Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

  1. #1
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare
    WASHINGTON — The Navy’s new airborne jamming aircraft will be known officially as the EA-18G “Growler,” its informal moniker for the last several years, the Pentagon has announced.

    The designation comes two years after the Navy petitioned the Air Force Materiel Command, which assigns aircraft names and numbers for all the service branches, for the title.

    About 30 names, including “Shocker,” “Demon ” and “Gator,” also were considered, said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman for the Naval Air Systems Command.

    The plane, which is to enter service beginning in 2009, replaces the EA-6B “Prowler,” a Vietnam War-era workhorse that is being retired.

    The Growler will be based on the Navy’s F/A-18F Super Hornet, a two-seat fighter-bomber, but equipped with radar jammers and HARM anti-radar missiles rather than the Super Hornet’s complement of bombs and missiles.

    The first two Growlers, both test models, are expected to roll out of Boeing Inc.’s Super Hornet assembly plant in St. Louis next year. The Navy expects to buy 90 of the planes by 2013 and spread them among 10 electronic warfare squadrons.

    Each operational Growler will cost about $66 million, the Navy estimates, and the service is spending an additional $1.5 billion on research and development.

    All the Growlers are expected to be based at Whidbey Island, Wash., home of the Prowler.
    It doesn't seem smart to be taking an inferior aircraft (the F/A-18) and trying to make it a jack of all trades.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck

    It doesn't seem smart to be taking an inferior aircraft (the F/A-18) and trying to make it a jack of all trades.
    Ryan,

    I'm curious, why do you say the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an "inferior aircraft"? Inferior to what?

    Granted it's not the fastest (Mach 1.8), and has a service ceiling of 50k+ feet, but it is a multi-role attack and air superiority aircraft which is just now going into high gear production. It's much improved and superior to the F/A-18D. In future combat the Growler will provide electronic cover for Raptors, F-35 JSF and probably even the Eurofighter Typhoon.

  3. #3
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    Sean,
    The base aircraft for the "Growler" is highly inferior to the aircraft it was originally designed to replace, the F-14. And we all know the old axiom, "Garbage in, garbage out." Thus, start with an inferior aircraft, end up with inferior results.

    A great piece I have seen on this is this – Battle of the SuperFighters -- F-14D Tomcat vs. F/A18 E/F Super Hornet

    Found at the original link for this article at FR. It sums everything up very well in my opinion.

    Here is one telling excerpt:
    The F-14 will be replaced by the F/A-18E Super Hornet, which attempts deep-interdiction missions. Though it's a whizzy little airshow performer with a nice, modern cockpit, it has only 36 percent of the F-14's payload/range capability. The F/A-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target. This naturally means that the carrier radius of influence drops to 50 percent of what it would have been with the same number of F-14s. As a result, the area of influence (not radius) drops to 23 percent! No wonder the USN is working on “buddy tanker” versions of the Super Hornet.

    By the way, now that the A-6 tanker has gone, how will the Hornets get to deep-interdiction targets? Contrary to what we're officially told, a tanker variant of the Hornet is simply not the answer. In an attempt to make it supersonic, the F-18E has been given a low aspect ratio, razor blade of a wing. This hurts subsonic drag and carrier takeoff payload when compared with a KA-6 tanker, which is an aerodynamically efficient solution. Equally silly is the proposal for an EW version of the F-18E. (Yet here it is!) The same aerodynamic reasons apply for this airplane, plus it has an external stores dilemma. To get sufficient range to support a deep-interdiction mission, the EF-18E would have to use up precious external store stations with fuel tanks rather than ECM pods as carried on the EA-6B. Perhaps the Navy should consider putting the EA-6B back into upgraded and modernized production and build some of them as tankers? Or more Super A-6s?
    So, no doubt the "Growler's" new EW hardware will do just as good or an even better job than the EA-6B's EW hardware, but the underlying aircraft platform is clearly lacking.

