Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
 
I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
The ECRs were SEAD/DEAD. As I understand it they were quite different to the other fleets, internally.
Different engines too, really a bread apart.
 
This is truly puzzling. The Growler I get. But they already have Typhoons. Why not just buy more of those instead of E/Fs?
The Typhoon isn't capable of carrying the B-61. Thus the E/F buy to replace Tonka IDS. Growler to replace the Tonka ECR.
Germany is carrying US nukes? So if the US says, "go nuke these guys" Germany will do it? I find that more than a little difficult to believe.
Google 'Nuclear sharing dual key'
Google "Post #272 on this page."
 
This is truly puzzling. The Growler I get. But they already have Typhoons. Why not just buy more of those instead of E/Fs?
The Typhoon isn't capable of carrying the B-61. Thus the E/F buy to replace Tonka IDS. Growler to replace the Tonka ECR.
Germany is carrying US nukes? So if the US says, "go nuke these guys" Germany will do it? I find that more than a little difficult to believe.
Google 'Nuclear sharing dual key'
Google "Post #272 on this page."
The requirement hasn't changed. I agree the the likelihood of a German plane delivering a US nuke is incredibly remote, and I'd argue that it was almost as remote during the cold war - if a conflict went nuclear I can't imagine the Germans and Americans hashing out a nuke release; the US would just instantly use the forces it had on hand which in any case were better equipped for the job. But if the Germans don't have a delivery platform, then they'd probably have to send those B-61s home, and I don't think that's the message anyone wants to send to Russia right now.
 
I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
The ECRs were SEAD/DEAD. As I understand it they were quite different to the other fleets, internally.
The F-35 is an out of the box SEAD/DEAD aircraft that is marketed as a 'fighter'. I have a hard time believing it wouldn't fill the ECR requirements. But as someone noted, the decision is likely political, as most major weapon systems purchases are.
 
I'm sure if they asked the US to remove the bombs the US grudgingly would. The timing would be rather awful right now though. I'm actually surprised that nuclear sharing survived the 90's/early 2000's; I would have thought the non nuclear European nations would have retired the concept in that time frame.
 
Last edited:
The Navy hasn't bought new Growlers for many years and has fielded its objective inventory. In fact, re-starting Growler production probably has some element of fixed costs that Boeing would have to pay for Germany. Neither Congress, or the Navy (or Boeing for that matter) have recently brought up restarting Growler procurement for the Navy.
We'll at least one Growler is in work (see below) but I think you are right in that it is coming from USN stock:


That said, I understand Boeing and indeed the USN (noting this would presumably be a FMS deal thus brokered through USN) are very keen on seeing the German deal go through.
 
I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
I think the general difference between the F-35 and Growler’s electronic warfare capabilities is that the Growler has wider coverage, the F-35 a narrower beam focused on the forward arc.
 
I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
I think the general difference between the F-35 and Growler’s electronic warfare capabilities is that the Growler has wider coverage, the F-35 a narrower beam focused on the forward arc.
Agreed, but the platform I was trying to compare it to was the electronic recon/SEAD Tornado. Does it have a wider band capability or a stand off jamming capability? If we are just talking about self defense and DEAD, you couldn't ask for a better weasel than the F-35.
 
I'm not sure what the ECR requirements are, but I'd be a little surprised if the F-35 couldn't fill them. What did the Tornados carry for jamming gear? I thought they were more recon than actual active jamming?
I think the general difference between the F-35 and Growler’s electronic warfare capabilities is that the Growler has wider coverage, the F-35 a narrower beam focused on the forward arc.
Agreed, but the platform I was trying to compare it to was the electronic recon/SEAD Tornado. Does it have a wider band capability or a stand off jamming capability? If we are just talking about self defense and DEAD, you couldn't ask for a better weasel than the F-35.
I think the Tornado ECR doesn't have any specific jamming capability (it has DECM pods like any Tornado variant), just the additional EW suite to locate radars/emitters and use the AGM-88 HARM against them. Similar to an F-16CJ.

The F-35A is a huge leap in capabilities for this role. The Growler would bring different capabilities beyond SEAD.
 
Last edited:
The NGJ would probably bring a whole new raft of capabilities beyond the ECR Tornados that even the F-35 would not, if NGJ is part of the offer. I suspect that is the long term goal or else the Germans wouldn't be interested in the platform.
 
This is truly puzzling. The Growler I get. But they already have Typhoons. Why not just buy more of those instead of E/Fs?
The Typhoon isn't capable of carrying the B-61. Thus the E/F buy to replace Tonka IDS. Growler to replace the Tonka ECR.
Germany is carrying US nukes? So if the US says, "go nuke these guys" Germany will do it? I find that more than a little difficult to believe.
I'm more confused about B61 and why the hell there isn't a standoff nuke, like at least JSOW with nuclear warhead or JASSM.
Because nukes are needed against peer opponent and sure as hell Russia won't allow to use free fall bombs against its targets as long as Russian IADS is alive. And if it isn't, you don't need nukes anyway.
 
Last edited:
This is truly puzzling. The Growler I get. But they already have Typhoons. Why not just buy more of those instead of E/Fs?
The Typhoon isn't capable of carrying the B-61. Thus the E/F buy to replace Tonka IDS. Growler to replace the Tonka ECR.
Germany is carrying US nukes? So if the US says, "go nuke these guys" Germany will do it? I find that more than a little difficult to believe.
I'm more confused about B61 and why the hell there isn't a standoff nuke, like at least JSOW with nuclear warhead or JASSM.
Because nukes are needed against peer opponent and sure as hell Russia won't allow to use free fall bombs against its targets as long as Russian IADS is alive. And if it isn't, you don't need nukes anyway.
For sure. Replace that B61 with a W80-equipped JASSM (or even just stuff the B61's warhead inside JASSM) or maybe stuff a small nuke in that new AARGM-ER.
 
