You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Military Aviation

The E/A-18G is the Navy's replacement for the EA-6B Airborne Electronic Attack aircraft and represents an entirely new way of looking at legacy aircraft replacement. Leveraging existing production capabilities at Boeing and Northrop Grumman, the Navy is using the F/A-18E/F MYC to buy an additional quantity of 'F' Aircraft, and marrying those airframes with Northrop Grumman's in-production Improved Capabilities (ICAP)- III Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) system to produce the E/A- 18G to replace the aging EA-6B aircraft. This allows for the next generation Airborne Electronic Attack capability to be delivered at reduced cost and in the shortest possible timeframe. The Marine Corps is examining a range of possibilities that will provide the needed capability.

In late September 2006 the Boeing Company delivered the first EA-18G Growler airborne electronic attack (AEA) aircraft to the US Navy test site at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. The first EA-18G, known as aircraft EA-1, made the two-hour flight from St. Louis to Maryland with U.S. Navy pilot Lt. Matt Doyle and weapons system operator U.S. Navy Cmdr. Jamie Engdahl on board. EA-1 is the first of two test aircraft built under a System Development and Demonstration contract Boeing signed with the Navy on Dec. 29, 2003. In addition to flight testing, EA-1 will undergo extensive ground testing in the Patuxent River anechoic chamber to assess on-board radar, receiver and jammer compatibility and performance. The second EA-18G will join the flight test program at Patuxent River later this year.

The E/A-18G is the fourth major variant of the F/A-18 family of aircraft. The EA-18G will serve as the Navy’s replacement for the EA-6B providing a capability to detect, identify, locate, and suppress hostile emitters. The EA-18G will have the capability to operate autonomously or as a major node in a network-centric operation and will provide accurate emitter targeting for employment of on-board suppression weapons such as the High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). Prime contractors are Boeing Aircraft Corporation of St. Louis, MO for the airframe and General Electric Company, Aircraft Engine Division of Lynn, MA for the engines. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Bethpage, NY is a major subcontractor.

The EA-18 will perform full-spectrum electronic surveillance and electronic attack of enemy threat radars and communications nets. The EA-18 leverages the U.S. Navy's investment in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet platform. A derivative of the two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet - a platform which is in production today - the EA-18 is a highly flexible design that enables the warfighter to perform a broad range of tactical missions, operating from either the deck of an aircraft carrier or land-based fields. The EA-18 is 99 percent common with the Super Hornet and would be expected to significantly reduce support and training costs for the US Navy.

The EA-18G’s electronic attack upgrades will meet EA-6B (ALQ-218, ALQ-99, USQ-113) Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) capability to detect, identify, locate and suppress hostile emitters; provide enhanced connectivity to National, Theater and Strike assets; and provide organic precision emitter targeting for employment of on-board suppression weapons High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) to fulfill operational requirements. The man in the loop operation and advanced information display system will allow real time assessment of the tactical situation and the appropriate response executed in accordance with the rules of engagement. The performance of the aircraft is compatible with the primary strike/fighter aircraft projected to be in the inventory in the 2010 time period, allowing it to be fully integrated into specific strike packages. It will also have the capacity to provide broad area coverage for extended periods of time to support numerous strikes or other air operations in a federated context. The EA-18G is being designed to perform a range of Electronic Warfare/Electronic Attack functions either simultaneously or independently.

The F/A-18G had minor shortcomings relative to the EA-6B ICAP-III baseline of the Advanced Electronic Attack (AEA) Analysis of Alternatives study. By incorporating alterations, such as inclusion of a digital receiver system, complete communications electronic attack system, and routable network information system, this valid core can become a viable force for the future. The mission radius and time on station figures with typical air defense suppression loads are nearly identical. AEA system components designed for the EA -6B ICAP-III were easily adaptable for use in the F/A-18G. An initial study of the electro-magnetic interference susceptibility for the F/A-18G was concluded with favorable results. Although the LR-700 can be adapted for use in this airframe, a digital implementation revolutionizes electronic surveillance with low probability of intercept radar and complex modulation waveform detection, coherent jamming capability, active cancellation look through, and specific emitter identification. An internet protocol routable network approach is introduced as a possible means to seamless connectivity and fully integrated data picture. The multi-role capability of the F/A-18G will provide synergistic strike and survivability advantages as well as training and readiness challenges. A quantification of overall effectiveness demonstrates the F/A-18G is a viable EA -6B follow-on and AEA platform.

