Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

In light of Australia's recent declaration of intent to upgrade half of it's F-18F to EF-18G specification, I was doing some pondering about the various EW aircraft. It seems that in 1998 USA retired the last of it's EF-111As and their role in service was replaced by... the even older EA-6B? Does the EA-6B offer some advantage over the EF-111A? How do they both compare with the newest ECM platform, the EF-18G, in the ECM role?

F-16.net Sponsor

Story as I understood it was the Ravens, like their Vark brethren, were put to pasture because of escalating maintenance issues. And because USAF didn't have a comparable replacement platform (a Viper or Phantom with a couple of EW pods doesn't cut it), they had to go to the Navy for EW support. You had a 1960's era airframe and engine package that wasn't supposed to last much past the 70's but managed to make it to the 90's. Nowadays an airframe design (like the Growler) is expected to last 20, 30, or 40 years. So extended life expectancy and long-term maintenance are design factors from the start.

Remember also that many planners may have thought that the idea of widespread Stealth usage meant that a dedicated EW escort wasn't needed if the enemy IADs couldn't get a bead on the "invisible" new jets. But since the Navy had practically ZERO stealth jets, they DID have a need for a new EW platform to replace the aging Prowlers. Hence, the Growler.

As far as comparing the older stuff to today, there really isn't any. It'd be like comparing a TI-30 to Pentium PC. I'm not familiar with the Growler but I'd venture a bet that the equivalent of the entire Raven EW complement is now housed in a box the size of a loaf of bread, maybe 3, on the new jet. That's how far miniaturization has come.

And at Mach 1+ the Growler's a helluva lot faster than the Prowler will ever be. Which means it can hang with the high-speed strikers like the Ravens used to do.

The Prowler had four seats which meant more eyes, ears, and brains in the game.

Actually a contributing factor in retiring the EF-111A in favor of the EA-6B was the Prowler was more versatile. The Prowler was far more capable in terms of communications intercept and jamming. The EA-18G, like the EF-111A, does not do everything the EA-6B is capable of and doesn't have half the range of either older aircraft. It would be very surprising if the EA-18G ever exceeded Mach 1 operationally.

The EA-6B and EA-18G is operated from expeditionary squadrons, as well as carrier squadrons, as a joint force with USAF personnel. The USAF still requires a jamming capability and in fact is deficient in this area. For example there has been a very long standing requirement for a stand off jamming aircraft which has been started, cancelled, restarted, and I believe cancelled again. The USAF continues to depend on the EA-6B/EA-18G force for escort jamming.

Actually, our Brothers Down Under are not turning half of their Super Hornets into Growlers. What they are doing is having their 2nd batch built with the wiring and internal structure in place (and accepting whatever weight penalty that entails) so that if they choose sometime in the future, they can turn them into Growlers.

The supersonic Growler numbers you sometimes read about in press releases is example of wording that has been carefully parsed. The Growler is supersonic--as long as it's not carrying its external pods. Of course in that condition, it loses most of the capability that makes it a Growler. With the pods, everything I've seen is that the E/A-18G is solidly subsonic. That really isn't that big a deal; given its mission supersonic capability is of little or no value. Even as an escort, with the exception of the B-1 we don't have any strike platform that carry any kind of meaningful a/g load supersonically for a useful distance.

Regarding the EF-111A, USAF really hasn't been that big a supporter of its mission. While the Navy continued to evolve the EA-6B's capabilites through the years, not that much upgrading was done to the Spark-vaark's except for the System Improvement Program that started 14 years after its introduction, just three years before the Raven was retired. As a result, as maintenance costs on the EF kept rising and its capabilities remained fairly static, the call was made to phase it out and USN would take over that role--although how much who pays for what has been a bone of contention at times.

The RAAF is close to announcing the decision to make those pre-wired F/A-18Fs into Growlers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6170085768

SpudmanWP wrote:

The RAAF is close to announcing the decision to make those pre-wired F/A-18Fs into Growlers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6170085768

Interesting idea, have the SHs wired for ECM so they can be used as strike aircraft for the time being, and then be outfitted to support the F-35s when they arrive. It makes a stop-gap solution into a long-term asset.

Well, I've heard a handful of Sparkvarks were able to suppress most of the western Warsaw Pact IADS. Less basing flexibility is probably the main reason we lost the EF-111. The EA-6B is also the only remaining A-6-type airframe, so we obviously don't mind lack of other airframes (i.e. EF-111A but no F-111F)

I wonder - is the internal bay of an F-35 or F-22 large enough to carry a meaningful amount of EW gear, as it was carried on the EF-111? It seems pretty handy to have the ability to go supersonic (or carry more fuel) without having to jettison your very, very expensive electronic gear.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

EF-111A, EF-18G and EA-6B