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:12 AM
I think I see where you are getting your logic from. The F-18B was the trainer version of the A, the D was the trainer model of the C and the F is the trainer model of the E. The Hornet A, C and E were all designed to be single seat combat aircraft, however the G requires two seats for the mission, it does not necessarily follow that every alternate model has one seat then two, that is just a consequence of ordering a training model of every new variant, the EA-18G however is not a trainer or a fighter, it just happens to be the next new model after the F.

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:05 AM
I see, thank you. But how about the Rafale, There will be three models if I'am correct. the B, C and N. The N is the navy verison. the C is single seated and B two seated. Any ideas or knowledge why they do it the other way around? and why not start with A?

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 11:31 AM
Every country uses its own system, you should not try to make sense of anyone elses designations by comparing them to the US system, but instead try to learn to understand how that individual country does things, similar to my posts recently explaining how the UK system works.

AFAIK, however (meaning I am guessing), the Rafale B was just the first version into ADL'A service, followed by the C (the Rafale A was just the prototype). The naval version is the Rafale M (for Marine).

In any case I don't think the French use a rigid alphanumeric system. For instance the Jaguar, in French service, was known as the Jaguar A and Jaguar E, in this case 'A' did not mean 'first' but instead stood for 'Appui' meaning 'support' and referred to the Jaguars role as a close support aircraft. Likewise the Jaguar E was the two seat trainer and stood for 'Ecole' which translates literally into English as 'school'.

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 12:56 PM
what weapons will the f/a-18g carry as a standard load? i assume it will carry some harm's but will it carry any non radar guided bombs or aam?


posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by waynos
Every country uses its own system, you should not try to make sense of anyone elses designations by comparing them to the US system, but instead try to learn to understand how that individual country does things, similar to my posts recently explaining how the UK system works.

Hi there.

The french use a letter code for the role of the aircraft, is a similar way to the UK but without the mark number.

In the Rafale's case the first varient into service was the M (as you said for Marine).

The B is the 2 seat trainer. B is short for Biplace (I think, my french is not very good). There was to be a BM version for the navy, but this was dropped due to costs so they train on the same version as the air force.

The C is the single seat fighter (Chasseur) varient. This also applies to the Mirage 2000 C.

There were also plans for a stealthy D (Descrete) version, but I believe these have been shelved for now due to cost.
Confusingly a D code is also used for the strike version of the Mirage 2000, I'm not sure what D is short for in this case.

Hope this helps

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by justin_barton3
what weapons will the f/a-18g carry as a standard load? i assume it will carry some harm's but will it carry any non radar guided bombs or aam?

Well, the first image posted by CW shows the EA-18G carrying 2 AMRAAM’s, the third (real) picture shows the EA-18G carrying 2 Sidewinder's and 2 AMRAAM’s. So I assume in its standard load it will at least carry two A2A missiles. It shouldn’t carry any other missile types (besides HARM's and A2A missiles) because its not a ground attack aircraft, the A2A missiles are for defense only.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:09 AM
Great...Crew of two, huh? The phrase 'How much information can we squeeze into your little bird brains' comes to least before they pop.

And as a replacement for the EA-6B? That's like trading your truck for a sports cars to tow your camper. It works, but no that well.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by TSR2005]

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 12:17 AM
The EF-111 and the F-4 Wild Weasel were two of the most successful EW platforms ever built and they were a crew of two. The only reason the EA-6 has a crew of four is because putting only one other person on it would have caused more trouble than putting in two more seats.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:12 PM
I must point out, though, that the EA-6 did not start out with seating for 4. Obviously, with the work load planned, the EA-6A was not going to cut it, so enter the EA-6B into the picture. Despite being developed around the same time, such a drastic redesign to add two seats when the Air Force version still retained just two, while using supposedly using similar systems, would indicate that the mission work loads are actually vastly different. And to take that four and drop it down in half could be problematic in terms of effectively completing a mission. The role of three people is compressed into one and it is assumed that with the aid of onborad systems, they should be able to complete that same job. I for one have my doubts about such proposal. The only way to prevent it from becoming a problem is to fly them in pairs. At least there will be a redundancy to the mission.

posted on Jul, 19 2006 @ 11:23 PM
SEAD is ALWAYS flown in packages of more than one plane. You troll. One plane flies and tries to get a SAM site to come up, while the others are ready to shoot as it comes up.

You're not quite right on the division of labor though.

