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.
Isn't the F-18 an improved version of the figther that lost to the F-16?The navy seems to always get cucked airplanes.
>>64742965The F-18 is just a glorified F-5.It is shit.
>>64742094>>64742169>The Aussies bought growlers becauseWe boight Growlers because delays in the F35 program risked a capability gap after we retired F111 and started aging our Super Hornet fleet. Everything else is a titanic retcon. It's on the public record.
>>64743053>We bought an EW plane because a non-EW plane was delayedAnon...
>>64742965Yes, partially out of long-standing interservice bullshit at the time but also partially because the F-16 wasn't going to be the plane they needed at the time anyway.Aside from the extra requirements on the airframe of being carrier-capable, the USN had a strong preference for twin engine for reliability and they also wanted it multirole out of the box. At one point the plan was for the F-18 and A-18 to be two distinct avionics and hardpoint configurations of the airframe, but during development the two were merged, hence the unusual 'F/A' designation.Obviously the Viper ended up being multirole but you need to hang a lot of shit off it to get it there, and just sticking the a tailhook on an early model Viper didn't really add a whole lot of value to a carrier's air wing.
>>64740944>>64742169>>64742282>>64742700The Aussies should've bought F-35C's instead since they keep yapping about range, then buy more Super Hornets and Growlers , then have them all be trained for carrier ops with USN for interoperability. Oh and they should also stop being cheapskates and buy F-35B's for their LHD ships.But what do I know, I'm just a shitposter
>>64744431I believe the C is more expensive, gun is external, there's a higher maintenance burden with the folding wings and a lower G limit. Plus you're going to get more economies of scale from the A over time since it's going to be substantially more numerous, it's the one that everyone's going to be integrating their equipment with first, etc.For Bs, they'd also need to get the decks refitted. They weren't built to take Harrier or F-35B heat concentration.The RAN also just hasn't done fixed-wing aviation in 40 years. The new formal alliance with PNG also increases the RAAF's options for forward deployment.
>>64744456Aww :(I hate this gay reality
>>64744476Yeah the C is a hell of a plane and realistically I don't think the lower G limit is going to matter much, but you're talking a variant with 250-odd planes and a single operator with one that has over 1,700 orders from the USAF alone and will be the primary model for export customers. The certain higher up-front cost and likely higher sustainment costs are a lot to weigh up when some tankers and drop tanks can make up a lot of the difference, even get those superbugs buddy fuelling.
>>64740773Different doctrines. USAF has been moving away from escort jammers since the retirement of the EF-111, favoring instead stealth supported by specialized stand-off jamming platforms. Which is a little bit of a shame, since the Mudhen would make for an excellent escort jammer/Wild Weasel. In the future, the USAF is looking to use just about every AESA radar as a potential jammer/spoofer, using semi-autonomous software (as in, "new radar source detected: click YES to jam it") to replace the hefty amount of training that it normally takes to learn to use jammers properly.The USN, meanwhile, is still focusing on old-school mission packages that include escort jammers (and yes, Growlers can do stand-off as well). They also like to have their jammers perform the Wild Weasel role at the same time (the USAF generally kept the two missions separate, since they could put more planes into the sky at one time).>>64743624F-35s supposedly have some fairly nasty EW capabilities through their radar (which means it only works when they're facing in the general direction of the threat). It's been mentioned since early on in the program, but of course there have never been any serious details released. It's good enough that there has never been much official consideration by the USN or USMC for fitting the NGJ (Next-Generation Jammer) pods onto the F-35.
>>64744456Cs will still be cheaper than Bs despite the economy of scale and guns don't matter in the 21st century.
>>64744509>F-35s supposedly have some fairly nasty EW capabilities through their radar (which means it only works when they're facing in the general direction of the threat).Look up AN/ASQ-239.
>>64742965>>64743670> the USN had a strong preference for twin engine for reliability and they also wanted it multirole out of the boxF/A-18 maintainer here, I know of at least a dozen incidents just during my two hitches where we would have lost a single-engine plane and the Hornet made it home. That's just one airwing. Bird strikes, sucking freak spray on launch and flaming out, engine fires 300 miles offshore, a lot of shit happens that would be a hell of a lot less of a problem if your only divert option wasn't a postage stamp doing 15 knots upwind. >>64740773Because the Air Force uses bigger and heavier EWAR birds. The Growler is loosely based on one of the Scandie early-block Hornet variants, they wanted to use the EWAR pods off of the Prowlers on their birds. It took some hilarious tomfuckery with the software (and internal shielding..) to make that happen. The Growler was designed from the ground up to fully replace the EA-6 instead of just being an expedient conversion like the Prowlers themselves, and it had some nice knock-on effects for the rest of the Super Hornet program.Also the name makes Brits laugh their balls off, which is a plus in my book.
>>64744511And the RAAF operates As which are cheaper than both.I would think branching out into Bs is more likely than Cs, since getting their LHDs refit is at least theoretically possible and it'd be the most bang-for-buck in terms of interoperability with local allied navies. Not sure if US carrier decks can take it, but it'd get them LHDs from the USMC and JMSDF, and the RN's ramp carriers if they're ever in town. Plus I think the USMC has the most permanent presence in Australia of the US branches so cross-training would be easier.It'd make more sense to buy the model they could theoretically operate off their own ships than to buy a model they could only operate off US ships.To be clear I think they're plenty satisfied with having a majority 5th gen fleet that can roll over most of the region without breaking a sweat already, I don't see them pursuing other models. But if they did I think the B would be the pick over the C.>>64744535Australia had half their superbug order already installed with certain wiring looms and shit for future Growler conversion if they wanted it, which I thought was interesting. They liked the plane enough that they bought 12 new production Growlers instead of converting 12 of their current planes, but it's interesting the EW variant really is just hanging some extra shit off.
>>64744556>it's interesting the EW variant really is just hanging some extra shit off.It's more than *just* that, but for the wiring you have to take the birds back to depot level and spend several days fucking with them, then several more verifying that everything is properly set up. The clip-on/drop-in parts are much, much faster and all of them are O or I-level.
>>64742265wild to me that the fucking down unders are getting the aim260 first on the planet to fuck with
>>64744499Nice trip dubsAnyways, FUCK it, I'll make a military fiction world where everything goes by rule of Cool and makes absolutely no economic senseF-14EX strike fighters, FB-23 stealth supersonic bombers, you name it
>>64744706AUKUS paying off I suppose. Both Australia and Japan have a pretty compelling case to need them faster than most potential buyers but Australia gets the anglobro bonus.>>64744720Ace Combat exists for a reason.
>>64744556Many seething Australians on /k/ have already been sounding the alarm since the US decided to sell the F-35 to Singapore as they believe it compromises Australia's air defense to China. While the US can afford to replace the F-35 with something new in 20 years Australians are going to be stuck with them for at least 50.
>>64744822It's got no ST21-based F-14's nor FB-23's, they're a bunch of cucks
>>64744877Wrong fucking pic baka
>>64744852Many seething brownoids have copy/pasted this same post. Or probably just you, actually.>>64744877It does have the FB-22, and the YF-23 is so common it may as well just be the F-23. They're doing the best they cano.
>>64744907>They're doing the best they cano.Fair dinkum