    Frankly, I like the articles recommendation of resurrecting the EA-6B and the F-14s (unfortunately, we can't restart manufacturing of the F-14 easily since Dick Cheney as SecDef ordered the dies and tooling destroyed).

    However, another possibility is adopting a naval variant of the F-22. I know some work has been done on this because I have seen the conceptual drawings. A minimal amount of structural reinforcement, heavier duty landing gear and, folding wings would be about the only major changes needed. This would solve the problem of the F/A-18s short legs, lesser carrying capacity and, speed/maneuverability issues. This would then have a major advantage over the proposed Tomcat II, stealth.

    Perhaps a new EW aircraft variant could then be designed off of the F-22 as you are now working with a far superior aircraft to the F/A-18.

    In addition to resurrecting the F-14s and EA-6Bs, and/or adopting a navalized F-22, I also recommend continuing development of the F-35. While the Harrier fills an important role, it is slow. So, we need a VTOL aircraft that can go supersonic. The F-35 fills this roll nicely and has the additional benefit of stealth.

    That's the way I see things...

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    Ryan,

    I see where you're coming from on this. I would also keep the F-14D's around for specific missions, particularly for the carrier defense role. I would have at least 10 on every US carrier at all times.

    Also, in defense of the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet there are these facts.


    F/A18-E/F as it compares with the F/A18-C/D

    The F/A18-E/F:

    • can fly up to 40% farther on a typical interdiction mission.
    • can remain on station 80% longer during a typical combat air patrol scenario.
    • has three times the "bring back" capability (will be able to "bring back" approximately three times the amount of payload (unused ordnance) to the ship.)
    Other F/A18-E/F facts


    • has increased internal fuel capacity by 3600 pounds (33%).
    • has increased engine power.
    • can extend of the mission radius by up to 40%.
    • has additional weapon stations now totaling 11.
    • has increased surface area by 100 square feet (25%).
    • carries modified display mechanisms to include crew station features, up-front controls and color CRT instrumentation
    Summary

    The U. S. Navy believes the F/A18 Super Hornet is the right airplane at the right time. The single seat F/A18-E and the two seat F/A18-F will continue to uphold the Hornet's proud tradition as the U. S. Navy's benchmark for high reliability, low maintenance, outstanding survivability and cost-effective fleet operations. The Super Hornet test program holds much promise for the future as it leads naval aviation into the 21st century!

    http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/.../shornet2.html


    This brings up the real issue here ... an apples to apples comparison of the F/A-18F Super Hornet with the F-14 Tomcat B/D. I'll highlight some important points in yellow.






    With the success of the Super Hornet to be the next generation Navy multi-purpose fighter, Tomcat 21 was sadly cancelled, but can the Super Hornet E/F really fill up F-14s presence's as the Navy's next generation interceptor and fleet protector? The section below will cover that.

    F-14 Tomcat B/D

    Type:Two seat carrier based multi-role fighter
    Performance
    Max SpeedMACH 2.34 / 2,517km/hr at height
    MACH 1.2 / 1,464km/hr at Sea Level
    Combat Radius ( to and back )2,000 miles / 3,200 km
    Climb rate at normal Gross weight30,000ft / 9,144m mins
    Service CeilingOver 56,000ft / 17,067m
    ThrustA- 20,900 pound
    A+ and D 27,000 pound each
    Weight
    Empty40,104lb / 18,191kg
    internal fuel16,200lb / 7,348kg
    Load (clean)58,715lb / 26,631kg
    Maxiumum74,349lb / 33,724kg

    Armament
    Up to 13,000 pounds of AIM-54 Phoenix missile, AIM-7 Sparrow missile, AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, air-to-ground ordnance, and one MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon. Ground ordnance includes Rockeye , CBU-59 cluster , GBU-16 LGB and Gator mines.