The US hasn't kept up on nuclear weapons since the end of the cold war. Old weapons are getting updates but no truly new ones are created, and in particular the tactical nukes are still old free fall types only just now being updated with INS guidance. In the case of nuclear sharing/dual key nukes, they are highly symbolic more than practical anyway - the idea that both the US and Germany would decide on using tactical nukes and then have German planes deliver them somehow before the US already delivered its own nukes unilaterally is a rather remote possibility. It's even more remote when you consider that Russian forces no longer border on any NATO nation outside Poland and the Baltics, so none of the nuclear sharing countries is remotely threatened such that defensive use would be needed.

The US has AGM-86 which has both a low and high yield option; that would probably be the US choice against a well defended tactical target that it decided it had to nuke (EDIT: actually for the US, stealth delivery of a B-61 still would likely be preferred). Additionally there is a new option in the W-76 mod2 which is low yield, but since it is mounted on an SLBM that does introduce some questions about opponent response.
 
Last edited:
Question.jpg

What is this tube-looking thing wrapped around the canopy and going back to the tail?
 
Soooo can they turn on the jamming tech while flying along the Polish boarder and jam whatever is in distance or is that provocative?
there's no russian jet over western ukraine anyway. the only thing they jamming would be ukrainian jets still flying sorties (20 sorties a day still)
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Exactly


What is 'a range' of the range, 500+, 1000+, 1500+?
Those numbers are classified but certainly there is over the horizon ability and not line of sight.

That is interesting. I was wondering if, in future, a less than stealthy drone could carry that gear, and remotely manage the pod or even a series of pods.
 
Anywhere from a few dozen miles to a few hundred miles, depending on just what it's trying to jam.
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Asking an honest question, but wouldn't that be an immediate act of war/aggression specifically targeting Russia, on behalf of Ukraine in the War? Wouldn't USA/Nato actively jamming against Russian forces be an act of War? It seems like the situation can escalate if there is equipment, Growler jamming, etc. being sent in and around Nato countries while aimed against Russia.
 
Last edited:
It's a valid question and the answer is unambiguously positive IMOHO. Then there is much more a Growler can do there and that every major military nation on earth agrees on principle: like collecting and analyzing signals and be there as a deterring force against any attempt of cyber attacks on NATO countries.
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Asking an honest question, but wouldn't that be an immediate act of war/aggression specifically targeting Russia, on behalf of Ukraine in the War? Wouldn't USA/Nato actively jamming against Russian forces be an act of War? It seems like the situation can escalate if there is equipment, Growler jamming, etc. being sent in and around Nato countries while aimed against Russia.
Well, first you have to prove it. ;-)
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Asking an honest question, but wouldn't that be an immediate act of war/aggression specifically targeting Russia, on behalf of Ukraine in the War? Wouldn't USA/Nato actively jamming against Russian forces be an act of War? It seems like the situation can escalate if there is equipment, Growler jamming, etc. being sent in and around Nato countries while aimed against Russia.
As I recall, Russians were in Vietnam assisting with shooting down our pilots by training the Vietnamese. Also Trump did a nice job killing some Russians in the middle east
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Asking an honest question, but wouldn't that be an immediate act of war/aggression specifically targeting Russia, on behalf of Ukraine in the War? Wouldn't USA/Nato actively jamming against Russian forces be an act of War? It seems like the situation can escalate if there is equipment, Growler jamming, etc. being sent in and around Nato countries while aimed against Russia.
As I recall, Russians were in Vietnam assisting with shooting down our pilots by training the Vietnamese. Also Trump did a nice job killing some Russians in the middle east
I doubt the command chain reached up to trump for that particular event. One thing about trump admin was that he surrounded himself with people who defined their legacy with keeping trump in the dark as much as possible when it comes to foreign military decisions - john kelly, mattis, mcmaster, and trump didn't really mind it. It was not his area of interest (he ran for office for immigration, economic policies, even his distrust of NATO stemmed from his dissatisfaction of US bearing the brunt of security spending) given how much he liked to skip daily briefings on these issues.
 
Actually Growler can jam at a considerable range.
From any of the bordering countries (Poland, Slovakia, Romania), their potential to act over Ukraine without overflying it should not be underestimated.
Asking an honest question, but wouldn't that be an immediate act of war/aggression specifically targeting Russia, on behalf of Ukraine in the War? Wouldn't USA/Nato actively jamming against Russian forces be an act of War? It seems like the situation can escalate if there is equipment, Growler jamming, etc. being sent in and around Nato countries while aimed against Russia.
As I recall, Russians were in Vietnam assisting with shooting down our pilots by training the Vietnamese. Also Trump did a nice job killing some Russians in the middle east
I doubt the command chain reached up to trump for that particular event. One thing about trump admin was that he surrounded himself with people who defined their legacy with keeping trump in the dark as much as possible when it comes to foreign military decisions - john kelly, mattis, mcmaster, and trump didn't really mind it. It was not his area of interest (he ran for office for immigration, economic policies, even his distrust of NATO stemmed from his dissatisfaction of US bearing the brunt of security spending) given how much he liked to skip daily briefings on these issues.
Oh yeah, I remember seeing you in the news as a member of the administration... How's it going now that you're not in the White House any longer?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom