Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

4 Questions on the Hawkeye

Some of these questions are probably pretty dumb, but I was hesitant to add things to the article that might be wrong.

1. Would I be correct if I said that the Hawkeye can oversee an area about 3/4 the size of the state of Alaska? Or is my math or understanding off?
2. Is it a fair to consider the Hawkeye as an airbourne air-traffic-control facility, or is this a gross oversimplification?
3. What was the reasoning for giving the Hawkeye prop power rather than jet power? And is the continued use of prop power due to aspects of the plane's design, or because of a benefit(s) seen in the prop power? Related, is the Hawkeye now the only prop-driven fixed-wing aircraft serving in the US armed forces?
4. Where does Hawkeye come from? I'm guessing that M*A*S*H has nothing to do with it.
5. Why is this night different from all other nights? (oops)

--Badger151 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Alaska's a big place. The E-2 can only do radar coverage of about 1/4th of the main portion, and at the edges, it'd be spotty. Fortunately, there are a bunch of E-3s in Alaska that do a much better job.
2. Much more than ATC...especially, with the E-2D variant. It is more of a battlefield director.
3. Fuel efficiency, loiter time, and the fact that the slow stall speed of turboprops makes it easier to operate from aircraft carriers. It is not the only such aircraft...C-130, C-27, and CN-235
4. Dunno
5. You're drunk? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On the name Hawkeye, I've never heard anything definitive. However, naval AEW aircraft are often referred to the "Eyes of the Fleet," hence HawkEYE is a fitting name. -- BillCJ 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been flying the Hawkeye for over 20 years and have never once (before viewing this page) heard the term "Super Fudd". I question the accuracy of this moniker. Stormy.

Stormy - I entered the community in '78 and only came across the term in my VAW research where it was used infrequently in the very early days (think: W2F/E-2A). By the time the Hawkeye had a large enough footprint in the fleet, "hummer" became the accepted nickname. -SJS--Steeljawscribe (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused about when it happened

I am getting pretty confused about the timing of the introduction of the E-2. The article mentions three different introduction times:

• The twin turboprop aircraft was designed and developed in the 1950s ...
• The original E-2C, ..., became operational in 1973.
• Since replacing the E-1 in 1964, the Hawkeye has been the eyes of the fleet....

Can someone explain or correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddler3 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The twin turboprop aircraft was designed and developed in the 1950s ...

True it was developed in the 1950s and first flew in 1960.

• The original E-2C, ..., became operational in 1973.

The E-2C was a latter variant of the E-2 so 1973 is probably correct.

• Since replacing the E-1 in 1964, the Hawkeye has been the eyes of the fleet....

True the first E-2s were introduced in 1964 into USN service.

All appears to be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts about the early evolution of the E-2C. The first iteration of the E-2C utilized the APS-120 radar system. As there were numerous "issues" with the APS-120's ability to track overland or in "high clutter" areas, an update program was undertaken to install digital processing on the receive side of the radar and incorporate some modest counter-interference/ECM measures. All that constituted what was known as the E-2C ARPS (Advanced Radar Processing System). When added with the CP upgrades (16K vice 8K memory modules) and the ALR-73 (replaced the ALR-59) PDS, that constituted the "base" model E-2C for much of the late 70's/early 80's. Another iterim model was built in the early-mid 80's with an improved dome (TRAC-A and 8-channel rotary joint) and some additional improvements in counter-ECM which led to the APS-137, and that in turn, was re-baselined as the Group 0 E-2C. On a sidebar note - VAW-122 was one of the last fleet squadrons operating the APS-125 a/c because they were using a trial SATCOM installation that could not use the same rotary joint as the TRAC-A/APS-137 radar. - SJS--Steeljawscribe (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the build status of the E-2? When was the last brand-new - not upgraded E-2 built? Where were E-2 built? Was production like ever moved? Production/ not upgrade sites. Wfoj2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

E-2D stats

Can we have a stat block with the E-2D numbers from the story book?

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html

Hcobb (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

The specifications has been cited to the US Navy fact file - thius has the problem that much of the specification data in the section is not in the fact file - things like wing area, climb rate, range etc. While some of this can be found from other sources, much of the specifications, such as weight) will vary markedly between early and later E-2Cs. For instance the 76 Jane's All The Worl's Aircraft gives an empty weight of 37,678 lb and a MTOW of 51,569 lb, while the corresponding figures from the 2003 Jane's are 40,484 lb and 54,426 lb. We therefore need to be very careful about mixing sources for things like weight and performance.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I would not have expected such a weight change. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that comparing early and late E-2C, that virtually every bit of electronics has been changed, with several new systems (such as CEC and satellite communications) added, its perhaps more surprising that the weight hasn't changed more!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC),

First all female US Navy combat flight crew

link 1

link 2

On Jan. 25, 2012, the US Navy had its first all female combat crew on an E-2. I don't know if these things are generally mentioned in articles about various aircraft, so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone missed it. Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)