The Great Growler Gallery

[MasterBates]

I guess we really dont have a nickname. LAMPS is a acronym describing the mission, and about the only time I use "Seahawk" is for "Seahawk Ball" at night on the CV, and I only did that a few times.

Plus, seahawk is the name for the 60B,F,H and R. We usually just call them "Bravos" "Foxtrots" "Hotels" "Romeo" etc.

 

[STLEngineer]

False analogy, false analogy, false analogy. The EA-18G community will form different squadrons. They'll have a different FRS. They'll have a different NATOPS qual. They'll have different tactics. In the fleet, a Shocker will be a Shocker, it won't be reconfigured one day with a DCA loadout and the next day with a Shocker loadout. And the way it's looking right now, there won't even be any cross-pollinating between the -18G and -18F communities the way there is between the -18E/F/C communities. I will likely never fly the Shocker. I'll probably fly the Rhino with any number of configurations which just haven't been tested yet.

False analogy or not, it is still an arbitrary distinction between the F/G. The only thing that's not reconfigurable on the shocker is the wing tip pods. Otherwise it could be utilized exactly like an E/F on stations 2-10 (probably even for 5-wet).

How you use an asset or define it in NATOPS does not make it a new asset altogether. The Tomcat was phased out as the defender of the fleet and utilized for a ground attack role, but hey didn't call it an F/A-14 and have a big roll out.

So why have a roll-out for a bunch of minor changes? The E/F is a flexable platform (Shocker, 5-Wet, Interdiction, Fighter Escort). I'm not bashing the "G" capabilities or purpose, I simply prefer to think of it as another variaton of the capable and flexable platform the Navy currently flys (and my soon to be ex-company designed and builds).

 

[raptor10]

Okay, so the Shocker is like the Shelby of the Hornets?

 

[STLEngineer]

Okay, so the Shocker is like the Shelby of the Hornets?

Sure, why not... could have some decent patches from that, too.

 

[jmiller82]

So, bottom line is, when are these things (Shocker/Growler, whatever the nickname is) going to be operational with an FRS/RAG, and have their own training pipeline? What I'm asking, I guess, is if one were to select the EA-6B and finish training in it (even going through to RAG), and they roll the EA-18G out just a year or two later, what are the odds that there'd be a transfer of pilots/NFO's from the EA-6B to the EA-18G? Is it a long-term transition, or do they just ask you to "voluntarily seperate," as some have been asked in the Hoover (S-3B) community?

 

[FLYMARINES]

So, bottom line is, when are these things (Shocker/Growler, whatever the nickname is) going to be operational with an FRS/RAG, and have their own training pipeline? What I'm asking, I guess, is if one were to select the EA-6B and finish training in it (even going through to RAG), and they roll the EA-18G out just a year or two later, what are the odds that there'd be a transfer of pilots/NFO's from the EA-6B to the EA-18G? Is it a long-term transition, or do they just ask you to "voluntarily seperate," as some have been asked in the Hoover (S-3B) community?

That question has been asked a million times on here. Check your Crystal ball for further updates. If your going to OCS anytime soon, it will probably be too soon to select the Shocker. Brett said that they were not going to "cross-polinate" between the Shocker and other communities. All EA-18G pilots and ECMO's will come from the current EA-6B community and studs who select it out of flight school. Something like "leave no ECMO (or pilot) behind."

 

[jmiller82]

Thanks, FlyMarines.. I noticed a bunch of threads on specifically the S-3B Sundown and how some of those guys were getting voluntary seperation letters, but didn't really find much on the EA-6B to EA-18G transition, other than a bunch of noob speculation.. So we're looking at more like 2009 for initial operational capability?

 

[Super Hornet 88]

That's a stupid nickname and although it's mentioned from time to time I don't think it really stuck. The Tomcat is too bad @$$ for such a stupid name. :icon_rage

I think it's a fitting nickname for the Tomcat.

http://www.fencecheck.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=230&pos=112

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php/topic,2520.msg91477.html#msg91477

 

[TurnandBurn55]

How you use an asset or define it in NATOPS does not make it a new asset altogether. The Tomcat was phased out as the defender of the fleet and utilized for a ground attack role, but hey didn't call it an F/A-14 and have a big roll out.

What an excellent counter-argument!! You addressed all of my points so completely. You're so right, once they slapped a LANTIRN and GBUs on the Tomcat.. those formed totally new and seperate squadrons, a new FRS, they needed a different NATOPS qual, they'd never carry the Phoenix again, and aircrew from "fleet defense" Tomcats never moved over. My god, your analogy now is exact... it's exactly the same thing!! Except for the rollout and name change!!

I'm sorry you choose not to get it, dude. But despite what you may think as an engineer, from the Navy's operational and organizational perspective, the Shocker is a new aircraft that will bring capabilities to the fleet that did not exist before. Or perhaps you'd like to give your explanation as to why Super Hornet squadrons will fly every missionized profile EXCEPT the Shocker??

 

[pilot_man]

I will likely never fly the Shocker. I'll probably fly the Rhino with any number of configurations which just haven't been tested yet.

I just wanted to point out your typo. I think when you type “ride” it prints “fly”.

