Jump to content

Talk:Grumman E-2 Hawkeye

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toddler3 (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 3 October 2009 (confused). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAviation: Aircraft Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force

Too American-centric?

Epopt, it may be useful to make the (introdcution of the) article a little less American-centered. I'm not sure if the plane is used by other nations, but the plane was not built by the US Navy (but by Grumman, if I'm correct - why don't you mention it?), though that is the primary employer of the planes, of course. Good job on the rest; maybe you should give the source of the picture? jheijmans

Given that the Hawkeye was designed specifically for the use of the US Navy, and old sold after the fact and in smaller numbers to other nations, it makes sense for the article to devote more attention to its US Navy service. Red XIV 3 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

The other nations that use it include Japan, Singapore, Egypt, Israel and France.


Since this is about 4 years old, and the article matches normal practice in the aviation pages I'm going to remove this tag. The US Navy or any military branch that I know of actually "builds" a plane.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the lack of any description on the operation of the aircraft by other operators apart from the US Navy was the reason the tag has been on for so long. Perhaps that needs to be addressed before the tag is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this article as being US-centric as there's almost no coverage of the development of foreign variants of the aircraft and its use by services other than the USN. As this is still the case, I've restored the tag. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? It lists the variants that every nation uses including:
"E-2K Similar to E-2C Hawkeye 2000. Republic of China (Taiwan) named it E-2K."
and
"In late 2006, the US announced that it intended to sell three P-3C Orions equipped with the E-2C Hawkeye 2000 system to the Pakistan Navy. These aircraft will provide Pakistan with search surveillance, and control capability in support of maritime interdiction operations."
Even the pictures have a non-US aircraft: "French Navy Hawkeye onboard the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle."
Its a very advanced military Aircraft made in the USA and as such its export :::is very closely controlled by the United States. Their is no bias in that.
Be Bold In Edits (talk) :::21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bias is lack of mention in any detail of the operational use or otherwise for foreign operators. For example was the US Navy the only operator to use the E-2 in the Gulf War ? you would not know from the article as it does not mention any operational history for any non-American users. Are all them used on carriers - dont know it doesnt say. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Nick is talking mainly about Operational history section. Coverage is almost all US with nothing about use by ROC, Israel or the other operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I find such tags highly insulting, as they are almost always used only in cases of so-called American bias. It's a US airacraft in service in far greater numbers than all the other nations combined. There's just more to write about. It's hardly a "bias". - BillCJ (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Operators: France: Aviation Navale is the only operator other than the US Navy to employ Hawkeyes on board aircraft carriers. Oddly enough, the Operators section has some good info on the E-2 is service with other nations. Move it somewhere else if you like. - BillCJ (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) I've replaced Globalize header with more-approporiate "Expand-section" tag. This is not "bias" or "perspective" on a certain POV, just a lack of coverage of other users, which would only go in the Operational hisotry section anyway. Perhaps we can create a tag for WP:AIR that addresses the specific issue of the history of other users, rahter than having to use generic tags that aren't really that appropriate to this issue. - BillCJ (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Bill - I think that that tag works better than the globalise one I added. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do agree with the initial thread poster that the Lead should at least mention foreign service, but I'm not sure how to do so succinctly. Feel free to take a stab at it. - BillCJ (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crashing into a tower?

Is this real? -- Toytoy 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a clip from a Command & Conquer game (don't ask me which one). RoadKillian 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category

We currently have this article in an AWACS-related category. The E-2 is not an AWACS aircraft...it is an AEW (or AEW&C) aircraft. This should be revised. Many of the other AEW aircraft are similarly miscategorized. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWACS: Airborne Warning And Control System; AEW&C: Airborne Early Warning and Control. The terms are pretty much synonymous. Perhaps we should rename the category to include both, but I think there's far too much overlap in the missions to warrant two separate categories - for instance, the E-3 Sentry is known as AWACS in the US, while the RAF designation for it is Sentry AEW.1. --Scott Wilson 15:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually refer to AWACS aircraft as "Command and Control Aircraft". AWACS is the name of a specific USAF system, but command and control is a more generic term. - Bill billzegarski@mailhaven.com

I concur with Mr. Zegarski: "Command and Control Aircraft" is the most generic term and is used by the squadrons themselves. ~Chris/ topgunchowdah@yahoo.com

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.

E-2C Picture?

The last picture on the page looks like a E2-D because it has 8 propellers, while the E-2C has 4 blades, fully feathered, reversible, pitch constant-speed propellers.--RebelWeasel22 2:22, 20 July 2007

Agree - caption corrected. MilborneOne 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Per the text, E-2C Hawkeye 2000s have been fitted with 8-bladed props under the NP2000 program. The E-2D has not flown yet (scheduled for Aug 07!), and is still under development; IOC is 2011. - BillCJ 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK apologies - I went by one of the captions on the image description page! (one says E-2D and one E-2C). I think it should be side NH-603 which makes it serial number 165812 an E-2CMilborneOne 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye&oldid=317676637"