EA/18G Growler

[gf0012-aust]

So, the reason we bought F-111's is that it seems prudent if the only realistic "serious" threat to Australia is air attack launched from airbases within strike range of Australia, to possess capabilities sufficient to strike saifd bases ourselves if necessary.

at the time there was also serious consideration given to Aust being a nuclear power, so the fact that the F-111 was a tactical nuke bomber was attractive.

at that stage Indonesia was really seen as a communist neighbour, so we wanted the reach to be able to touch jakarta and hit her in the critical strategic spots.

the US convinced Australia and Germany to sign the NPT so the nuke requirement was abandoned as part of the co-operation deal.

we kept the order for the F-111's though.

 

[Tasman]

I may be totally missing the mark here, but the way I've always thought is that the primary mission of the ADF, as expected, is the defence of our Australia.

With that in mind, the F-111s range, payload and speed if so needed seems to extra-ordinarily useful if, bearing in mind this is a terrible scenario to consider, some country is crazy enough to actually attack us and land on our shores.

The specific scenarios vary greatly, but I would have thought that in such situations (i.e. over Australian soil) F-111s wouldn't really need an escort - not unless they've managed to get control of our airspace, right?

TBH, as an Australian and tax payer, I couldn't give a toss about force projection beyond our shores unless there is no question over our ability to defend ourselves first and foremost.

To defend "our shores" it is necessary to neutralise enemy bases that can be used for attacks as well as controlling the sea/air gap. Otherwise we would have to wait until an enemy force actually landed here or bombed us before striking them. It is also important to have the ability to blockade an enemy's supply lines and destroy weapons and munitions manufacturing facilities to reduce their ability to attack us.

It is much the same if you want to defend an army base in hostile country. You can either 'circle the wagons' and wait until rockets and mortar shells start lobbing in to the base or you can patrol and endeavour to dominate the area around so that the enemy is unable to get close enough to cause damage. If you can push back the enemy's own positions and attack their supply lines your own base will be far less likely to be attacked.

Cheers

 

[AGRA]

With that in mind, the F-111s range, payload and speed if so needed seems to extra-ordinarily useful if, bearing in mind this is a terrible scenario to consider, some country is crazy enough to actually attack us and land on our shores.

I would imagine any potential invader of Australia would do so with fighter cover. The F-111C is just as vulnerable to modern fighters and GBAD in defence of Australia scenarios as in regional or far flung expiditionary ops.

Ironically the bomber only policy was what the RAAF had in 1939-41 to defend Australia. Why we were building Bristol Beauforts in Australia at this time and not the CAC 'Aussie Zero'. Of course alng came the Japanese and suddenly the need for fighter cover was made self evident due to all those unescorted Hudson losses we suffered. And we tried to play catch up with the CAC Boomerang and GAF Beaufighter.

 

[Tasman]

Ironically the bomber only policy was what the RAAF had in 1939-41 to defend Australia. Why we were building Bristol Beauforts in Australia at this time and not the CAC 'Aussie Zero'. Of course alng came the Japanese and suddenly the need for fighter cover was made self evident due to all those unescorted Hudson losses we suffered. And we tried to play catch up with the CAC Boomerang and GAF Beaufighter.

Good point AGRA. This was a particularly strange policy when we knew that Japan had a large naval air arm. I guess we under estimated its ability and presumed that land based bombers would be able to 'get through' carrier based fighters (mind you, if we based that premise on the fighters of the British FAA at the time it was probably a reasonable assumption!).

It seems we have two choices, a bomber escorted by a tier one air superiority fighter (F-111/F-22 - the APA case) or a multi purpose strike fighter able to fight its way to the target (FA-18F/F-35 - the RAAF case). With the signing of the FA-18F contract and apparent support for the deal now coming from the Federal Opposition, I can't see any hope of the F-111 being resurrected.

Cheers

 

[stray_kiwi]

stray_kiwi the range of the F-111 is indeed very impressive if it flies subsonic at high altitude with no weapons Put four LGB's onto the wings and include a supersonic dash and low altitude penetration in the mission profile and its range is no longer that fantastic. The F-111 unfortantely has to use speed and low altitude to survive. The F-35 which has quite a decent range will be able to hit pretty much any target the F-111 can. The F-35 will be able to fly subsonic at high altitude using stealth to survive. As our neighbours will not have first class tracking systems the F-35's will be safe. It will conserve fuel with a pair of 2,000lb bombs internally and cruise to quite a distance.

The Super Hornet though, is indeed short on range like you said. The standoff weapons and inflight refueling will get them traveling a long way. As the Super Hornets can self escort themselves, they may not need alot of extra aircraft. My estimation is that Four Super Hornets and one tanker would be able to perform the same job of one F-111, two Classic Hornets and one tanker.

I'm not disputing the merits of the F-35 (I'd love to see the B model being used by the RAAN's FAA from the Canberra class ships) and I see your point with respect to asset commitment for a F111 deep strike package, however a lot of the debate (around here in particular) focuses on the question of whether or not a SH can adequately self escort given the rapidly expanding defense capability in the region. The SH's lack of range in strike configuration may also expose support assets to long range interception and reduces it's useful loiter time (a useful political tool).

I can't help but conclude the SH is a politically expedient answer to a short term problem with no clear evidence to suggest the current level of capability will be retained post 2010 until the F-35 becomes operational.

 

[AGRA]

however a lot of the debate (around here in particular) focuses on the question of whether or not a SH can adequately self escort given the rapidly expanding defense capability in the region. The SH's lack of range in strike configuration may also expose support assets to long range interception and reduces it's useful loiter time (a useful political tool).

The range differential between an F-111 and an E/F is not that great. With a usual strike configuration and fuel load the Pig is only about 20% better… So where is the significant difference? Especially when one factors in practical tanking as the RAAF would conduct it against real threat assessment at the time of operations based on ABCA intelligence gathering not the musings of Carlo Kopp!

Plus where is this advantage of the F-111 if it is required to be escorted that inherently limits is operational endurance to that of the escort? The F-111 quite simply can’t fly without fighter cover. Its not the 1960s anymore when ‘shoot-down, look down’ radars able to detect and intercept terrain following F-111s were as rare as in-service AESAs are in 2007. Integrated systems also means that first pass bombing is no longer quick enough to survive being destroyed against GBAD as it was in the 1960s. The only survivability the F-111 has on the modern battlefield is if it gets warning of an air threat it can turn and run from it. But that’s a mission kill.

The E/F Block II Super Hornet can go up against any air combat force in the region, including that of China and India (with some weighting to even the numbers odds against the later two) and fight and win. If the RAAF faces an air combat shortfall as Air Power Australia aka Ozzy Blizzard/Occum would have you believe then what does that mean for the US Navy, the world’s second most powerful air force? Is this the end of the super-carrier? Has US Naval power collapsed because of the Super Hornet?

I can't help but conclude the SH is a politically expedient answer to a short term problem with no clear evidence to suggest the current level of capability will be retained post 2010 until the F-35 becomes operational.

That’s pretty much what the Government said it is! 2010-15 is a real danger period for relying on F-111C and F/A-18A/B HUG capability. The F-111s are getting creaky and many of the A/Bs will be offline for their CBR work. The F-35A B3 won’t be available and worked up until 2015 so what do we do for those five years?

In the 1960s when we had a similar gap we sent Canberras into action over Vietnam and two good men and their families paid the price for it. The then rather foolish decision to acquire the F-111 off the drawing board without a bridging capability until it was forced upon us 6-8 years later cost the lives of these men. Hence the “expedient answer to a short term problem” with the purchase of the F Block II Super Hornets.

