EA/18G Growler

[Salty Dog]

A few more items.

1) Mach number data is normally quoted at "sea level". Mach numbers will vary with altitude.

2) Actual parameter data for combat aircraft is classified. I doubt many of us have access to that and it wouldn't be public.

3) Much of the Mach data is for a "clean configuration". For the F-22 and F-35 that may be seen as okay, but how many sortie aircraft have you seen leaving leaving the nest clean? (If you did they may have forgot something!).

4) Although fighters may jettison drop tanks etc. to get cleaner for ACM, I feel there are multiple factors to consider other than top-end speed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There are some in here who need to pause a little before making another contribution.

If this post continues to deteriorate into a pecker competition it will get closed down for a while.

 

[Gryphon]

Rules Discusion

Is there a tool available within DefenceTalk to send a member a private message to keep the back and forth within the boards to a minimum?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Is there a tool available within DefenceTalk to send a member a private message to keep the back and forth within the boards to a minimum?

Yeah, once you reach 50 posts a private messaging system is available.

 

[Sea Toby]

The biggest thing about the F-35 is that there are so many rumors that it is not maneuverable, but then again it would not matter and that the F-35 can lock on to target 360 degrees around it. But this all started when the Aussies had doubts about the F-35 that is why sooo many people have been in question of it. Right now I am very curious about the maneuverability of the F-35 the Lockheed videos on it's fight do not reveal anything at all.

The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.

A nation the size of Australia with a limited niumber of aircraft needs an aircraft that can bomb as well as fight, one that can especially carry harpoons in the maritime strike role. What Australia does not need is the best interceptor, never has and never will. Unfortunately the aircraft Australia does not need is the Raptor. The aircraft that fits the billing is the Lightning IIs, no matter what nonsense Goon and company says....

 

[gf0012-aust]

The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.

sorry, thats a complete misread of the situation in australia.

the people who are voluble in australlia who are anti-JSF also include a significant swathe of individuals who have a beef with either ADF or RAAF. They have been courting the broadsheet jouno's with a passion.

the more sophisticated in aust have ignored their chatterings. in fact, quite a few of the broadsheet jounos who were spinning the APA mantra have been in contact with the specialist media for other opinions and have been discovering that they might have been a tad too gullible in accepting what was dished up to them.

you need to be local to get a clear understanding of the mechanics of this. don't confuse newspaper outcries with the general sophistication levels of those charged with making sensible decisions.

the newspapers got caught out in a colour and movement approach by a vocal and decidedly selectively creative group of individuals - the media have gone noticeably quiet in the last few weeks, they know they've been "had"

 

[Aussie Digger]

The only people who seem to be worried about the Lightning IIs being a possible flop are the Australians. Every other country involved in the contract thinks otherwise, or are doing their very best to avoid a flop. It seems Goon and company have much more intellect in Australia, whereas every one else thinks they're fools.

A nation the size of Australia with a limited niumber of aircraft needs an aircraft that can bomb as well as fight, one that can especially carry harpoons in the maritime strike role. What Australia does not need is the best interceptor, never has and never will. Unfortunately the aircraft Australia does not need is the Raptor. The aircraft that fits the billing is the Lightning IIs, no matter what nonsense Goon and company says....

Ah, the PROFESSIONAL military people in Australia aren't worried about the Lightning II's capability in either A2A or A2G/S operations.

Only those with an agenda to push are speaking out against this aircraft.

It's being designed to be an IMPROVEMENT over the F/A-18 in terms of slow speed maneuvreability and over the F-16 in terms of instantaneous turn rates and acceleration, with a sensor, avionics and EW suite a generation beyond anything else in the world and possessing an amazing operational range (on internal fuel as well!) for a tactical fighter of it's size AND it is one of only 2 VERY low observable fighters in the world.

This aircraft will be incredible.

 

[f-22fan12]

I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks

 

[Salty Dog]

I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks

Weapons payloads for the F-35A/C are about 18,000 lbs and 15,000 lbs for the F-35B. Note this includes internal bay and external pylons. For internal weapons load only, the payload will be just under 6,000 lbs (two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound GBU-31 JDAM guided bombs)

F-35 Variants

 

[Magoo]

I have a quick question for you guys. I've been trying to find it at a couple of websites but couldn't. Could any one please tell me the payload capacity of the F-35.
Thanks

Isn't this the FA/18G (sic) thread?

There's an F-35 thread running somewhere that this question would be better placed on.

 

[f-22fan12]

Isn't this the FA/18G (sic) thread?

There's an F-35 thread running somewhere that this question would be better placed on.

There was some comparing going on between the F-18 and F-35. I just wanted to know, thats all.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I wonder if a mod could change the name of this thread, to, well, you know, EA-18G?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wonder if a mod could change the name of this thread, to, well, you know, EA-18G?

Done and dusted....

 

[tankerboss]

Navy gets 1st Growler, enemy radar operators mess their pants

The US Naval Fleet received it's first EA-18G Growler aircraft today at a ceremony at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington. While the Navy had been testing the Growler in recent years, this aircraft will be the first to gain operational capability now that it has joined the U.S. Navy's Electronic Attack Squadron, (VAQ) 129. The Vikings of VAQ 129 have been operating the Growler's predecessor, the EA-6B Prowler, since 1971 with the Fleet Readiness Squadron at NAS Whidbey Island, which is home port for all airborne electronic attack aircraft in the Navy.

So what's so great about the Growler (other than a sweet name)? This next-gen aircraft leans on the airframe of the combat-proven F/A-18F Super Hornet to build the world's most capable airborne electronic attack aircraft with the equipment, advanced weapons, sensors and communications to totally obliterate enemy air defenses. The team of Boeing and Northrop Grumman have done a fabulous job creating this next great electronic attack system. The Vikings of VAQ 129 should be getting the first 5 fleet Growlers, which I'm looking forward to seeing on the deck of a carrier ready to strike around the world. Some poor soul manning an air defense scope is going to regret painting this bad boy with radar. Of course, it will all be over before he knows it. :jump

Mod edit:

Threads merged. We don't need a new thread every time an EA-18G Growler is delivered to the USN...

Regards

AD

 

[guppy]

I certainly hope that they are as capable as the Prowlers they are replacing, and don't turn into blind bats like their predecessors. It is actually quite hard for me to imagine though. I guess time will tell.

 

[Magoo]

I certainly hope that they are as capable as the Prowlers they are replacing, and don't turn into blind bats like their predecessors. It is actually quite hard for me to imagine though. I guess time will tell.

But their predecessor is the Prowler...?!?! :unknown

 

[AegisFC]

I certainly hope that they are as capable as the Prowlers they are replacing, and don't turn into blind bats like their predecessors. It is actually quite hard for me to imagine though. I guess time will tell.

Say what?

 

[guppy]

Why is it so surprising? The growler will replace the EA-6B prowler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA-18_Growler

cheers

guppy

Try not to refer to wikipedia. Better defence related sources are available on the net. Ones which cannot be edited by people.
-SABRE

 

[kato]

They were wondering about your sentence structure, as it doesn't make much sense.

 

[guppy]

Ah, I see...excuse my english.

I was wondering if the Growler will be as capable as the Prowler in its primary missions. With 3 operators, the prowler is very capable. Will the Growler be able to do the same?

I was hoping also it will not turn into a blind bat after when it turns on EA

cheers

Guppy