• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

Brett327

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
helolumpy said:
Since the F-18G is a brand new airframe, why would they be looking to replace it with an aircraft that should be being built in the next 5-10 years? By the time the Growler is old enough that it will need to be replaced, Unmanned systems should be more than capable of handling that mission.

I realize that stealth technology is a true panacea, but if the role of the aircraft is to jam electronic transmissions (radar and comms), then I really don't think it's too worried about hiding from those same radars that is is jamming...

Of course, what do I know, I'm only a helo bubba.
Click to expand...
Good point all. Let's just say that EA and stealth are in many ways mutually exclusive. If I had to guess, the Marines are just going to bail on their organic EA capes once Prowler goes away. They're going to be lucky to get any 35Bs, much less an EA model.

Brett
 
LFDtoUSMC

LFDtoUSMC

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
helolumpy said:
Since the F-18G is a brand new airframe, why would they be looking to replace it with an aircraft that should be being built in the next 5-10 years? By the time the Growler is old enough that it will need to be replaced, Unmanned systems should be more than capable of handling that mission.

I realize that stealth technology is a true panacea, but if the role of the aircraft is to jam electronic transmissions (radar and comms), then I really don't think it's too worried about hiding from those same radars that is is jamming...

Of course, what do I know, I'm only a helo bubba.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the USMC not replacing their fleet of EA-6B's with -18G's and was just wondering what their plan was to maintain an EW capability. I had not thought about the whole concept of stealth not needing EW. And you are correct about the UAS EW package. I guess between the Growlers and whatever UAS platform there should be plenty of EW to go around for the non-stealthy guys?

Thank You for the response. Though I guess I should have googled first then asked later. I found my answer here too. http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/Check6/FY11MarineAviationPlan.pdf
Section 3-2.

Though that is obviously old news to y'all.
 
wlawr005

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I thought the AF used F-16s for SEAD, but I don't know where the line between SEAD and EA is drawn.
 
E

exNavyOffRec

Well-Known Member
For the aviators what is your thought on this thing having a single engine? I ask because of the birds I have seen come in for single engine landings, from a non aviator standpoint I would think it would be good for a combat aircraft to have 2 engines.
 
OUSOONER

OUSOONER

Crusty Shellback
pilot
It is an issue often discussed. Such an expensive plane to put in the drink because your only engine shit the bed. I guess enough people designing this thing got enough of a warm and fuzzy to press with one engine.

Scooters, A-7's, F-8's had one engine...and they were pretty successful.
 
Harrier Dude

Harrier Dude

Living the dream
NavyOffRec said:
For the aviators what is your thought on this thing having a single engine? I ask because of the birds I have seen come in for single engine landings, from a non aviator standpoint I would think it would be good for a combat aircraft to have 2 engines.
Click to expand...

This one has one. It is what it is. So does/did the A-4, the AV-8, and the F-16.

More is safer, but having one works.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. After all, the expert mafias are certain that this won't ever be delivered anyway, so we'll all be flying F-18E/F/Gs soon. Or we'll (Marines) just abandon strike aviation completely and let the navy do it for us.
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Harrier Dude said:
........I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. After all, the expert mafias are certain that this won't ever be delivered anyway, so we'll all be flying F-18E/F/Gs soon. Or we'll (Marines) just abandon strike aviation completely and let the navy do it for us.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of too big to fail? It comes pretty close to applying to this program.......
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Harrier Dude said:
Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Since it is pretty much the only thing in the pipeline that is supposed to replace pretty much all TACAIR assets in the US inventory that will still be manned I'd say it's a pretty good bet it sticks around in some form. The Super Hornet ain't exactly new stuff and neither is most of the USAF inventory so.......
 
phrogdriver

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
NavyOffRec said:
For the aviators what is your thought on this thing having a single engine? I ask because of the birds I have seen come in for single engine landings, from a non aviator standpoint I would think it would be good for a combat aircraft to have 2 engines.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing, but not a required thing. We go hard-over on the idea that "all naval aircraft must have two engines," except that wasn't true until it happened on its own. The A-4 and A-7 were SE, and each served for 20-30 years in the fleet. With modern engine reliability, I think it's a lot less necessary than it used to be. Also, it's inherently more efficient to have one big engine, vice two smaller ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top