The EA-18 was the only alternative to the EA-6B based on a derivative from an in-production, aircraft carrier adept aircraft. It has the basic tactical capabilities of the F/A-18F Super Hornet coupled with the enhanced electronic attack capability of the ICAP III Prowler. The EA-18 will eliminate the type model series airplane off the flight deck. The configuration of the airplane in terms of capability will be equivalent to what is anticipated in the EA-6B with ICAP III installed, and a concentration on the LR-700 receiver, which will allow tracking of threats. Instead of pre-emptive jamming it will provide selective reactive jamming.

The airplane, though dedicated to the electronic attack mission, can be changed from an EA back to an 'F' with relative ease and vice versa. It allows flexibility on the flight deck. You can use up a certain portion of the life of the airplane flying it as an electronic attack airplane, and then shift missions, and use another section as a fighter. There is certainly a big difference in fighting Iraq with a strong integrated jamming system compared to fighting in Afghanistan.

The EA-18 will retain everything in it that the F/A-18F Super Hornet has today with two exceptions. The wing tip stations will have receiving antennas. The gun will be replaced with avionics boxes containing the LR-700 receiver and satellite communications, which interface with the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods.

The EA-18 is based on the two-seat F/A-18F with the Block 2 avionics upgrades, including active-array radar and advanced rear crew station, already under development for the Super Hornet. Production cost on a unit flyaway basis will be 15-18% more than a basic F/A-18F in then-year dollars. An EA-18 will cost $7-9 million more, based on the nominal Super Hornet unit price of $50 million by the end of the current multi-year procurement contract. Concurrent production of EA-18s and E/Fs would further reduce the Super Hornet's price. The company estimated that, if 12 EA-18s are built each year alongside 48 E/Fs, the cost of each E/F would be reduced by up to $3 million. The US Navy would see operating and support savings, with the EA-18 expected to cost $7,400/h to operate, compared with over S17,000/h for the EA-6B.

The EA-18G aircraft, chosen to augment electronic attack capabilities across the services and replace the Navy's EA-6B, will be a missionized F/A-18F airframe to provide capabilities to detect, identify, and locate hostile radio frequency emitters in order to direct jamming against radar and communications threats, and to fire suppression weapons such as High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). The EA-18G incorporates a version of the airborne electronic attack (AEA) suite developed for the Improved Capability (ICAP) III EA-6B upgrade. The Navy plans to include a newly configured Communications Countermeasure Set as a replacement for the USQ-113.

The EA-18 was selected to replace the EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft to provide an Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA). The EA-6B will begin retirement in the 2010 time frame, after a career that exceeded 40 years of deployments in support of USN, USMC, and USAF strike forces. As of early 2000, Defense Department planning for replacing the EA-6B Prowler include a scheme under which the Navy would buy an F/A-18G "Growler" -- an F/A-18E/F modified for escort and close-in jamming. The Air Force would provide standoff jamming with modified EB-52s or EB-1s, and close-in jamming with unmanned air vehicles such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk or General Atomics Predator.

The DoD's only air-based EA jamming capability was provided by 123 EA-6B Prowlers. It was projected that these 123 aircraft will no longer adequately support required Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) missions beyond the year 2010 due to attrition and airframe life limits. In order to maintain the tactical advantage over enemy air defenses, the DoD must augment and ultimately replace its aging and diminishing fleet of EA-6B aircraft with an equal or better AEA capability.

The EA-18 is the result of an engineering design, development and test effort that began in late 1993. This effort has included avionics and aircraft conceptual design, engineering analysis, high- and low-speed wind tunnel testing, electromagnetic interference/compatibility laboratory testing, antenna range testing and extensive crew-vehicle interface development.

In November 2001 Boeing successfully completed an initial flight demonstration of its EA-18 Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) concept aircraft. The test used an F/A-18F Super Hornet to carry three ALQ-99 jamming pods and two fuel tanks while measuring noise and vibration data and assessing aircraft flying qualities.

In April 2002 Boeing completed the third successful flight demonstration of its EA-18 Airborne Electronic Attack concept aircraft. The test, conducted April 5, used an F/A-18F Super Hornet to carry three ALQ-99 jamming pods and two fuel tanks while measuring noise and vibration data and assessing aircraft flying qualities. Boeing teammate, Northrop Grumman, instrumented the ALQ-99 jamming pods to gather the noise and vibration information. The combination of a validated design, proven platform and proven electronics positioned the EA-18 program to begin a system development and demonstration phase in 2003.




