"Why The Navy Really Wants 22 More Growlers?" Topic

"After several years of appearing to dislike the F-35C, or at least appearing lukewarm to buying it, the Navy today finally revealed why it wants to buy more F-18Gs from Boeing.

Basically, it all boils down to the fact that the F-18G, known as the Growler, emits a broader set of electronic warfare frequencies than does the F-35 (http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/navy-bets-on-baby-steps-to-improve-electronic-warfare-f-35-ja/), Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, told reporters after today's House Armed Services air and land force subcommittee hearing. The two planes flying together are a much more effective strike package, according to Navy analysis, than either one flying on its own. The F-18G "supplements and complements" the F-35, he said. In fact, Manazir said (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=525)the new planes were not needed for strictly naval missions but for joint forces, including fighting alongside our allies…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Pairing a non-stealth aircraft with a stealth aircraft makes sense?

Why not just field two, cheaper, non-stealth aircraft instead, especially if they are going to be jamming enemy radar, which is essentially like turning on a flashlight in a darkened room to say, here I am?

I do get the decoy angle, where the stealth might try to sneak in to kill those jets trying to eliminate the former.

Seems to me though, that it would be better to use the stealth jets far away from any aircraft broadcasting radar emissions to better secure the element of surprise.

Electronic warfare is not just radar jamming.
An experienced operator can make an in flight missile change its path--as one of many examples of other electronic warfare.

… more than one country has paid for a mix of Growlers, Super Hornets and F-35s.

"Electronic warfare is not just radar jamming.
An experienced operator can make an in flight missile change its path--as one of many examples of other electronic warfare."

Uh …

Hunh?

Pedantic? Ignorant? How do think that the operator "makes the missile change its path"?

well it might look like they are making it change its path, but what its doing is loosing its lock on by feeding its control systems lots of bad radar info and crashing the system.

I wondered why they thought 22 pork pies would ever be enough.

especially if they are going to be jamming enemy radar, which is essentially like turning on a flashlight in a darkened room to say, here I am?

Nope a jammer essentially like shinning a very powerful flashlight in everyone eyes on the other side and they see nothing.

your thinking of turning on your "radar" is essentially like turning on a flashlight in a darkened room saying, here I am :) shoot me.

Unless of course the jammer isn't totally effective (or is at too long a range to wipe out their radar), and the enemy decides to use some of their nice, shiny, new home on jamming missiles to eliminate the threat.

emckinney, I happen to know a retired USAF B-52 EWO. Yes, missiles can be made to change their paths through generastion of false targets, range-gate pulloffs, et cetera.

Mako11, the USN will use the F-35C (in limited numbers, might I add) because it has it, not because it necessarily wants it. What the USN seems to want, is updated Super Bugs and the F/A-XX. The EA-18G will merely suggest that a strike is taking place, not what/where the target is. EW targets could very well be coastal radar installations, when the target itself is a hundred nm inland.

"makes the missile change its path" Yes there are techniques to do that. You have to know the parameters of the missiles. Which is why such information is secret.

Heheheheh, he said Growler…