    Overall
    Although the F-14 Tomcat is able to carry out both air to air and air to ground mission, it was never intended to be a fighter-bomber but rather a fighter interceptor. Only the F-14D Tomcat is able to carry ground ordnance and the first bombing was in Bosnia. The F-14 Tomcat is one of the best fighter interceptor in the world, it is able to track up to 24 targets and nail the 6 most threatening targets 60 miles away. The Tomcat is also easily fitted with TARPS for reconnaissance missions, although each Tomcat cost about 40 million dollar each, it is definitely one of the most feared fighters in the world

    F-18 E/F Super Hornet

    Type:One and Two seat carrier based multi-role Strike fighter/Interceptor
    Performance
    Max SpeedMACH +1.8 / + 1,936km/hr at height approx
    Combat Radius ( to and back )1,290.8 miles / 2,074 km (no external fuel)
    Thrust22,000 pound each engine
    Service CeilingOver 50,000ft / 15,238m
    Weight
    Empty40,104lb / 18,191kg
    internal fuel14,500 lb
    Load (clean)30,500 lb (approx)
    Maxiumum66,000 lb / 29,932 kg


    Armament
    One 20mm MK-61A1 Vulcan cannon; External payload: AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, Shrike, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Walleye, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets.

    Overall
    Being 25 years younger then the Tomcat, the Super Hornet has an advantage in both stealth and modern day technology. Designed to carry out both "air to air" and "air to ground" missions, the new generation of the F-18 Super Hornet offers more: longer range, greater endurance, more payload-carrying ability, more powerful engines, increased carrier bring back capability, enhanced survivability and a renewed potential for future growth compared to its F-18 predecessor. The crew station also features a touch-sensitive, upfront control display, a larger, liquid crystal multipurpose color display and a new engine fuel display, making the Super Hornet one of the most sophisticated and Advanced Tactical Fighters in the world

    SO ??????



    With more technologically advanced weapons available to more unstable countries (such as the new generation of Migs and the new Russian Anti-ship missile), fleet defense has ever become more important. While the Super Hornet might be the next generation of the navy super fighter, there has been doubt whether if it can carry out air to air combat in long range distance. The Phoenix missile is designed especially for the F-14 Tomcat, it is able to destroy any given target within the range of 60 miles.

    With the end of the cold war, governments in the western world are looking into more flexible and money saving equipment, such as the F-18 Hornet series which is known for little m (maintenance) and big R (reliability). The F-18 Super Hornet is definitely the more advanced technological fighter with superb air and ground capability at a cost of 35 million dollars (3 million dollar cheaper then the Tomcat), but the F-14 Tomcat is still the superior fighter because it is able to reach a longer distance and engage multiple targets and destroy them simultaneously (which is needed for the first line of defense in naval warfare), in a time of war and the protection of the fleet. Only time will tell if it is a mistake to replace the F-14 Tomcat with F-18 Super Hornet as the carriers first line of defense.

  5. #5
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    You know, now that I think about it a little more in depth, perhaps a combination of navalized F-22s and F-14s would be best. The F-22s could be the carrier strike aircraft since they can get into enemy airspace more easily with their stealth ability. The F-14 would stick to what it was intended for, carrier air defense. Of course, this ignores that the F-22 was never originally intended to be a strike aircraft either!

    Although the F-14 Tomcat is able to carry out both air to air and air to ground mission, it was never intended to be a fighter-bomber but rather a fighter interceptor. Only the F-14D Tomcat is able to carry ground ordnance and the first bombing was in Bosnia.
    This passage is only partially right, the F-14 was never designed specifically for ground attack but, it was built with the ability from its beginnings, the F-14A

    Check out this site for some information on how the F-14 was originally designed to have ground strike capability in addition to carrier air defense – Bombcat

    Also, here is a photo of one of the early prototypes carrying a full Mk 82 bomb load:


    Designed to carry out both "air to air" and "air to ground" missions, the new generation of the F-18 Super Hornet offers more: longer range, greater endurance, more payload-carrying ability, more powerful engines, increased carrier bring back capability, enhanced survivability and a renewed potential for future growth compared to its F-18 predecessor.
    That the F/A-18 is an improvement is true enough but, as was pointed out, it is still definitely lacking. As the piece I posted pointed out:
    The F/A-18E Super Hornet has been improved but still has, at best, 50 percent of the F-14's capability to deliver a fixed number of bombs (in pounds) on target.
    Interestingly, some even say that the F/A-18 Super Hornet is actually a completely different aircraft than its F/A-18 Hornet predecessor. In fact, that one piece I linked to in my previous post says as much.