An aircraft that will not only cover this fie year gap but bring a whole range of new capabilities into the RAAF before we get the F-35A. So rather than going from the rather primitive systems of the F-111 straight to the F-35A we will be able to transition the aircrews via the F Block II.

 

[AGRA]

yes but not the capabilities of platform which is what the discussion is about. If you want to take into account all of the mirriad of factors that that effect A2A combat accuratly, well that would be impossible wouldn't it???? Perhaps all discussion that can not achieve this level of accuracy should be deemed herretical huh???

Who said this was just a platform discussion? I thought it was a discussion about the merits of a platform choice for the RAAF that would imply using said platform in an overall system such as the Air Force in question. Trying to force the analysis into a proscribed set of pre-conditions is typical of the intellectual cultism of Air Power Australia. Only by doing so can they create an apparently rational train of thought to back up their irrational conclusions – which is basically acquire THEIR propriety force structure for the RAAF and pay THEM a hefty commission. Like all intellectual cults it will have its adherents – fools never differ – but it has fortunately being exposed in the professional community - at least - as the nonsense it is.

You think a fully (or even partially) armed SH would not be detected by Ibis (or even BARS) equiped variants WELL beyond usefull launch ranges for AIM 120D's?????? And A50E supported Flankers would be well aware of the SH's location before the APG 79 would even detect the flanker. Your over simplified theory just doesent take the capabilities of the systems into account.

Mmm which way does the Su-30’s radar point? Is it 360 degrees? Aerospace is big and only fools would thing it is all conducted in head on engagements. Plus what makes you so sure their radar could detect the E/F before the APG-79 in a head on engagement? Do you have access to the actual RCS of an E/F Block II (different to the Block I) and not just determined by an APA level reflectivity study? And the actual detection results of the APG-79? Somehow I doubt you do as this is TS level stuff… unless of course you’ve managed to download it from some hapless Japanese colonel’s computer…

You make this statement without actually taking the Flankers sensor footprint into account, not too mention much more capable radars that are well into development now. And the major regional powers either have or are aquireing desent AEW&C systems such as A50E's.

Like I said the Flanker sensor footprint is only to its front ~45 degrees either side of boresight. There is a lot more air in the sky than just that. Plus who is actually acquiring the high-end AEW&C systems? When has China contracted with Russia for A50Es? Maybe the paperwork is lost in the same file as their Tu-22M acquisition….

Ahhh, i never realised it would all be so easy!!!! Maybe we could destroy the whole opposing force on the ground while there having breakfast like the Egyptians huh? If so then why replace the HUG BUG's???? There will never be any A2A combat anyway.

The Syrians were no push over. They were competent and their Soviet system was not fundamentally flawed. Its just the Israeli’s were better – they went and attacked the Syrian communications system and exposed their flaws. This is what professional independent thinking air forces do. They invest in electronic attack and the means to deliver it. Leave the airshow Queens to prance around in Flankers

LOL. Your implying that F18F's can penitrate an IADS or get within desent firing ranges for even AIM120D's to an AEW&C's as to get a shot off without being intercepted???? You have to punch "holes in the sky" in order to get to the jucy bits such as C3I, unless you can teleport, have great long range standoff weapons or have real LO. We may be buying JASSM, but were not going to intergrate it onto the SH. Again simplistic theory that does not take actual capabilities into account.

No I’m not implying that all, you are. Your kinetic solution to every combat problem is just pure nuts. Typical engine grunt and bomb umphh above all else. What’s the point of an AEW&C if the F Block II is disrupting its communications or its radar performance? The only difference between an F Block II and the EA-18G is one pallet and wing tip sensors… Much of the EA-18Gs capability will come from legacy systems on the F Block IIs.

As to JASSM and the F/A-18F its still on the table, so is JSOW, so is SLAM-ER, so is HARM, so is JSOW-ER which outranges JASSM!