Sorry, I had to.:icon_smil

 

[STLEngineer]

What an excellent counter-argument!! You addressed all of my points so completely. You're so right, once they slapped a LANTIRN and GBUs on the Tomcat.. those formed totally new and seperate squadrons, a new FRS, they needed a different NATOPS qual, they'd never carry the Phoenix again, and aircrew from "fleet defense" Tomcats never moved over. My god, your analogy now is exact... it's exactly the same thing!! Except for the rollout and name change!!

I'm sorry you choose not to get it, dude. But despite what you may think as an engineer, from the Navy's operational and organizational perspective, the Shocker is a new aircraft that will bring capabilities to the fleet that did not exist before. Or perhaps you'd like to give your explanation as to why Super Hornet squadrons will fly every missionized profile EXCEPT the Shocker??

Every post I see is you make is only about complaining about someone else's post and having to be right all the time. That doesn't get old at all.

It is exactly what I said... arbitrary. The Navy is restricting the use of the "G" in a certain way, but the aircraft and airframe still has the capability to perform other missions. Even though the powers that be choose to use it in this other way, and account for it under a different system, it does not change the fact that the underlying airplane is the same. It's simply a matter of accounting, and accounting doesn't define if a plane is new. Simply because one squadron will fly the aircraft to a different mission doesn't mean it's not the same aircraft, and it can't do other things.

The capability is there, it is simply not being used. Putting a new weapon on an aircraft, or putting in JHMCS gives the aircraft new capabilities just the same. The airframe is the same, it's the same airplane. A duck is a duck is a duck. Even if you call it a goose, it's still the same airplane.

Or perhaps you'd like to give your explanation as to why Super Hornet squadrons will fly every missionized profile EXCEPT the Shocker??

Testing has been done on this concept, but I'm "guessing" it has something to do with the fact that the ALQ-218 pods are an integral part of the shocker's mission. You don't get the full shocker capability without the wingtip pods. But you get the rhino capability either way.

I'm done.

 

[raptor10]

You don't get the full shocker capability without the wingtip pods. But you get the rhino capability either way.

Except no gun, heavier weight from the internal ICAP-III avionics suite, and a crew with a different set of natops quals and tactics.

 

[Brett327]

Every post I see is you make is only about complaining about someone else's post and having to be right all the time. That doesn't get old at all.

It is exactly what I said... arbitrary. The Navy is restricting the use of the "G" in a certain way, but the aircraft and airframe still has the capability to perform other missions. Even though the powers that be choose to use it in this other way, and account for it under a different system, it does not change the fact that the underlying airplane is the same. It's simply a matter of accounting, and accounting doesn't define if a plane is new. Simply because one squadron will fly the aircraft to a different mission doesn't mean it's not the same aircraft, and it can't do other things.

The capability is there, it is simply not being used. Putting a new weapon on an aircraft, or putting in JHMCS gives the aircraft new capabilities just the same. The airframe is the same, it's the same airplane. A duck is a duck is a duck. Even if you call it a goose, it's still the same airplane.


Testing has been done on this concept, but I'm "guessing" it has something to do with the fact that the ALQ-218 pods are an integral part of the shocker's mission. You don't get the full shocker capability without the wingtip pods. But you get the rhino capability either way.

I'm done.

Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it will be done or is smart. Your point and accompanying analogy amounts to semantics and is summarily rejected. To suggest that the various milestones coming out of the G model production line are meaningless due to some warped sense that a basic airframe is identical to another is the height of ignorance and disrespect to an entire community of EA professionals. F and G models will not be operationally interchangeable as you suggest, so why even offer that line of argumentation. We are all dumber for having listened to you, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I'm back, baby!

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it will be done or is smart. Your point and accompanying analogy amounts to semantics and is summarily rejected. To suggest that the various milestones coming out of the G model production line are meaningless due to some warped sense that a basic airframe is identical to another is the height of ignorance and disrespect to an entire community of EA professionals. F and G models will not be operationally interchangeable as you suggest, so why even offer that line of argumentation. We are all dumber for having listened to you, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I'm back, baby!

Brett

A perfect post for your return. Welcome back.

 

[STLEngineer]

Just because a thing can be done doesn't mean it will be done or is smart. Your point and accompanying analogy amounts to semantics and is summarily rejected. To suggest that the various milestones coming out of the G model production line are meaningless due to some warped sense that a basic airframe is identical to another is the height of ignorance and disrespect to an entire community of EA professionals. F and G models will not be operationally interchangeable as you suggest, so why even offer that line of argumentation. We are all dumber for having listened to you, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I'm back, baby!

Brett

Stating that an aircraft is new simply because it is used in a different way and carries new electronics is false. It is nearly the exact same airplane coming out of the exact same production line, just with some different boxes.

How is saying that the aircraft is the same disrespeting the EA community, I ask? I never stated that there were no changes. My job for the last 2 years has been assessing the differences between the F and the G to prepare it for service, and I certainly take pride in my job and pride in the product we produce. Did I say the "G" sucked? Did I say it is somehow less capable than the EA-6B? It will simply fly a greatly different mission with different avionics and different pods, but the underlying aircraft is the same. There is no disrespect for the EA community anywhere in my posts.

The F and G may not be operationally interchangable, but that is due to NATOPS, not because the aircraft is dramatically different.

I understand that the missions it will be used on vary greatly from what the E/F conducts in the realm of tactics and capabilities.