    I will give you the point that the F/A-18 requires less man hours of maintenance but, I believe that if the F-14 was put through a heavy modernization regime (which would include entirely new engines) its required man-hours of maintenance would drop to comparable levels.

    And you are definitely correct about the loss of the Phoenix missile. The F/A-18 is just too small to handle the missile. And to make things worse, we are not even designing a suitable replacement that could be used on the F/A-18. With no 150km range air defense missile, this is a huge loss for carrier defense. Even more so when considering that there are air launched versions of the Sunburn and Yakhont anti-ship missiles that the Russians and Chinese are equipping with. All they would need is to get into range and launch one of those nuclear armed missiles and that carrier group is essentially finished (except for perhaps underwater assets).

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,961
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    Well, I guess the real bottom line is that the grand total of 53 F14D Tomcats (which are basicially remanufactured F14A's with some new production aircraft in the mix) will be around at least until 2010 - and probably maintained many more years at the desert storage facility. So, they not gone yet.


    Selected excerpts:

    By every war fighting measure, the Navy's Super Hornet will greatly exceed the capabilities of both the aircraft it is designed to replace ... as well as the aircraft it may meet on tomorrow's battlefields.

    The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet was designed with 17 cubic feet of "growth space" for electronic systems — avionics and associated wiring. This means that when newer technology is available, it can be added to continually update Super Hornet's warfighting capability and survivability.

    The Navy's Super Hornet gives this nation both a "first day of the war" and an "every day of the war" dominance, and a precision strike fighter that meets and beats the threat through the first part of the 21st century. Super Hornet can carry every tactical air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon in the Navy's inventory. With the AMRAAM missile, enhanced radar, and advanced onboard sensor fusion capability, there is not a threat fighter in the world today — or projected to exist in the next 20 years — that Super Hornet cannot decisively defeat and totally dominate in combat.

    The Navy conducted a detailed analysis to determine the overall combat effectiveness of this aircraft. A significant part of the methodology we used was a poll of experts within the intelligence community. We asked a number of these experts their opinion of aircraft capabilities in six important areas of merit. These experts included aviators, aeronautical engineers, and intelligence specialists. Areas of merit studied included maneuverability, range, radar signature, radar guided weapons, infared weapons, and avionics suite.




    http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...8/shornet.html

  7. #7
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    Navy's New Growler Is Almost Home
    The Navy's latest jet, the EA-18G Growler, will arrive in skies over Whidbey Island in little more than a week.

    But the new aircraft is more than just a piece of $60 million flying hardware that can hit a top speed of near Mach 1.6.

    Many say the Growler not only represents the future of the Navy, but the future of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, as well.

    "The new airplane is very exciting from the Oak Harbor perspective because it is a single location — the Growler is only located at Whidbey Island, so that guarantees the viability and the economic life of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, which is always something we're concerned about," said Oak Harbor Mayor Jim Slowik.

    "It's got a huge impact," he added. "Not only the economic impact, but the morale of the community; the fact that the base is considered one of the key bases going into the future of naval aviation."

    The Growler will replace the Navy's aging inventory of EA-6B Prowlers, an aircraft that has been in use since the early 1970s. The new aircraft will do the same job as the Prowler — disrupt the enemy by jamming radar and communications systems — only better and faster.

    "The EA-18G Growler will provide our entire Armed Forces with greater electronic attack capability to protect our airmen in the skies and our soldiers on the ground. The EA-18G Growler represents not only the future of Naval Air Station Whidbey, but the future of the Navy as well," said U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, a 2nd District Congressman and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

    Many on Whidbey are keenly aware of the importance of keeping Navy assets in Oak Harbor.

    "This is the largest employer from Canada to Everett and it's about a

    $500 million payroll," said Sharon Hart, executive director of the Island County Economic Development Council. "It's way more jobs than anyone else has."

    Defense Department payroll is connected to 85 percent of the island's discretionary income, she added.

    Dick Devlin also sees the economic investment of military payroll spreading throughout the community. However, the president of the Oak Harbor chapter of Navy League welcomes the high value placed on sailors better able to do their mission around the world.

    "The Growler will continue to do the kind of mission that presently is applied around the world, but will do so with an enhanced capability in terms of technology, speed and degree of stealth that the EA-6B Prowler didn't provide," he said.

    Devlin said excitement is building for the official arrival of the Growler on

    June 3 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, which will include a visit by the Navy's top brass, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and other dignitaries.

    "There is a lot of energy built up to welcome the Growler community and personnel with open arms and a great deal of support," Devlin said. "This is the next era of naval aviation here at Whidbey Island."

    Island County Commissioner Mac MacDowell agreed. He flew A-6 Intruders at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island before he retired on the island.

    "The Growler gives security to the aviators — the A-6 and the EA-6B are not go-fast airplanes," he said. "Now you've got the added benefit of speed, you're not over your target as long and have more energy to dodge missiles."

    "The military is still committed to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and we're getting the latest and their best airplane. That's great news," MacDowell said.

    "It's certainly a nice-looking, go-fast airplane. I'd get back into the cockpit if

    I could, without a doubt," he added.

    Few are as excited about the Growler as the sailors in the squadrons that will get the new aircraft.

    For some sailors, the new jet is based on a tried-and-true aircraft, the F/A-18F fighters and establish a blanket of electronic countermeasures to deflect radar, ground-to-air missiles, things of that nature," said Chief Petty Officer John Krouse, an aviation electrician and maintenance chief with the Vikings. "We jam all electronic signals so the fighters can go in without resistance and do their job and then leave the area."

    And for nearly 40 years, the Prowler aircraft squadrons have completed their missions around the world.

    But the birds are growing long in the tooth and showing their age, Krouse said.

    "Right now, we spend way too many maintenance hours to get the jets in the air," he said.

    "Our maintenance to flight hours are just incredible. The air frame is old; the wiring is old. The Growler is going to provide us a lot fewer maintenance hours, so we can keep the aircraft in the air."

    Krouse estimated that he will need a third as many crew members standing by to prepare for a flight, and half the time to do it when the Growler is flying at Whidbey.

    It also means fewer pieces of equipment are needed to maintain the jets.

    "It is self-sufficient because you don't have all the support equipment that I would normally need for the Prowler," he said. That translates to less space needed on a crowded aircraft carrier.

    "Support equipment needs are cut in half," the chief said.

    Petty Officer 3rd Class David Porter, a sailor who works in what is called the line shack near the hangar, will serve on the front lines as he maintains the new aircraft. Though Porter has only served in the Navy for a year and a half, he is aware of how much less he will have to work on the Growler than on the Prowler.

    "There is a huge difference in the maintenance hours and the work required," he said. "The Growler is so much more maintenance-friendly than the Prowler is. The Growler makes it so that you don't have to work the extended shifts to get the required maintenance done."

    Lt. David Picinich is a Vikings pilot and is excited about getting into the cockpit of the EA-18G.

    "It's new. It's got great, updated weapon systems that will hopefully work more efficiently than the previous versions of electronic attack aircraft, the Prowler," he said.

    "The new jet will be a lot more automated, a lot more planning-intensive beforehand, but should operate a lot more smoothly once you get into the air. It will also be a lot more mission-oriented for the pilot."

