RAAF to go Growler

[wessex19]

RAAF to go Growler | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/08/raaf-to-go-growler/) :D

How are they going to launch them off HMAS adelaide and Canberra??:ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Those Indonesian fishing boats won't know what hit 'em!!!

[Milo Minderbinder]

you mean they've ordered even more? They announced some a few days ago
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/493721-raaf-get-growlers.html

[500N]

Looks like the same lot, just different speeds to get into different magazines.


I must say it does look like this is one purchase where they looked
ahead (wiring up the planes for Growler when made) and then
buying the bits needed once Export was approved.


Interesting that Australia seems to be the first or only export country ?

Is that just a timing thing (our planes ready / we were first to ask)
or are the US really restricting the purchase / export of the Growler
by foreign nations ?

.

[Rogan82]

Australias primary use... jamming hand held scanners at Avalon!

[wessex19]

Same order Milo, I don't spend every day trolling through every page of pprune

[Airborne Aircrew]

I don't know about the RAAF but the RAF has been doing some real growlers for decades... :}

[Gnadenburg]

This is off the Williams Foundation from from a serving pilot-

I’m sitting here on a weather day in the Middle East reading Australian Aviation magazine’s publication of the Williams Foundation’s comment on EW in Offensive Air Operations.

What piqued my interest was the last paragraph in the AA article, stating the Foundation’s support for RAAF Growlers. It seemed an oversimplified comment that lacked appreciation of the RAAF’s actual capabilities.

I dug a little deeper and located the source document on the Foundation webpage, and found that the article makes no such assertion that “the Williams Foundation believes that this opportunity [for Growlers] should be taken”.

Rather it states that operations in contested airspace will rely on Allied support - a completely valid conclusion and one that represents no change from the status quo for as long as I’ve been a pilot.

As the Foundation comment itself states, “the USN has separated the two roles [Strike and EW], apparently because Growler crews are stretched maintaining skills in their primary EW role”. Fair comment. The RAAF simply does not possess the critical mass to support a dedicated Growler capability. Dedicated EW, as opposed to self-protection, is a niche capability in the same vein as CSAR that our “world’s best small air force” does not have the people/time/knowledge base to support.

From my experience, 82WG has its hands full exploiting the capability it currently has. While they will no doubt get there in the end, they are still years away from being a mature Strike/Fighter organisation. Adding a new capability that we have no experience in is not the answer. Not to mention the issue of the threat libraries which I assume the US may be a little reluctant to let go of, or the capability of JEWOSU to self-support this capability. Clearly we don’t have the ranges to train for/validate this capability either.

I want EW support as much as the next guy going downrange. Having flown in two Red Flags, one as a B Cat pilot and one as a B Cat SQN Executive and Mission Commander, I know its value. The Foundation’s assertion that we will continue to rely on Allied support is spot on.

Unless my commanders aren’t telling me something, the RAAF remains a force which aims to maintain the ability to:

- Deal with low-threat conflicts without support, and
- Dovetail seamlessly into larger Coalition packages (with the support that comes with) when required.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Was a great idea when we had a $6 billion surplus to splash around and sufficient crews...not so sure now! :bored:

[GreenKnight121]

The RAAF’s Growlers are expected to be available for operations from 2018

The estimated $1.5 billion purchase, which will be made through the US Foreign Military Sales program, will include conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spare parts, training and initial training systems.

So a 6-year program, costing $250 million per year (averaged out, actual yearly payments will vary).

[Ivan Rogov]

I had similar thoughts on this Gnadenburg. The Growler will need a large EW support tail to make the black boxes any use, ISTR reading an article a few years ago on how USN F-18 Sqns split multirole training and struggled with proficiency in some areas, think they specialised ground or air with a lesser ability in the other. Maybe this is spin on giving the jets Harm and a CJ capability?

[Big Bear]

Interesting that Australia seems to be the first or only export country ?

Is that just a timing thing (our planes ready / we were first to ask)
or are the US really restricting the purchase / export of the Growler
by foreign nations ?




Or is it that other Western nations (the UK included) just don't get the importance of EW.

Bear

[Turkeyslapper]

Will this growler capability be " additional" to the jsf fleet when everything matures ie 12 odd growlers + 100 jsf?

[Ivan Rogov]

Big Bear, spot on! EW is invisible, expensive and boring, no one can see what you have brought, it needs constant support and updating to be useful and you need to keep it secret so you don't know if it is any good and people wonder why you just wasted X Million. However strong EW capability is essential and if you neglect it you will come second.

[500N]

Big Bear.

Thank you for that :ok:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Will this growler capability be " additional" to the jsf fleet when everything matures ie 12 odd growlers + 100 jsf?

That's the $15 billion question.

On the one hand, the case can be made that the Growler and Rhino are sufficiently different that they will require separate logistics/support trails, which marginalises the Rhino. :ooh:

On the other hand, the Growler acquisition strengthens the case for more Rhinos and fewer or no F-35s due to the commonality aspect... :hmm:

Should get interesting...