General characteristics

* Crew: Two
* Length: 60 ft 1.25 in (18.31 m)
* Wingspan: 44 ft 8.5 in (13.62 m) (including wingtip-mounted pods)
* Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
* Wing area: 500 ft² (46.5 m²)
* Empty weight: 33,094 lb (15,011 kg)
* Loaded weight: 48,000 lb (21,772 kg) (recovery weight)
* Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,964 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric F414-GE-400 turbofans
o Dry thrust: 14,000 lbf (62.3 kN) each
o Thrust with afterburner: 22,000 lbf (97.9 kN) each
* Internal fuel capacity: 13,940 lb (6,323 kg)
* External fuel capacity: (3 x 480 gal tanks): 9,774 lb (4,420 kg)

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.8[37] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
* Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s[37]
* Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission[38]
* Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km) (range without ordnance)
* Service ceiling: >50,000 ft (15,000 m)
* Wing loading: 92.8 lb/ft² (453 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.93

Armament

* Guns: None (refer to notes below)
* Hardpoints: 9 total: 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance
* Notes: The two wingtips missile launcher rail for AIM-9 Sidewinder, found on the E/F Super Hornet, have been replaced with AN/ALQ-218 detection pods, 6 removable under wing mounted hard points (inboard pylons will carry 480 gal fuel tanks, mid-board pylons will carry AN/ALQ-99 High Band Jamming Pods, and outboard pylon reserved for AGM-88 HARM missiles), 2 multi-mode conformal fuselage stations (AIM-120 AMRAAM), 1 centerline fuselage removable hardpoint, for AN/ALQ-99 Low Band Jamming Pod.
o Weapons employment: Currently, Phase I of the Growler will carry the AIM-120 AMRAAM for self-protection at the two conformal fuselage stations and AGM-88 HARM missiles. The 20 mm M61A1 cannon has been removed and replaced by a pod of electronic boxes that control the AN/ALQ-218 and assist with the coordination AN/ALQ-99 jamming attacks.
o According to the possible weapon configurations which were revealed, EA-18G would also be capable of performing "time-sensitive" strike missions, carrying AGM-154 JSOW under wings, or multi-sensor reconnaissance missions with SHARP and AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR on centerline and left conformal weapon stations, respectively.

Avionics

* Raytheon AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar

Gotta love the Growler! Imagine a fighter pilot ascending to engage a hostile EW aircraft operating autonomously, and he/she ends up taking an AIM-120 up the tailpipe from that same aircraft after a short dogfight. Impressive!

Thanks for the primer, Miamiair! Great information!

Queso wrote:Gotta love the Growler! Imagine a fighter pilot ascending to engage a hostile EW aircraft operating autonomously, and he/she ends up taking an AIM-120 up the tailpipe from that same aircraft after a short dogfight. Impressive!

Thanks for the primer, Miamiair! Great information!

While the Tom Cruise “Top Gun” scenario you mention sounds great at the bar singing “You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling, in reality the “Growler’s” weapons are meager and only for a drastic self defense situation. The Navy has always frowned upon arming a defensive aircraft with lots of guns or weapons. Their philosophy, you give guy, oh sorry, give a girl a gun, she will go out and look for trouble rather than focus in on her primary mission, in this case “jamming.”

I also doubt the Growler Girls will get much training in ACM since that is not their primary mission nor will they rotate Strike/Fighter girls to the Growler community unless she is a plumber.

Also, a flight of four fighters looking for trouble with lots of missiles and guns will not run from a jammer or be surprised or expect that a Growler have much in offensive capability. The Navy does want the Growler to engage in an air-air fight. It wants it’s girls to use her best weapon..speed and run.

At least the Growler has a can of "Haul Ass," the Prowlers takes forever to egress.

"Girls???"

They have come a long way since the days of the Whales.

miamiair wrote:At least the Growler has a can of "Haul Ass," the Prowlers takes forever to egress.

"Girls???"

They have come a long way since the days of the Whales.

It always seems to relative, but the game has pretty much always been the same for the lady fighter/attack types. When flying Iron Hand (2 A-4’s) with Shrikes that weren’t worth a crap, we carried one AIM 9 since we were off by ourselves with no fighter girls around. It was a great feeling having the Sidewinder with the right wingirl…if the Migs came, ans she was up to it, it was dump the Shrikes, tanks and TER’s and go for the Mig’s.

PS: By that time, all the Wales were tankers or beach static displays. Indian Country was no place for them or close to it. The Prowler...what's that? I'm not sure anyone has much faith in their capacity in the real world where your ass is on the line. You count on yourself and expect the best.

And the Growler is sexy, too.

It's sad watching our once great Navy decline into a single platform airwing.. A very range-limited platform at that.

Pretty soon our Navy is going to be as sad as the once great British and French Navies.

captoveur wrote:It's sad watching our once great Navy decline into a single platform airwing.. A very range-limited platform at that.

Pretty soon our Navy is going to be as sad as the once great British and French Navies.

While I once shared your concerns, especially with the original F-18C. It had the fuel specs of an F-4…not good as an attack/strike aircraft with little or no range without many tankers. However, with two or more Super Hornets squadrons on each boat, they have in some way redeemed themselves.

They can use the F-18 C’s as BARCAP and close in Fleet protection and the F’s for longer range strike missions. So, in a sense they have two semi different aircraft. The Growler, an expensive bird, but what’s the alternative, a whole new development program? It does alleviate a huge parts logistic problem, having an air wing with F-14’s, F-18’s, A-7’s and A-6’s.

The one primary shortfall many of us always felt the Navy lacked was its’ commitment to adequate tanker aircraft. I just don’t believe years back their heart was in it or the money and deck space. However, it does seem the newer navy often now uses the air force tanker resources on a regular basis...amen!!!

Also, with old smaller decks without waist cats, you could not launch additional tankers during a recovery, which caused may an aircraft to run out of gas when tanker fuel ran dry or the tanker package went sour…a normal occurrence. So, it seems things have gotten better with the planes so expensive. THe navy is a lot less caviler over aircraft losses.

The one big difference between our Navy and the Brits. When the Brits went to VTOL or the Harrier, their fate was sealed as an offensive naval air power. Not to get into a debate..the Harrier is a piece of crap and fortunately our Navy even with the new F 35 has wisely chosen to give up the VTOL capability for more gas and bombs etc. The French carriers. Personally I believe it’s pretty much a show navy for small third world conflicts. If I remember when they had F-8’s they did not fly them at night. We had the opportunity to visit a British carrier in 1968 while in Hong Kong on R&R. Great guys the Brits, party and drank, spent lots of time in port but little flying.

They brought us over for lunch. The boat (carrier) had a split hanger deck to accommodate a large bar and Ward room. They had at best about 35 aircraft. So the next day we took them over to the “Good Ship Richard” (CVA 31) an old small WW II boat. We didn’t have much in the way of amenities, but the flight and hanger decks were crammed with over 75 aircraft. Everywhere they looked they saw bomb racks, TER’s, drop tanks, engines. Every piece of space was occupied with war material. They were blown away. As one of our guys said later highlighting difference…their ship was made more for comfort, while US boats were made for war and only war.

I think when you cuts to the chase, it’s still pretty much true. Besides, the US Navy fly’s in any weather, day or night as the PBS documentary demonstrated. Most of all, the US Navy is still not afraid to fight and that means anybody, anywhere under any conditions. That’s what really counts, not the aircraft, but the will to use and engage an enemy.

tailhooker wrote:The one big difference between our Navy and the Brits. When the Brits went to VTOL or the Harrier, their fate was sealed as an offensive naval air power. Not to get into a debate..the Harrier is a piece of crap and fortunately our Navy even with the new F 35 has wisely chosen to give up the VTOL capability for more gas and bombs etc.

It still did the job in the Falklands...

I'd trace this problem back ultimately to MoD procurement (the root of all FUBARs in HM Forces). Ever since the cancelling of CVA-01 in the 1960s and its subsequent rebirth as the Invincible class light carriers (which, remember, were specifically designed during the Cold War with ASuW capabilities in mind, as were the RN's Leander/T22/T23 frigates and T42 destroyers, for a hypothetical clash with the Soviet Navy in the GIUK gap and North Sea), the MoD has had a pathological aversion to authorising aircraft carriers with a displacement over 30,000 tons or so - resulting in our needing the FAA to expensively operate Sea Harriers. Nobody seems to have noticed that, while initial shipbuilding costs would be greater, it would be cheaper in the long run to build a larger carrier and CATOBAR/STOBAR it on account of cheaper fast jet procurement costs. The CVF carriers go some way to finally addressing this, but we're still flushing money down the pan.

captoveur wrote:It's sad watching our once great Navy decline into a single platform airwing.. A very range-limited platform at that.

