• 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

The Great Growler Gallery

Fly Navy said:
It's hard enough to balance air-to-air and air-to-ground, let alone the jamming mission. F-that.
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no proof that said suggestion was even seriously contemplated by anyone of authority; I just heard it around the ready room a couple times, in the context of "well there are nutty VFA guys who want to do this."

Which is probably among the many reasons why it's not happening anyway. :D
 
I think it's a very workable idea ... VFAQ whatever ... just flesh the squadrons out to 16-18 birds w/ 3-4 as primary jammers ... before you say "no", think A-4 and A-6 squadrons, just to name one part of the former multi-mission communities.

Self escorting to a great extent, air-to-mud par excellence, modest A-6 jamming capabilities (didn't have the equipment that was later developed w/ the EA-6), and even did and excelled at tanking ... plus got Top 10 on a frequent & regular basis. :)

You could do it even better w/ the F-18 ....

Jack of all trades, master of all assigned ... it can be done, if you want to do it.
 
A4sForever said:
... before you say "no", think A-4 and A-6 squadrons, just to name one part of the former multi-mission communities.
Click to expand...

I'm saying no. We already have too many missions, you had this and it will water down the capability even more. A-6 dudes didn't do CAS, SEAD, DCA, OCA, SES, Stike, HVAAP, or a number of others on any given day. And by that I don't mean you didn't do strike, SEAD, CAS. Just that there are SO many more missions we have to be proficient at. Plus, for each of those there are a littany of different tactics. If you try and fold the VAQ mission in as well, you're just asking for failure. Never mind the going back and for between to VERY different airframes.

I agree with your last line as well, jack of all trades master of none is absolutely stupid (talking to you... SNA). We strive for perfection in every mission we undertake, and the Hornet with current tactics, systems, and weaponry is incredibly lethal.
 
kilikopela said:
Just talked to our XO today (former VAQ guy) about the future in Growlers/Shockers...what have you...and he mentioned VFAQ squadrons. Until today, I thought all EA's were going to be assigned VAQ...
Click to expand...

Not sure but perhaps the XO was referring to a re-designation of the VAQ squadrons to VFAQ. It's not an uncommon event. Here are a few historic examples: VA-33 (A-3's) become VAQ-33 when the "whale" mission was change from bombing to EW. VF-151 (F-4's), VF-14 (F-14's), VA-34 (A-6's) and VA-15 (A-7's) all become VFA once they transitioned to Hornets (Bug/Rhino, whatever).
 
stalk said:
Not sure but perhaps the XO was referring to a re-designation of the VAQ squadrons to VFAQ. It's not an uncommon event. Here are a few historic examples: VA-33 (A-3's) become VAQ-33 when the "whale" mission was change from bombing to EW. VF-151 (F-4's), VF-14 (F-14's), VA-34 (A-6's) and VA-15 (A-7's) all become VFA once they transitioned to Hornets (Bug/Rhino, whatever).
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen. We will be strictly EA/ES with an excellent ability to defend and get the hell out of there if we get jumped on. I also hear that people think we will self escort. That will not happen either. Too slow and we cost too much. So we will remain VAQ.
 
Schmuck said:
Not gonna happen. We will be strictly EA/ES with an excellent ability to defend and get the hell out of there if we get jumped on. I also hear that people think we will self escort. That will not happen either. Too slow and we cost too much. So we will remain VAQ.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize we had N88 himself on this board...Reread the post.

I offered a possible explanation about kilik's XO's VFAQ comment. I didn't suggest a VAQ mission change and correctly pointed out that a re-designation is not uncommon with an aircraft change. But since you brought it up and seem to be making decisions for the future of Naval Aviation...Are you going to permit the Growler to carry a refueling pod even though that isn't an EA/ES mission? I'm sure CAGs throughout the fleet are anxiously awaiting your answer.
 
stalk said:
...(should) the Growler to carry a refueling pod ... CAGs throughout the fleet are anxiously awaiting (the) answer.
Click to expand...
DAMN !! THAT'S IT !!! I never thought of it that way ... :D

As the EA-6B is retired in favor of Queer F-18's ... turn the Prowlers into Air Wing tankers !!!

Once again, we'd have a Grumman Iron Works tanking asset that could keep up w/ the strike package if need be ... !!

Just download all those pricey electronics and sell tickets for backseat rides ... :)
 
A4FR:
Actually, you could remove the 2 rear seats on the EA-6B & replace them with an extra, internal tank. In this way the pilots can get that 600lbs of extra gas they've said they'd prefer for the past 40 years.
 
03.jpg


01.jpg

04.jpg

somebody already thought of what the hornet would look like doing everything in the fleet. The person who built this describes it as "They had secretly developed the F/A/R/S/E-18H. It was capable of performing all required missions by the Navy, including fighter, attack, recon, surface patrol, and electronic jamming."​


I couldnt figure out how to link the certain page so ill just give the link to the main website http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/​
 
clonei09 said:
03.jpg


01.jpg

04.jpg

somebody already thought of what the hornet would look like doing everything in the fleet. The person who built this describes it as "They had secretly developed the F/A/R/S/E-18H. It was capable of performing all required missions by the Navy, including fighter, attack, recon, surface patrol, and electronic jamming."​



I couldnt figure out how to link the certain page so ill just give the link to the main website http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/​
Click to expand...
I'm assuming that the long probe on the port side is the MAD Boom?? But I don't see any mines or torps amongst the stores... :D
 
Fog said:
A4FR:
Actually, you could remove the 2 rear seats on the EA-6B & replace them with an extra, internal tank. In this way the pilots can get that 600lbs of extra gas they've said they'd prefer for the past 40 years.
Click to expand...
:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:

I always thought it was 250#/per w/ all their gear ... but I'll take more if I can get it ...

:D:icon_zbee
 
A4sForever said:
DAMN !! THAT'S IT !!! I never thought of it that way ... :D

As the EA-6B is retired in favor of Queer F-18's ... turn the Prowlers into Air Wing tankers !!!

Once again, we'd have a Grumman Iron Works tanking asset that could keep up w/ the strike package if need be ... !!

Just download all those pricey electronics and sell tickets for backseat rides ... :)
Click to expand...
I'd buy a backseat ride! :D
 
clonei09 said:
03.jpg


01.jpg

04.jpg

somebody already thought of what the hornet would look like doing everything in the fleet. The person who built this describes it as "They had secretly developed the F/A/R/S/E-18H. It was capable of performing all required missions by the Navy, including fighter, attack, recon, surface patrol, and electronic jamming."​



I couldnt figure out how to link the certain page so ill just give the link to the main website http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/​
Click to expand...



Could you imagine being the opposition in a dog fight and seeing that thing :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top