Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.

4 Questions on the Hawkeye[edit]

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 first got with VAW-123 in 1970, Super Fudd was around but not that widely used. Hummer or even Hummeroid. The old E-1 wqas known as Willy Fudd so Super Fudd was a natural evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.114.0 (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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)
  1. I drew a somewhat crude "map" of what an E-2C can cover (assuming good weather conditions): http://i.imgur.com/Zgdyu2Z.jpg It is safe to say that an E-2 can cover a pretty good chunk of Alaska. It's worth noting that an E-3 Sentry requires some 20 people to do what the E-2C does with five!
  2. ATC is one of the many, many missions the E-2C can do. E-2s from VAW-77 performed ATC functions after Hurricane Katrina and vectored several hundred helicopters and small aircraft in the greater NOLA area with zero incidents, and there was no ground-based ATC whatsoever at the time. E-2s provided ATC services after the Indonesian Tsunami of (I think) 2006 and the Japanese earthquake/tsunami a few years ago.
  3. The answer is pretty simple; a greater mass of air (from a big prop) moved at a slower speed transfers more energy to the air; this results in greater thrust at a lower fuel consumption. The trade-off is lower maximum speed, but of all the things an E-2C needs to function correctly, high speed is definitely not one ;). There are several prop-driven planes in the military; the C-130 (which uses very nearly the same engine and prop, coincidentally) is a big one, and there are several small prop planes used in VIP transport and whatnot. And yes, the Navy operates C-130s!
  4. Hawks in nature are well-known for their excellent eye sight; they are known to be able to spot a field mouse from several thousand feet in the air with regular accuracy. I feel the name is quite appropriate.
It's worth noting that with the NP2000, Hawkeyes don't really "hum" any more. You can still hear them, but you can't feel them. Shame. Also, I've never heard of "super fudd" before either; I'm half tempted to either update it to reflect its uniquely early usage, or just delete it. It's verging on irrelevant.-- Hawkeye1893 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will add some more questions - Other than propeller is there an easy external physical difference of a E-2D from an E-2C ? From article a Hawkeye 200 has the "eight-bladed propellers as part of the NP2000 program", does not necessarily make the aircraft a E-2D. I have seen with pictures some have an upward projection above the center of the radar-dome - so do not what does this distinguish? Would you say a this time mid 2017 - near all of the US E-2 are Hawkeyes? What year is current projection of when US fleet will be all E-2D ? In addition to folding wings, does the Radardome retract/ change height for storage? thanks in advance Wfoj3 (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Production prediction[edit]

"Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye early-warning-and-control aircraft: A total of 65 more aircraft are forecast to be built from 2013 through 2022."[1] — [1] "Military Aircraft Update: Northrop Grumman E-2". Aviation Week & Space Technology. Aviation Week Intelligence Network. 175 (39): 89. 21 November 2013.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

article image[edit]

Please consider use a more representative image for this aicraft: a mountain ?? put a carrier please !! thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.115.109 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible cover-up uncovered[edit]

The israeli E-2C Hawkeye allegedly sent to the museum is actually a mock-up, because its original example was downed by a syrian S-200 Vega missile. 82.131.133.58 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source please? Otherwise it appears a wishful fantasy. Happy Hannukah! Irondome (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. 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 to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked. (a bit late) Redalert2fan (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Variants[edit]

To complete the variants section does anybody have information on the E-2 flown without radome and pedestal (as shown in the EP-3 episode of JAG)--Petebutt (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know the full name and season and episode number? - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean the Grumman C-2 Greyhound - a derivative of the E-2 for Carrier onboard delivery duties?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Military Aircraft Update: Northrop F-5/T-38". Aviation Week & Space Technology. Aviation Week Intelligence Network. 175 (39): 89. 21 November 2013.