Position 1-Pilot Still there in the Growler obviously
Position 2-B/N Not really necessary anymore due to GPS and other systems.
Position 3-EW officer (Could be OSO)
Position 4-EW officer (Could be DSO)

You're combining two positions into one, and getting rid of one. Most Wild Weasels have been two seats instead of four. The EA-6B is the only four seater out there.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:28 PM
The last time I checked, Wild Weasel was not the role the EA-6B was orginally designed, so I don't know why that popped up.

And, let's not forget that the EF-111 was not a Wild Weasel, either, if we're on the subject, even though it has similar equipment to the EA-6B. Not all defence suppression involves Wild Weasel-type tactics, as those two aircraft show.
The question stills stands: Why four and not sticking with two? Like I said, the EA-6 started out as a twin seater. But it was changed. Perhaps because it's mission profile was more demanding, maybe...?
If they want to use the F-18G as a Wild Weasel, fine. But as a replacement for a jammer like the EA-6B, that's just asking for trouble. Just watch....and learn.

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:34 PM
Whether you refer to them as Weasels or not, the EF-111 was AT LEAST as good as the Prowler, with two fewer people. There is NO NEED for four people in a jamming platform. Especially with the newer technologies out there. You're comparing a modern platform with modern equipment built in from the start to a 40 year old platform, and saying the 40 yr old platform is better because it has two more crew members. It don't work that way.

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:43 AM
Um...You've lost me...

So, exactly when did I say the EF-111 WASN'T a good airplane? Looking back at my comments, I'd say...well,never. (suddenly, I have a bad taste in my mouth from the words being put in it...:barf

Let's take a step back, shall we? Now, the last time I heard, the same aircraft were not all used by the same services, correct? Each service has it's own particular aircraft to fit a specific role...HENCE, why jamming aircraft for the Air Force and Navy are so different. The environment they operate in are different from each other and each will be design to fit that environment. Are you following me so far? Now, even way-back-when, even with improving technology (this is not a recent thing), the Navy bumped up the crew to four.
Normally, what you say might be true, the better technology makes the workload easier, meaning less crew. But the decision was taken to do the opposite. Why do such a thing? Even back then, there was the push for making crew sizes smaller, so it is clear the the choice to add crew means the role was more demanding for one person to handle and therefore,not without justification.
True, the technology to do the job has improved, but so has the threats they must face. The technology of opposing forces did not stop being developed in the 1970's, so the argument about this glorious new technology doesn't really hold that much weight. I'm not saying the systems are bad, but let's not be overzealous about them, either.
If you wanted to reduce the crew size, be pratical and do it gradually, from four to three. Evaluate whether it would be as effective or not. Dropping it to two leaves only one person to do the job of three. Even with new technology, the responsibility still lay in the hands of one man. The EF-111 can do the job because of the environment they opporate in. It was DESIGNED for it. The Navy is a whole different ball game and naturally the aircraft will be different. Apples and Oranges.

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:48 AM
Where did I say that you said that?

You have said repeatedly that the E/A-18 isn't going to be as effective as the EA-6B because it doesn't have four crew members. I NEVER said that you said the EF-111 was a bad plane. The point I was making was that if the EF-111 was such a good jamming platform with 2 crew members, then your argument that the Growler won't be as effective as the Prowler because it only has two is flawed.

The only planes capable of having three crew members are slow planes like the Viking. Guess what? You do that, and you just lost your escort, because there's no way in hell a Viking is going in with the strike package.

[edit on 7/22/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:30 AM
"Whether you refer to them as Weasels or not, the EF-111 was AT LEAST as good as the Prowler, with two fewer people."

Here. That's a quote from you. And I'll say thing only ONE more time: Different services, different planes, different needs. Period.
It's not that hard to understand. Look past the gizmos and look at the reality of the situation. It may surprise you. It surprised me...

P.S. I noticed you use the term 'AT LEAST' in that statement. Hmm...It seems you made my point for me. Thank you. The prosecution rests.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by TSR2005]

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:45 AM
Oh my GOD. HOW is the mission different?! They were BOTH going in with the strike packages against the SAME DEFENSES! HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?!

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:11 AM
Let me say one thing: Chill out.

I've already made myself as clear as anyone here could be. The answer to your inquiry is in my previous replies. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself because your not happy with it. There was no reason for this to ugly. NONE.
It's not polite to point, and I'm getting tired of pointing things out.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in