    Picinich also wants to get into the pilot seat because the aircraft will be faster and more maneuverable.

    "With stuff being more automated, it will be easier to fly and it has to be because you're doing more things. The jet actually helps you fly more," he said.

    "It flies a lot smoother than the Prowler, which requires you to be more hands-on with it. It takes off a lot quicker with the afterburner — it jumps off the runway," Picinich added.

    As a Prowler pilot, Picinich's main mission was to simply fly the airplane, he said. But as a Growler pilot, he will do electronic warfare as well.

    "Now, you'll be able to pretty much do the same work in the front seat as in the back seat," he said. "There will be a division of work flow."

    Picinich's partner in flight is Lt. Matt Schlarmann, who works as a electronic warfare officer. He, too, is excited to be flying in the new jet.

    "With the Prowler, it is an older system with 1970s technology working in a 21st century battlefield," he said. "It's slowly being updated but the airframes are just getting old."

    Schlarmann likens the move from Prowler to Growler to going from a Commodore 64 to a Pentium 4 — everything is a lot faster and more automated.

    "The plus about the Prowler is that you're working at the very basic level. When the jet itself does not do as much for you, you actually learn your trade a lot better," he said. "Getting into the Growler is basically learning the bells and whistles, where the switches are. The concepts of jamming have not changed."

    After months of simulation training for the EA-18G, Schlarmann is ready to jump into the real seat next month.

    "It is cool — there are days when I take it for granted," he said. "But others, I feel good. I get paid to go do this every day."
    I still stand by my original remarks of the F-18 being an inferior aircraft.

  8. #8
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    25,061
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 78 Times in 76 Posts

    Default Re: ''Growler'' Officially A New Name In Anti-Radar Warfare

    USN EA-18G Evaluation with VX-9 Continues with a New Look

    Second production EA-18G "G-2" XE-572 BuNo 166856 sports its new VX-9 Vampire paint scheme.

    Operational evaluation (OPEVAL) continues on the EA-18G for the USN Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) "Vampires", based at China Lake NAWS in California. The unit recently brought its Growlers aboard USN aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) to see what the aircraft can do at sea.

    The pilots evaluated many things on the EA-18G while on the carrier, including how the aircraft and it's electronics hold up to the pounding taken during typical launch and recovery cycles on the ship. Carrier night operations were also flown for the first time with the EA-18G during this deployment.

    One Growler included in the exercise was XE #572 BuNo 166856, which was sporting a new special paint scheme for the occasion. #572 is "G-2", the second production EA-18G built. This aircraft was originally numbered 552 when it first arrived from the Boeing plant to China Lake, wearing markings of 'NJ' VAQ-129. Now with VX-9, this Growler has had its vertical stabs painted white and round VX-9 logos applied in a special scheme.

    A second EA-18G deployed to the ship was VX-9 #573 BuNo 166857. Identified as "G-3", #573 was the third production ship built by Boeing. Llike #572, this aircraft was also originally delivered in basic gray and 'NJ' VAQ-129 markings.

    A third EA-18G may have also deployed to the ship as XE #571, but this has not been confirmed. If an XE #571 does exist, it could possibly be the "G-1" ship (BuNo 166855), which was first delivered from the Boeing factory to USN Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Two Three (VX-23) at Patuxent River NAS, MD earlier in 2008.

    Over time, newer Growlers coming out of the factory with slight upgrades will most likely be brought into VX-9 for continued operational evaluation of the type, and some of the older aircraft will be moved to the combat squadrons. Operational evaluation of each aircraft type in the fleet never really ends, as each aircraft model in the inventory receives constant upgrades and additions throughout it's life. The EA-18G is schedule to continue replacing EA-6B Prowlers through 2009.


    Second production EA-18G "G-2" XE-572 BuNo 166856 flies in formation with VX-9 F/A-18F #241 BuNo 166610.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •