It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
EF-111

The EF-111A provided protection by using a jamming orbit where it stands off from threat radars to cover friendly aircraft entering and leaving the threat areas, or by using the aircraft's high-performance capabilities to directly support attacking forces. In the direct support mission, the Raven may fly as in escort position or enter a threat area to the best jammer position. Ravens engaged in direct support often use the extensive night terrain-following capability built into the basic F-111 design.

www.globalsecurity.org...

EA-6B

In a strike mission a variety of aircraft are assigned for different roles. The EA-6B aircraft is mainly utilized for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, or SEAD. It achieves this through the use of jamming equipment and High speed Anti-Radiation Missiles, or HARM. Jamming involves the release of electromagnetic energy that interferes with the enemy's radar detection capability. A great part of an enemy's air defense system that poses a threat to US forces can be neutralized with the EA-6B Prowler. The first part of an enemy's air defense system a strike package encounters is the Early Warning (EW) radars. The air defense system depends on these EW radars to indicate the direction and location of US forces approaching the enemy's territory. With an EA-6B flying with a strike package and producing jamming signals to these EW radars, the enemy's ability to detect us approaching is greatly reduced. This provides precious time for the successful completion of the mission. The Prowler can jam a variety of radars.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Again, sure sounds like a pretty similar mission to me.
I guess having USAF on one and USN on the other makes their missions different huh?




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
If I could just jump in here, my understanding of it is that the EA-6B was more of a standoff jamming platform whereas the F-16, EF-111 etc... are more involved in the combat area. They would draw out and confuse/attack SAM systems so other planes could get through, perhaps that's what the disagreement is about?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The EA-6B was used for standoff jamming, and SEAD using Harms and other weapons. That's exactly the same thing that the EF-111 was used for as well, except it was with the AF instead of the Navy.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Tell me zap, in wich way does it jam? the electronics of a plane or something similar, and could the Growler possibly be equipped with EMP in the future?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
It jams radar. It makes the screen look like snow, and put false targets up on the screen to confuse the operator and the radar system.



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Any ideas how this happends?



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Im sure it jams the frequency of airborne and surface radars issueing either false returns or just snow on the radar display screens.This is either done automatically by some systems or through Electronic Warfare operators scanning the frequency spectrum for the various radar types.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by bmdefiant]



posted on Jul, 23 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Radar operates on certain frequencies. The jamming equipment locks onto that frequency and interferes with it.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Many radars now have firmware that attempts to defeat jamming - such as switching to a different frequency - or pulsing a certain time and then looking for returns that last the same duration - and other ways that I can't guess on (or if I knew, tell you, probably).

That, and many SAMs have a 'home on jam' feature that triangulates the signal of the active jamming equipment and homes in on it much like an IR guided missile does.

Jamming has its ups and downs - you can use it to conceal the true number of aircraft in an area - but once you usei t - they know you are there and going to cause a ruckous.

Jamming equipment mostly operates automatically (on a simple on/off basis for the pilot). Or - for the more standard systems on most aircraft. The complex stuff has a combination of automation and human control/intervention applied to it.

As for the F-111 vs EA-6 thing - the EA-6 was intended to be more of a standoff or support aircraft - jamming from a distance with high powered equipment to mask the approach of low-approaching aircraft - SUCH as the F/B-111 (or the F-18, F-15 and A-10). However, the F/B-111 is more simimlar in function to a miniaturized B-1B. It's intended to go into the hot places at treetop level to deliver munitions to highly entrenched and defended targets.

Arguing that both aircraft do the SAME job is, in some respects - true. However, the primary mission of the E/A-6 is to mask the approach of other aircraft. And the primary mission of the F/B-111 is to deliver precision strike munitions to high-risk targets - such as SAM sites.

Just look at their design and performance values. The F/B-111 is much faster and more maneuverable than the E/A-6. It is also designed for a heavier payload.

I'd rank the F/B-111 as more versatile in that it can do both roles equally well. However, it wasn't near as cost-effective as a couple E/A-6Bs supporting a separate strike mission of F/A-18Cs or F-16Cs.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The difference that I see bewteen the EA-6B and the EF-111 is that the EA-6B Carried HARM missiles to take out the radars once they had found them. Been looking but have not found any pictures of an EF-111 carrying any type of missile.

This could have been one of the reasons that the EF-111 was replaced by the HARM equiped F-16's.

Here is a link to a EF-111 mission during Desert Storm.

External Link



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
The EF-111 was designed to for the Air Force to locate, identify, track and jam enemy radar that are land-based, and either fixed or semi-mobile. The theater of comabt for which it was designed was Europe. Since most threats are fixed, supression and evasion are more successful. Also, the use of terrain can be utilised to aid in hiding an attacking force. The sortie can be tailored for these specific targets , so the workload can be reduced, requiring a small crew.
The EA-6B was design to locate, identify, track and jam enemy radar over open waters, as well as over land. These threats include shipborne, airborne and land-based systems that demand more work from the jamming aircaft, since in such a theater, the number of threats can rapidly change at anytime and are rarely stationary for any length of time. This role requires additional crew to maintain an effective jamming sortie and be successful.

The F-18G would only be effective if it is used in a similar environment as the EF-111. For long range, open area jamming, like what carriers operate in, it's limitations will place the carrier fleet at greater risk. It may be effective in short range situations, but for greater area coverage, it simply does not have the man power to effectively comabt the ever growing sophistication of potential enemy threats. The work load will be too great and performance will suffer greatly.

You can place the EF-111 and the EA-6B in the same mission bracket, but until we see performance figures of an EF-111 flying a Navy mission and an EA-6B flying an Air Force mission and having their results be the same, it cannot be said that they are equal aircraft.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TSR2005
The F-18G would only be effective if it is used in a similar environment as the EF-111. For long range, open area jamming, like what carriers operate in, it's limitations will place the carrier fleet at greater risk. It may be effective in short range situations, but for greater area coverage, it simply does not have the man power to effectively comabt the ever growing sophistication of potential enemy threats. The work load will be too great and performance will suffer greatly.


Have you considered the effects of computer technology?

Today, large crews aren't needed like they once were because advanced computers allow one person to do the job what many people used to do. Case in point, look at the bombers we have.

The B-52 has a crew of 6 people to make everything work. However the plane is from the 1950's. If on the other hand, you look at the B-2, it has much more advanced electronics in it and can do things that older bombers couldn't. However, it only takes two people to fly a B-2.

On the same note, the A-6 and EA-6 are fron the Viet Nam Era. We're talking about the late 60's and early 70's. The F-18G is Curently in development. this means that it will use the latest technology avalible today. The computers we have now are a lot different then the computers they had when the EA-6 Prowler was first design. Modern computers are far more powerful. This mean that the crew will have a lighter work load because most of the stuff that was manual in the EA-6B will be fully automatic and computer controlled in the F-18G.

When you factor in the modern computer technology, I don't see any of your concerns becoming real issues.

Tim



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Why do people call it the F-18G or F/A-18G when there is no such designation?

After the F/A-18F the next model is the EA-18G, no F's' and no /'s. OK peeps?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
The EA-18G has officially rolled out



Boeing rolls out EA-18G Growler - F/A-18 electronic attack variant

The US Navy today rolled-out the first of two Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet test aircraft converted into EA-18G Growler airborne electronic-attack (AEA) variants (pictured below).

The aircraft is the sucessor to the ageing EA-6B Prowler as a Mach 1.8 fighter jet escort and radar jammer. The Growler is fitted with an array of electronic warfare aids including ALQ-99, ALQ-79 and ALQ-218 jamming pods.

The EA-18G test aircraft is due to perform first flights in September.



[url=http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/08/03/Navigation/177/208267/Pictures+Boeing+rolls+out+EA-18G+Growler+FA-18+electronic+attack.html]link[ /url]


And there is more on the growler :

Low-Drag Ram Air Turbines for the EA-18G "Growler"


^^ Photo depicting a model of the EA-18G as potentially equipped with the Ghetzler Aero-Power Ram Air Turbine in position.


^^Prototype of Ghetzler RAT as potentially mounted on AN/ALQ-99 Radar Jamming Pod for EA-18G "Growler"

www.ghetzleraeropower.com...


[edit on 4/8/06 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Why do people call it the F-18G or F/A-18G when there is no such designation?

After the F/A-18F the next model is the EA-18G, no F's' and no /'s. OK peeps?


You got yourself a deal.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


quartz



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join