Talk:Boeing EA-18G Growler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lack of hands onboard will cause loss with all hands aboard?

How is a single Growler electronics operator able to fulfill the same workload THREE guys did in the Prowler? Computerization and glass cockpit is nice, but this F-18G will probably end like the F-104G in Germany or the Apache in Afghanistan: lots of crashes and losses due to human information overload and the resulting confusion. 195.70.32.136 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The EF-111 performed a similar mission, but was designed in the late-70s/early 80s. We've made a lot of progress in computing and information management since then. And remeber, the electronics operator doesn't fly the plane! And blemaing the crashes of F-104Gs and Apaches solely on imformation is a gross oversimplification of the issues involved. - BillCJ 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed with Bill. Also modern datalinks (with other planes and/or ships) may simplify the operator job. Jor70 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that workload shouldn't be too much of an issue - the only question I have is where's the stuff that was in that big pod on the fintip in the Prowler and Raven? The wingtips?

The problem I have with the Growler is that it's YABB - Yet Another Bloody Bug. I understand the economics of standardisation, and don't have a problem with Hornets per se, but my enthuisiast's heart cries out at the "Hornets, JSFs and Hawkeyes Only" airgroups that are rapidly approaching. I mean, in the late 1970s you had F-4s, F-14s, A-4s, A-6s, A-7s, RA-5s, RF-8s, EA-6s, E-2s, C-1s, S-3s...

Once again I must conclude that I was born fourty years too late. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 16:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

ALQ-99 article describes the equipment in the fin pod as receive equipment, transmitter equipment was located in a dorsal fin on the EF-111 and carried in underwing jamming pods on the EA-6B and EA-18G. Defense Industry Daily has a diagram that explains the locations of equipment. The pod based ALQ-99 equipment is replaced by ALQ-218 similar to EA-6B ICAP III upgraded aircraft but mounted on the wingtips. Certainly the 1970s era receivers that were mounted in the pod have been reduced in size and increased in capability enough to mount on a wingtip. The EF-111A was an unarmed platform and carried a crew of 2. EA-6B and EA-18G can carry ARMs, with a crew of 4 and 2 respectively. As for the losses with all hands aboard, that's certainly something the EA-6B is familiar with. It might also be helpful to remember that the EA-6B suffered from serious aerodynamics issues due to the pod and increased weight that resulted in numerous accidents in the 1980s.[1] Right now, the eggs are all in one basket, the EA-6B. It's a problematic basket whose aerodynamic upgrades were refused (ADVCAP) and one that suffered 40 airframe losses due to accidents. That seems like a high percentage, as there were 123 of 170 Prowlers remaining in 2001.[2] 3 of 42 EF-111A lost in crashes or 7% vs almost 25% for Prowlers (At least 40 lost of 170 built, though I don't have exact numbers for it). Hopefully the EA-18G won't suffer from similar problems. --Dual Freq 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The ALQ-218 is a receiver system; the external pods on the EA-6B (including ICAP-III) carry only ALQ-99 transmitter (jammer) components. Tactical Jamming System Receiver (TJSR) components and antennae are carried in the aircraft itself. There are no TJSR receiver components in the external stores; the receivers are functional even when no stores are loaded. The tail fin pod (known as the "football") houses many of the receiver system components and antennae. The ICAP-III upgraded the ALQ-99 "superhet" receiver system with a new ALQ-218 "interferometer" system. As in previous variants, the ICAP-III "football" still houses the bulk of the ALQ-218 TJSR components and antennae. However, the ICAP-III also installed wingtip antenna elements as part of the ALQ-218 package. ICAP-III external stores are the same ALQ-99 transmitter pods shared among all EA-6B aircraft. The ICAP-III's combination of ALQ-218 and USQ-140 MIDS-LVT with the the new color LCDs greatly improves aircrew situational awareness and information integration. The EA-18G will inherit the ALQ-218 TJSR from the ICAP-III and ALQ-99 transmitter pods from the EA-6B (with modifications, of course, due to packaging and flight envelopes).SamCal 04:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Name change

I live next to a guy who is testing the aircraft ant NAS Patuxent River.The planes is not called the Growler, it is called the Shocker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky117 (talk • contribs)

The only references I have found online to "Shocker" have been on a squadron patch site. It seems this is either the pilots' informal name for the aircraft (like F-16 "Viper", F-14 "Turkey", or F/A-18E/F "Super Bug"), or the name of the squadron itself. Given that the predominant sources out there list "Growler" as the official name, you definitely need verifiable sources for changing the name before making changes in the article. - BillCJ 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems likely that "Shocker" was one of the names that was considered for the EA-18G's official name. But, the name is clearly not the official name. Maybe "Shocker" will become a colloquial name. Even then, the article name and the name used in the article should remain the official name. --JJLatWiki 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also work for Pax River and the official name is "Growler". However, as noted by BillCJ notes (as well as JJLatWiki), often times a colloquial name ends up being used more often. The F-16 Viper is a perfect example. The E/F is being called the "Rhino" and most squadrons have been wearing patches with a Rhino on it (even the "ball call" at the boat is "Rhino"). Usually, this is a result of the official name being more and more a PC (politically correct) decision, but the community that operates an aircraft is ruled more by a twenty-something mentality that shuns PC names being thrust on them (we'll see what happens to the F-35 when it arrives). Some names like "Eagle" survive first contact with a community as it befits the aircraft so well (like Mustang or Sabre). As to Shocker, the Prowler community is already in arms over that name (almost a year long debate on the Air Warriors forum if you want to see the nitty gritty as well as why they detest "Growler').

Note: Tomcat was another good choice, but as BillCJ notes, "Turkey" was a nickname sometimes used because of the way all the control surfaces looked when it was on the ball. I didn't like that name at first, but then found myself using it after awhile. HJ 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)