Isn't strange the USAF doesn't have a F-15 with the same pods and capability as the EA-18?Wtf is this whole non cooperation between the US military branches?
>>64740773Air Force has historically preferred just stuffing a cargo plane or bomber full of ewar kit.
>>64740773The air force has a few growlers they use for training, it's not some secret non-cooperation you gay retard, they just don't want them
Navy needs the technology launchable by carrier. Air force can put it on whatever airframe it wants, and change it up so it keeps the enemy guessing without being limited by carrier weight and takeoff distance considerations.
>>64740773>>64740785The USN and USAF operate 5 expeditionary Growler squadrons under an MOU. These are not attached to any carrier air wing.
>>64740773It's because the USN has them and the USN isn't ever going to be far away if the USAF really wants to borrow them, and like others have said the USAF has other assets within their own inventory when they want to do this stuff in-house.If anything it's probably a sign of better cooperation than has existed in the past. Used to be that everyone had to have their own bespoke totally different platform for the exact same jobs and would never, ever share.
>AF does not have its own dedicated EW platform and has to use an underpowered naval version grim
>>64740773The Airforce uses Compass Call aircraft for EW and is also adding jamming pods to F-16 block 50/52.
>>64740913Its called the EA-130 and EA-37
>>64740913That same underpowered version just jammed all the radars in Venezuela. But that's no surprise as we already know that it jammed the shiniest chinkshit in 2022. Couldn't even track Pelosi's 737.
>>64740930Australia, who have no naval air arm and associated considerations, also opted to buy the Growler for their EW needs and operate 12 of them. I'm sure interoperability with their 24 superbugs is nice but I'm also pretty sure the RAAF could've afforded a different platform if they felt it was superior enough to justify it.
>>64740773Growlers are for carriers, the USAF uses gulf streams or bigger because they have airfields.
>>64740930>>64740944The Aussies bought growlers because they plane to be operating in hostile air space and need to be able to support/work with the USN in order to bring them into true fighting range. It also helps that they have bugs already. They were the first nation to receive growlers in force and they get direct training from experienced growler boys already.
>>64742094The RAAF isn't outfitted for carrier ops, I don't think they'd ever beat the 'extension of American interests' allegations if they straight-up equipped and planned to be an additional carrier air wing for the USN.The rest is true though, the ease of operation with the US branch with the largest regional presence is a big upside as is the closeness of training.The RAAF also got the first confirmed export order for the AIM-260, a missile not even finished yet, so I think they're on Santa's good list when it comes to access to training and toys.
>>64740773I wonder what the scope looked like for the Venezuelans when they got hit with these
>>64742169The RAAF is not, their growlers ARE. The RAAF plans to launch from forward bases in the Pac with growler support (as shown with Maduro it's a good option), but the extra win is that the Aussie growlers can supplement USN in addition to flying with their ground boys. They are the second largest growler fleet on the planet
>>64742265>their growlers AREYou know I can't actually find anything saying one way or the other on how the RAAF took their Growlers, I always assumed they had the hook removed like the bugs did but I'm not 100% sure now. Carrier ops sure aren't something they practice regularly in any case.
I was doing some drunken research on global F-35 procurement the other week. The base the Aussies have in northern Australia is pretty neat.
>>64742282Listen I know this is my dad works at Nintendo tier, BUT I know actual growler pilots (WA state for life). We send Navy fly keys to train them and only Navy fly out that have passed carrier quals. We also typically send a carrier down there when the trainings are going on.
>>64742409God damn my phone>Navy fly keysNavy fly boys>Navy fly outNavy fly boys
>>64742282>I always assumed they had the hook removed like the bugsThe only thing removed was the tie bar on the nose wheel that fits into the catapult shuttle, and the carrier landing system was replaced with an ILS for terrestrial airfields.The hook was retained for airfield emergency arrestor cablesA (dummy) tie bar was actually reintroduced later on because the nose gear wobbled when there was just a small ballast block there instead of a long bar. The dummy bar was just a straight piece of metal though, without the hitch on the end. So it couldn't interface with a catapult.And this was only the F/A-18As.The RAAF's F/A-18Fs and EA-18Gs don't have any modifications to remove carrier capability.
>>64740773It's not the Navy Paywalling anything, it's the Navy hasn't gotten a fighter design it actually asked for approved since 1968. So while the USAF was swimming around scrooge mcduck style in their gold coin pool getting, what, six now? Stealth penetrating platforms, the Navy had fuck all so had to resort to EW/spectrum dominance as apparently it's illegal to have nice things in Navair. But the growlers are part of the joint force and way more integrated into zoomie ATOs than the rest of the CAW. That's not new with the growlers either, was the same situation with the prowlers also.
