Talk:Boeing EA-18G Growler

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing EA-18G Growler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Conversions?

this is probably a stupid question, but, are these going to be conversions or new airframes? am i right in thinking that the original ea-6's were converted a-6's?Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The production EA-18G will be new. They are produced on the same line as the F/A-18E/Fs. Not sure if the EA-6Bs were A-6 conversions or not. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also read in a magazine that all F/A-18Fs coming off the line (as of a year or two ago) come with all the wiring to convert them into EA-18Gs later, if the Navy wants to. - Father Inire (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EF-18G

I have heard this aircraft called EF-18G as well, while I'm not 100% sure its referring to this aircraft, I can find no other aircraft with this designation. Notably here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm in the list of aircraft to be used on the the new Ford class CVN-78 being made. Should a re-direct be added from EF-18G to this page? Ergzay (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I went ahead and added the link, but WP:BEBOLD applies.

I'd also caution you about using globalsecurity.org as a reliable source...well, about details that aren't about the topic at hand (Articles about topic A tend to have lots of problems/inconsistencies when they include details about topic B).

The program has determined the name to be EA. It will remain so, correctly describing the role it serves -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.58 (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hornet/Super Hornet has F-18, A-18 and FA-18 listings in the Model Designation tri-service document. So modifying FA-18 to EA-18 follows the tri-service system. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

Someone should look into or at least note that the performance characteristics are not appropriate. It may look like an E/F, but there's more difference than similarity in flight. Wikipedia is better off with NO data than bad data. I cannot legally correct it. - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Mr. "Navy Network Information Center" of Pensacola Florida, I'll look into it, but I'll note that the Aussies are getting some Fs that are wired to function as Gs. So the airframe differences are not as great as the doodads you hang on the hardpoints. Hcobb (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean flight restrictions due to external pods or what? The only difference in the airframe is some smoothing at the wing's dogteeth notches. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that the F/G have the same range as the E with less gas. Hcobb (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What range are you talking about? I'm sure they don't have the same absolute range, but they were probably designed to have the same combat/mission range... otherwise you'd have the jammers turning back halfway into the mission. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your strike package would be E fighters, F bombers and G jammers. The strike package range would be limited by the Fs because the Gs would not dive down to the target and would instead stay up (for line of sight) where the drag was less. Hcobb (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marines

Are there any references noting whether or not the United States Marine Corps will eventually transition to the Growler? I noticed a few links here that I had to tag with {{fact}}, and I was wondering. The latest Aviation Plan doesn't say anything about the EA-18G, but does seem to hint at the F-35 in an electronic warfare role. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USMC will not operate Super Hornets ever. How set against it are they? Well...

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/06/marine_superhornet_070617/ So who’s spreading these stories about the Super Hornet? The answer, which surprised some program officials: the Marine Corps — which isn’t even part of the Super Hornet program.

Hcobb (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to refer only to the fighter and attack aircraft usage in the Corps. It specifically notes the thesis of the Super Hornet vs. the JSF, but if the JSF can't/won't be adapted for electronic warfare, I don't think that argument applies.

While that doesn't really rule out either approach, I do think it is somewhat helpful. I'd love to get my hands on something more explicit, however. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping ref into F-35 page. Hcobb (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the December 7 issue of the Marine Corps Times (page 7):

“

Corps to get upgraded jamming gear

As the Navy transitions to the EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, it will transfer 16 EA-6B Prowlers with updated jamming equipment to the Marine Corps by 2013. Marine officials also intend to purchase another 16 Prowlers for about $15 million each, bringing the number of updated Prowlers in the fleet to 32, said Capt. Craig Thomas, a Marine spokesman. The Corps should start seeing the aircraft next March, he said. There are 20 Prowlers in the fleet now that can be deployed, all of which have an older, analog jamming system. The updated aircraft will have a digital receiver that will allow pilots to “pinpoint the location of enemy radar sites for a more effective use of [high speed anti-radiation missiles],” Thomas said. The Prowler provides the Corps’ primary electronic warfare capability. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Prowlers also counter roadside bombs and block insurgents’ cell phone communications. The aircraft are slated to go offline in 2019. By that time the Corps expects to be carrying next-generation jamming equipment with the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. Officials have said, however, that the Prowlers’ use could be extended. — Amy McCullough

”

So, no. Seems the JSF will be a jack-of-all-trades aircraft. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia to growl in 2011/2012

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/raaf-fighter-bombers-to-become-growlers/story-e6frg8yo-1226170085768

Looks like Libya has pushed the decision up from 2012 to 2011. Makes sense as this means that all the Eurocanarders will then have to beg help from Oz or USA next time they go off to attack somebody. Hcobb (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current wikiarticle says decision in 2012, while the media is reporting a soon on the decision. Hcobb (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what does the wiring buy in terms of capabilities before the full conversion? Do they have additional sensors or the wing fences? Hcobb (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saves time. They won't have to run the wiring during the conversion work. And it is easier to run the wiring during original assembly than to go back in and to add them to a completed aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no wing fences on any Aussie Super Hornet. (AFAIK)

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Super-Hornet-A44-220/Super_Hornet_A44_220

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Super-Hornet-A44-224/Super_Hornet_A44_224_20120316raaf8540677_0133

That's numbers 20 and 24 and no sign at all of wing fences. Hcobb (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival of Growler attack aircraft marks new era for Australia's defence force, Marise Payne says http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-28/growler-aircraft-marks-new-era-for-australias-defence/8311640 60.242.247.177 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next Generation Jammer

Looks like Da Navy is yanking the NGJ off the F-35 faster than a baby seal gets skinned. So let's move the NGJ "home" back to this article, until it grows enough to make its own home.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p24-415796.xml&headline=New%20Plan:%20NGJ%20To%20Go%20Unmanned&next=0

BTW: hording links here for the move.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Fact-Sheets/Next-Generation-Airborne-Electronic-Attack.aspx

Hcobb (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better and easier to start a separate NGJ article instead of piggybacking off the aircraft articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing. Hcobb (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In outer space, everybody can hear you growl

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2290 The SATCOM system was installed on a Navy EA-18G Growler -- a variant of the F/A-18F that includes a SATCOM antenna.

Ref leaves me puzzled. Do all Growlers (but not other Super Hornets) have the SATCOM antenna? (If so we should mention it here.) Or was it that one specific aircraft that had the antenna bolted on? Hcobb (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is considering making an order for 12 EA-18G Growlers

I don't see how this is supported by the given ref (or anything else I've seen). At most it is noted that Canada would be allowed to purchase this variant, but they have expressed no real interest in it. Hcobb (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ea-18g-growler/
Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing EA-18G Growler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing EA-18G Growler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]