Author Topic: Sweat (Read 1234 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #15 on:** September 20, 2001, 12:29:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Happy? Nope... not when you start dissing my bird

Wasn't my intention. There aren't many warfare areas where USN and USAF share so many capabilities. EW seemed to be as good place as any to start. Regarding F-111, you're probably more of an expert than I. My knowledge of EF-111 comes solely from comparisons to EA-6B.

Quote

And, to assume DoD does anything based on actual capability is a stretch.

We all have our fantasies.

I believe the first EA-6B entered service in 1971. The EXCAP models were delivered in 1973, ICAP models in 1977 and ICAP II in 1984. As I stated before, I have no knowledge of significant EF-111 upgrade programs. If there were indeed, your politics argument certainly carries more weight.

Quote

I do know that maintenance on the F-111 was not a pleasure. The F-111A fighters had been retired some 8 years earlier because the airframes were giving out. Sounds like they prolonged the life of the EFs as long as they could. All F-111A and EF-111A birds were built in 66-67 timeframe.

You also have to consider that Grumman was the company that retrofitted the EF-111A and makes the EA-6. Is it better to go with an airframe/jamming combination supported by one company or two? Who would have had more interest in lobbying for their aircraft to stay in service? Dunno... seems some huge assumptions as far as "capability" are made when politics are more of a factor.

AKDejaVu

Maybe you're right... maybe the Navy did win a political battle against the Air Force which in itself is funny simply because many in the Navy consider the Air Force to be much better political players.

Still... the EA-6B is almost as old as the EF-111 and the F-14 is also quite old... both types can still be found in active inventory.

Apache · « **Reply #16 on:** September 20, 2001, 12:34:00 PM »

Because of the limited "friendy" territory, does anyone think we may occupy? Not for territorial gain in as much as for tactical support?

Any thoughts?

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #17 on:** September 20, 2001, 12:37:00 PM »

Actually, the original EA-6s are quite old... it still seems they are being ether built or converted at a depot level base by the original aircraft manufacturer.

The EF-111As that transfered from Mt Home to Cannon did so because it was felt more EA-6s would be needed prior to the 111s retirement. I suppose those came from somewhere.

AKDejaVu

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** September 20, 2001, 12:48:00 PM »

True, the A-6 are quite old, but I think the EA-6B were entirely new airframes unlike the EF-111 that used slightly modified F-111A.

If you recall, the A-6 sits 2, the EA-6B sits 4. That in and of itself is a major design change.

Oh... and you're also correct on the numbers. I believe there were roughly 120 EA-6B compared to the 40 EF-111.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #19 on:** September 20, 2001, 12:56:00 PM »

As a sidenote on the EA-6B... it doesn't look like the US Air Force is going to be relying on Navy EA-6Bs

:

http://www.iss.northgrum.com/products/navy_products/ea6b/ea6b.html

The handiness of having a facility that still supports its aircraft is incredible. It makes up for the fact that you now have to use a subsonic flying turd

I've liked the A-6 ever since I read "Flight of the Intruder". I just never thought I'd see one with "USAF" painted on it.

AKDejaVu

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** September 20, 2001, 02:00:00 PM »

Quote

subsonic flying turd

-ammo- · « **Reply #21 on:** September 20, 2001, 02:19:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM:
As of 1998, there was a single EF-111 squadron at Cannon AFB, the 429th ECS.

According to this link, the 429th ECS was inactivated in June of 1998.

If there are any active EF-111 in the U.S. inventory, I am unaware of them.

This is true. On the several OSW and ONW deployments we saw the navy take up that role there. In OSw hey would fly both from ship and shore stations while ONW the EA6's were out of Incirlik. There are no longer any "f-111" units that I know of, even gaurd or reserve.

batdog · « **Reply #22 on:** September 20, 2001, 02:26:00 PM »

The Rangers Bats are much more capable than any other infantry unit to move in and secure a small area in a short time. Its a unit in which you have to Volunteer not once, or twice but essentialy 3 times for, so the indivduals are highly motivated. Its an understanding there is a chance of death even in the training. You get to mess with and do things few others ever hear about or would even WANT to do. They have even changed it so that only troops in thier 2nd tour ie "seasoned" can join I think. Anyway I hope if they DO use them they'll have the friggen support they should...not like in a certain African country where the good'ol UN Command diddlyed them royaly.

xBAT

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #23 on:** September 20, 2001, 04:01:00 PM »

USN swabbing the deck: "This sucks"
Army in the middle of the desert: "This really sucks"
Marines in a rainy jungle: "I love how much this sucks!"
USAF sitting on the couch: "My remote broke, this totally sucks"

Sandman · « **Reply #24 on:** September 20, 2001, 04:04:00 PM »

Thus explains our love and adoration for the USAF... LOL.

easymo · « **Reply #25 on:** September 20, 2001, 07:41:00 PM »

Spot on. He he he.