Pretty soon our Navy is going to be as sad as the once great British and French Navies.

It all ultimately comes down to money - nothing else. The Royal Navy declined quite drastically in the second half of the 20th Century, and it was all due to the Government's inability (or, perhaps, unwillingness) to fund it properly. It is poor financial planning by civilian bean counters, not poor military planning by the Admiralty. The U.S. Navy should indeed expect to be similarly squeezed as, in spite of the current administration's best efforts to postpone the day of reckoning, the federal budget will eventually tighten up like a fish's arse in a tsunami.

On the second video, if one horizontal stabilizer is down shouldn't the other be up?

The stabilizer has a mixer, so it can contol both pitch and roll.

"It may have done the job.” In a simplest view yes, but militarily not without the large help (weapons, supplies, logistic and intelligence) of the US and rightfully so. After all we’re talking about Argentina your basic SA Junta, not some military ‘powerhouse” and the UK’s ability to project power was next to nil.

In the end, you can’t fund a “Nanny” state and first rate military and the Brit’s are living proof of such. More Obama Care and socialism and we will be there in thirty years. You can’t have it both ways. Even worse, when you start looking more like a sheep, you just invite more wolves. ”

I don't really disagree with you, but I might phrase a few things differently. Britain's power projection is still amongst the best in the world - if we're at "next to nil," then 95% of nations on this planet must be in negative territory - and for a country with one-fifth the population of the United States and a land area comparable to that of Oregon, we arguably don't do that badly. Very few militaries could conduct something on the magnitude of Operation Corporate while 8,000 miles away from home and at such short notice, and certainly no other European nation could have managed it (Francois Mitterrand, the then French president, privately admitted as much). I would be slightly sceptical of affording America too much praise in this case, though. While Washington publicly supported Britain, to say that the Reagan administration was initially enthusiastically supportive of military liberation would be very wrong indeed. One of the few key American officials to truly and unapologetically support Britain was Cap Weinberger, whose mother was of British birth and who instilled in him strong Anglophilic views. Others, notably Jeane Kirkpatrick, opposed the war with quite some vigour. Al Haig, whom I otherwise respected, was as useless as tits on a nun in this instance. There was therefore intense diplomatic pressure, the details of which I know well, exerted to drag the administration to our corner of the ring, and President Reagan only really acceded after the first warships in the Task Force had departed Portsmouth. Even then, obtaining SIGINT and T-K products (which were our primary interest) from the U.S. intelligence community was not easy, to say the least.

I agree with your second paragraph entirely. It should be noted though, as I said in my last post, that the United States is inevitably going to experience the same military squeeze that Britain did post-1945. There are some startling historical parallels here. I'm cautiously optimistic that American voters have woken up to this risk far more quickly than did their British counterparts, but there are still going to be some painful times ahead.

"Britain got support from Reagan and a huge amount from, above all others, Caspar Weinberger. Weinberger did indeed play somewhat fast and loose in terms of materiel and fuel etc provided, and thank God he did. Ultimately he was able to do so over the opposition of others like Kirkpatrick and the endless negotiations of Haig because of Reagan's immensely close relationship with Thatcher. Weinberger's opponents always knew that if push came to shove, and Maggie appealed (in that way she had) directly to Ronnie, probably she would get what she want The article also said Cap provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment she required during the war ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. All this was done very discreetly"

Now, I know there are Brits that disagree, but there’s no way it occurred without the absolute okay from Ronald Reagan as president and CIC and not Weinberger as Sec of Def running some rogue operation of that magnitude without his knowledge and authorization.

Look, I would say without a doubt the British have been and are our true ally in the world that we can count on whether we disagree at times, right or wrong. No one, lest of all me would question the courage of the British soldier as I don’t question ours. However, I do question the courage and commitment of many of our leaders on both sides.

The power projection thing, most countries other than the Russians and coming on the Chinese have any kind of real power projection. It’s not about putting any one country down, but at this time and place on earth, without the USA there would be no guarantee of freedom with 95% of the other nations.

The truth as just flashed across the screen, the UK will cut its military budget by 8% by 2015.