-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The Great Growler Gallery
- Thread starter woodman
- Start date
Interestingly enough, that's what they are telling us in the VTs/AVEWS/FRS... So much fr the "Party Line"
I agree that the AF needs an EA airframe (been that way since the Spark Vark went away), and everything I've heard about the Growler/Shocker is good. I don't see that the AF, which is tightening it's belt in ways that I've never seen since post-ODS, will be able to support the infrastructure cost for a new airframe in the fleet.
I really thought the Expeditionary squadron was a good idea. I still think it is a good idea from a Blue standpoint.
A lot of Navy types don't agree, though...what's the view from your side of the fence on the concept?
I really thought the Expeditionary squadron was a good idea. I still think it is a good idea from a Blue standpoint.
A lot of Navy types don't agree, though...what's the view from your side of the fence on the concept?
Not a Prowler guy, but I know the expeditionary squadrons are getting crushed with repeated deployments. Sat in on a capabilities brief a few weeks ago on what those guys are doing over there. Amazing stuff, lets hope Aviation Week can keep it secret.
Isn't that what the idea is supposed to help with?
We know that the EA airframe is going to be a "Low Density/High Demand" asset in the USAF parlance, so staffing the squadrons with AF personnel helps ease the burden on the owner of the airplane. I personally think they should buy more airplanes and have MORE squadrons that are similarly staffed and perform this mission. It is a vital mission that it is too bad the current DoD seems to have scoffed.
Agreed, those guys are doing interesting work over in the GWOT. They have, more frequently than I'd like to admit, been an extreme pain in the rectum when they are buzzing through the middle of a medium altitude CAS orbit at a TIC.
Nothing like some reactive jamming to irritate the hell out of you.
If I remember right, there are only three expeditionary squadrons. With two always being deployed, you can see how they rack up the time away from home quickly. A friend of mine is about to head out on her 2nd deployment in a year.
If I remember right, there are only three expeditionary squadrons. With two always being deployed, you can see how they rack up the time away from home quickly. A friend of mine is about to head out on her 2nd deployment in a year.
Big concern from the single anchor side is taking a guy like me from the RAG and sending him away for 3 years with NO boat time, then a shore tour, and then a disassociated. Oh by the way, now it's time to be a department head and you've got virtually no boat experience.
I'm surprised to see the AF still trying to draw down . . . more sacrifices for the F-22?
Here's the scoop: The exped squadrons always had the highest deployed time in the community, even prior to OIF when all we were doing was no-fly zone enforcement. Second, the community went through this weird adjustment period where they actually stood up an additional exped squadron, VAQ-143, then decom'd it a couple month later after FLE issues popped up and essentially made it impossible because there wouldn't have been enough aircraft. This is the crux of the current dilemma - not enough airframes. So, it's not a matter of having more people to do the mission. The AF currently augments each of the three exped squadrons with three ECMO types. IMO (having been an exped guy for my first tour), they're more trouble than they're worth. The current exped mission requirement, which is relatively new, is now being done by the three exped squadrons, Marine VMAQs, and also the boat squadrons that are deployed in the Gulf.
Bottom line: None of the alternatives that have been bandied about by the AF or USMC will be able to meet the requirement gap that will appear when the first exped squadrons are "scheduled" to go away. The short-term solution will be either keeping the Prowlers flying longer (either Navy or USMC), or buying more Growlers to serve in that role.
Brett
Bottom line: None of the alternatives that have been bandied about by the AF or USMC will be able to meet the requirement gap that will appear when the first exped squadrons are "scheduled" to go away. The short-term solution will be either keeping the Prowlers flying longer (either Navy or USMC), or buying more Growlers to serve in that role.
Brett
Ain't gonna happen, at least not in the next 15 years. You can't just hang a couple ALQ-99 pods on an F-35 and call it a jamming platform. It would essentially be an entirely new airframe, bringing with it all the associated costs of DT, OT&E, etc.
Brett
Agreed, not a damn chance. Can you imagine a single seat guy trying to do that mission? No way.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
As a non-EW guy, I've obviously never done it, but won't technology make this possible in the future (probably several years or so I'm guessing)? Or by the time that's possible it'll be a UAS anyway?
Well, it happened with the Wild Weasel mission, so don't count it out. There's not an ex-F-4G guy living who thinks the "automated" single-seat F-16 Weasel can do the mission as well as jets that have been in the boneyard for the last 12 years....
A CJ w/ and HTS ≠ Wild Weasel. Common misconception, especially w/ CJ drivers.
Brett
You can always count on the Air Force to glue a horn on a cow and call it a rhinocerous.