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You still persist in indulging in this fanciful notion that the combat is to be measured platform to platform - when it is about systems. Arguing that you want to debate it P1 to P2 only reinforces that you have no comprehension about what is going to happen in the battlespace. This isn't the red baron.

Actually i have repeatedly stated that this is only a platform comparison and i NEVER said that a platforms capability was the only factor. YOU are putting words into my mouth. A discussion on varios platforms capabilities is what agra was commenting on, in a rediculosly simplistic manner. Or do you have the same opinion that a platforms capabilities are irrelevent and battlespace management and information are the ONLY factors that need to be considered.

instead of disimissing someonme who is actually competent (more than competent) to discuss this, then perhaps you should explain why you have this unswerving committment to undermine the reality of debate and indulge in your own fantasies about a 21st century of jousting aerial combat?

I'm not dismissing the person, simply thier statements. He may well be competent to dicuss this, but making statements like "SU30's would be shot down while flying around in circles", wether they were made by the pope need to be questioned. Or is it inapropriate for a civilian to question any statement made by a defence professional, no matter how unrealistic????? But a professional can make personal attacks on other members and their identity and this is seen as acceptable to you???? I have to say i am starting to doubt your impatiality.

And your almost religious belief in the superiority of the opposing systems is based on what evidence?

Publicly available data. But i guess you know something i dont huh? Well thats fine, if you can explain it to me in general terms then i'll stand corrected. But if your just going to tap you nose and say "trust me" dont blame me if i'm scheptical, especially with the personal interest you have shown in this. And i dont have a religous belief in the superiority of opposing systems. I don't share YOUR religious believe that an SA advantage can overcome all other defiencies. You label all other peramiters of a platforms other than avionics as irrelevent, and i for one dont buy it. SA advantage and battlespace management are vital i agree, but i dont see how they can make up for poor airodynamic and kenimetic performance at the pointy end. Men will be trusting their lives with it.

Don't talk about simplified theory when its patently obvious that you are on your own mission which compels you to load the bases to support your own beliefs.

Really???? I'm on a mission huh??? I hold a point of view and this was an interesting debate with people who held a different point of view, which I was enjoying, just as they were. Then the poster YOU are defending came waltsing in making rediculos accusations and dismissing people out of hand. And you back them up becaus their name is in Blue. I have no interest in APA, i DO have an interest in the quality of the platform the RAAF will be flying for the next 30yrs, and i DO have an interest in haveing an enjoyable debate. i'm not the one on an anti APA crusade. However you legitamise those who are because you share thier views.

Actually, battlespace planning does take it into account. One of the members in here has responsibility for planning the opening stages of an air campaign. That includes killing red/orange teams sensors, decapitating the detection merge and then conducting the air war against GBAD.

I'm more than curious as to why you think that the A50E is superior when we know its nowhere near the competency of the Israeli offerings - or even some of the other Euro offerings. The development cycle of Chinas AWACs programme has been retarded by a series of unfortunate losses - and they were hoping to shortfall that by getting Phalcon. As its is, they're decided to fast track a system that is suspiciously an Eyrie look alike - and beam ESA's have limitations - esp the Eyrie design. The design means that you have to change the way you use your aircraft. - eg it means that you start to have a series of likely tactics if you are to complement the systems strengths.

For one thing I never said the A50E was a superior AEW&C's to western systems. You are putting words into my mouth again.

The point i was trying to make (if you read the post you are quoting) was that there is no way (taking the RCS of weapons into account) that a SH can get within range of an A50E to get a maximum range AIM120D shot without being intercepted. Especially if you have other radars on other angles the reduced frontal RCS would be countered. That was the point i was trying to make. Do you disagree with it?

Actually it has been easy once you demonstrate superior competency at the training , integration and persistency level. Apart from india - who else in the region is even close? How long do you think that it will take for other AWACs users (who are potentially hostile forces against the F18's) to develop the requisite competencies to field, integrate and develop battlespace management. what force out side of singapore in our region has the ORBAT competency to do it?

Development is not static, do you seriously think that an airforce that experiences superiority in battlespace management is going to just sit still if other potential threats matrices evolve? You seem to think that the blue force will be stupefied and immersed in some form of temporal flux.

I wouldn't count PLAAF out in the next 10 yrs, not just in capabilities but training and doctorine. They will be fielding a pretty fomidable force within this timeframe, they have the bucks, the time, and the will.

So your going to rely on us penetrating an IADS, with systems as capable as S300, and hitting the opposing force on the ground, and therefore taking them on in the air doesent need to be considered? That is the post you are referring to. And if you look at the speed PROC and the Indians are increasing their war fighting capability, you would have to agree that we dont have the money or the will to match capabilities in the 2020+ timeframe.

and the last time you planned a decapitation mission was when?

Ahhh..... I'm a civie so my opinion doesent count????? Why would you bring this up?? How many members in here have? What if anything does this have to do with the debate????

do you think that decapitation of C3I is restricted to an air campaign? The last 16 years shows that C3/C4 decapitation is handled by numerous assets. (and nobody else outside of aust and in reach except singapore is C4I) - and the US is the only C5I player in town.

Its why you have subs that can fire TLAM equivs, its why you have chicken stranglers etc.... Its a co-ordinated effort. On the other hand. knocking off australias sensory footprint means breaching the 3500+km firewall, orbiting 400+km look down systems, SWR systems and the fact that it will also be integrated into an ADSB-mil sensor ability (which funnily enough, china is copying). and then we have the capacity to commission SWR systems that can also see out to 600+km.

This is more like it GF, your actually debateing. Many assets are used in a C3/4 decaptation, such as sub launched TLAM equivelents, although the collins (or the RAN in general) dont have TLAM equivelents, or plan to purchase them (correct me if i'm wrong on that one) so i dont know what that has to do with the ADF, which is what we were discussing. And in any decapitation effort, especially one without TLAM, would be heavily relyant on air power. What other platform could could even come close to achieveing the same results.

Who in the region has a better sensory ability? Its the Americans only - no one else comes close. JORN has actually reached out way beyond 3500km - JORN integrated into a US SBR system adds even more discretion. In fact, no one else has the overlap sensor potential that australia has. Do you think that we'll, turn off JORN, SWR, ADSB, Wedgetail, our other arrays etc and not fight to our advantage?

Our sensor advantage is great and a huge force multiplier. However there is a universal equasion when your talking about the F18 HUG's and F's, they will have to enter into the Flankers sensor footprint in order to usefully employ there weapons systems and then their deficiencies in raw performance WILL matter, JORN or not.

Yes, and you persist in simplifying it to validate your own perceptions. Include the real bits in the battlespace contest - thats what the people who are paid to do the job do.

Am i supose to be offended? I enjoy what i do for a living mate.

Whats wrong with a platform comparison????????? I never said this was definite or final. What do you expect from an internet forum, finality??? this is for fun, or are our oppinions being watched by the powers that be? I persist because that is what many of us were talking about. no one has said "well what about....." and outlined a scenario that takes more than the platforms into account. If they had i would be talking about that. i you do want to talk about a more comprehensive scenario then outline one, i will be happy to participate, rather than just attempting to discredit those who you disagree with. If you dont want to enter into the debate in a comprehensive manner, then dont comment on its cource.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Who said this was just a platform discussion? I thought it was a discussion about the merits of a platform choice for the RAAF that would imply using said platform in an overall system such as the Air Force in question. Trying to force the analysis into a proscribed set of pre-conditions is typical of the intellectual cultism of Air Power Australia. Only by doing so can they create an apparently rational train of thought to back up their irrational conclusions – which is basically acquire THEIR propriety force structure for the RAAF and pay THEM a hefty commission. Like all intellectual cults it will have its adherents – fools never differ – but it has fortunately being exposed in the professional community - at least - as the nonsense it is.

Its the differences in platform capabilities that we were discussing, which you commented on. So thats why. If you want to talk about a more comprehensive scenario then outline it. I will be happy to participate. But dont just make sarcastic coments and make anti APA statements. And not everyone who questions the capabilities of the F35 or see's the Flanker as a threat is governed by the same supposed APA "logic" you label them with. I have heard professionals say its "all crap", what i havent heard is a comprehensive rebuttal to the points they make. So if they are wrong then outline WHY they are wrong, not just accuse tham of being an "intelectual cult".

Mmm which way does the Su-30’s radar point? Is it 360 degrees? Aerospace is big and only fools would thing it is all conducted in head on engagements. Plus what makes you so sure their radar could detect the E/F before the APG-79 in a head on engagement? Do you have access to the actual RCS of an E/F Block II (different to the Block I) and not just determined by an APA level reflectivity study? And the actual detection results of the APG-79? Somehow I doubt you do as this is TS level stuff… unless of course you’ve managed to download it from some hapless Japanese colonel’s computer…

Ahh and SU 30's only fly in streight lines??? And you are not listening to what i've been argueing, which deosent suprise me one bit, since you labled me a herratic before you actually participated in the debate. The F' will have to enter into the flankers sensor footprint before it can usefully employ its weapons systems, taking the RCS of weapons alone and publicly available data on the BARS and Ibis radar systems. You would think that the APG 79 has a better detection and track radii, but that's beside the point i was trying to make.

Like I said the Flanker sensor footprint is only to its front ~45 degrees either side of boresight. There is a lot more air in the sky than just that. Plus who is actually acquiring the high-end AEW&C systems? When has China contracted with Russia for A50Es? Maybe the paperwork is lost in the same file as their Tu-22M acquisition….

Like i said multiple sensors and they dont fly in streight lines. or are you relying on sneaking up behind them every time??? And i was under the impression that the chinese allready have an A50E prototype in operation, correct me if i'm wrong. And even if they dont given the massive increase in spending for the PLAAF, the stated intention to aquire the system and the russians intention to export, i wouldn't call the possiblity of the PLAAF operating these systems in the next 10 yrs in desent numbers unlikely at all.

The Syrians were no push over. They were competent and their Soviet system was not fundamentally flawed. Its just the Israeli’s were better – they went and attacked the Syrian communications system and exposed their flaws. This is what professional independent thinking air forces do. They invest in electronic attack and the means to deliver it. Leave the airshow Queens to prance around in Flankers

EA would be very usefull i agree. i have admitted that in about 10 posts in this thread, if you would bother to read before passing judgement you would see that. But we dont know its capabilities. If it does give the SH the ability to dissable flankers radar at desent radars or significantly degrade missile performance this could well change the ballence in favor of the SH in most scenario's. But does it jam or destroy enemy radars? At what range is it effective? Can it hit multiple targets? Is it susptable to anti radiation missiles?
untill we know these capabilities even in general terms it would be hard to argue it was desisve.

No I’m not implying that all, you are. Your kinetic solution to every combat problem is just pure nuts. Typical engine grunt and bomb umphh above all else. What’s the point of an AEW&C if the F Block II is disrupting its communications or its radar performance? The only difference between an F Block II and the EA-18G is one pallet and wing tip sensors… Much of the EA-18Gs capability will come from legacy systems on the F Block IIs.

As to JASSM and the F/A-18F its still on the table, so is JSOW, so is SLAM-ER, so is HARM, so is JSOW-ER which outranges JASSM!

Kinemetic advantage is very important, and i havent heard a rebuttal to it. At some point the guy in the SH is going to have to close with and engage the flanker. When he does he will be facing an opponant with much better raw performance and desent avionics (i know inferior but still capable). Yet people (you) just dismiss these deficiencies without justifying said dismissal. And then wonder how i have the nerve to ask why?

Its not raw performance above all else. Avionics and battlespace management are vital. However you state that they render any deficiencies in raw performance irelevent, without stating how exactly, which smells like towing the company line a bit too much to me. As far as fighting a war, i can see how usefull SA advantage is, but the guy in the SH is still going to have to shoot down the guy in the flanker who has a much more capable aircraft, but inferior radar. To me that doesent seem to be as clear cut as many dismissive posts would lead us to believe.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mod edit: "And around and around we go"...

Ladies and Gentleman. The F/A-18E/F, F-22 and F-35 threads are going to be rested for several weeks. They are simply nothing around in circles and achieving nothing. The SAME arguments and opinions are being repeated over and over again.

This is the decision of the mods AND Webmaster. Please respect it and do not open new threads nor continue these discussions "off topic" in other threads.

The situation will be reviewed in several weeks.

Regards

AD.

 

[Occum]

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker

Mod edit: This thread is to be closed for the EXACT same reason that every other "this versus that" thread is. These arguments degenerate into nothing more than nationalistic pride and p**sing contests.

We have allowed RAAF air combat matters to be debated once more. We won't allow this sort of nonsense. We never have.

Regards

AD.

 

[rjmaz1]

Mod edit: thread closed as above.

Regards

AD.

 

[AegisFC]

USN takes delivery of first E/A-18-G Growler

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — The first production EA-18G Growler, the electronics warfare version of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, landed here Tuesday after rolling off the assembly line in St. Louis the day before.

The Growler is the replacement for the EA-6B Prowler, which is currently in use.

The aircraft will remain at Pax River for operational and developmental testing until May 2008, when it’s scheduled to be delivered to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Wash.

The new jet is “a quantum leap in airborne electronic attack capability,” said Capt. Paul Overstreet, program manager for the Growler. He cited a laundry list of improvements over the Prowler aircraft that he flew, including the Growler’s AESA radar, improved communication, more firepower — there are 10 weapons stations as opposed to five on the Prowler — and it’s faster and more survivable.

Overstreet compared the delivery of the first Growler to the christening of a new class of ship. The Navy plans to buy 85 Growlers by 2013; the second plane will be delivered in December, and then production is scheduled to speed up. The planes are slated to first deploy with a carrier air wing in 2010.

Navy acquisition czar Delores Etter and Rear Adm. Kenneth Floyd, director of aviation and aircraft carrier plans, were at the ceremony at a Boeing plant in St. Louis at which the aircraft was unveiled.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/navy_growler_debut_070925w/

Good for the navy, though can a plane that only has 1 EWO be as capable as one that has 3 even if it does have older equipment?

 

[windscorpion]

Well it depends on the degree of automation in the up-to-date systems and also interface design. I suppose with datalinks you could also use ship or even shore based personnel to do some of the work too?

 

[sunjerem]

Watch out Pirate, here come Super Hornet's IRST!

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/IRST-FA18-Product_Card.pdf

 

[Jezza]

Super Hornet Airshow Question.

Why all of SH fighters that do demonstrations are only dual-seat version?

I think most fighters in whose agility performance of single version is better than dual-seat version, so I wonder why only dual seat version of SH do airshow not single version?

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Super Hornet performing the airshow at the Avalon Air Show in Australia 2007 was a single seater, IIRC.

I know the SH's actually do their shows with representative "operational configurations" to show what they can do with stores, (clean isn't very useful operationally...) but I'm sure Boeing brings whatever it has available at a particular time...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think the interesting thing about this system, is it seems a relatively simple way of adding and IRST system to any fighter. This system has been announced for the Super Hornet so far.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it migrate to a number of other fighters...

 

[whitfc]

How do these systems compare, which is better?

 

[Aussie Digger]

How do these systems compare, which is better?

None of us are ever going to know...

Who really cares anyway?