Jump to content

Talk:Grumman EA-6B Prowler/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Military plane crashes in northeast Oregon

02:45 PM MST on Friday, March 3, 2006

By kgw.com and AP Staff

PENDLETON, Ore. -- An EA-6 military surveillance plane from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station has crashed in northeast Oregon, but authorities said no one was seriously injured.

Federal Avaiation Administration officials said the plane that went down was an EA-6 Prowler, similiar to the one shown in this military photo.

Witnesses saw all four aircrew ejected and their parachutes deployed, according to Umatilla County emergency services, and the military confirmed that there were no fatalities.

Authorities said four people were transported to St. Anthony's Hospital in Pendleton for treatment of unknown injuries.

The aircraft, attached to the Electronic Attack Squadron 135, was flying a routine training mission when the mishap occurred, according to Kim Martin, a spokeswoman for NAS Whidbey Island.

The cause of the crash is under investigation, she said.

"Something caused the plane to go down, we don’t know what it is," said Pete Wells, public information officer for Umatilla County.

A second EA-6 Prowler plane was flying in the area, but was not involved in the incident, he said.

Cheryl Seigal, of the Umatilla County Emergency Management, said the crash site had been sealed off and a no-fly zone requested at 3500 feet.

The emergency operations center in Pendleton also had been activated.

The Prowler aircraft provides protection for strike aircraft, ground troops and ships by jamming enemy radar, electronic data links and communications, Martin said.

The plane originated from Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, and was believed to be headed to a Navy practice facility in Boardman, where military bombers and fighter planes are stored.

The crash happened just before 11:30 a.m. in West Juniper Canyon at Dorran Road, in the northern part of Umatilla County, authorities said. http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-mar0306-ore_plane_crash.8096b995.html

Queer

Navy Prowler squadrons go by the acronym VAQ; for Marine squadrons, VMAQ. Q denotes the different mission of these squadrons from the bomb-only role of VA or VMA squadrons. So the explanation of 'queer' is off.

During my 3 years serving in a VAQ squadron, the pilots generally referred to it as the "station wagon" due to it carrying 4 persons (1 pilot, 3 ECMOs).Cjkporter 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox or WP:Aircraft's spec template?

Should this article's infobox be converted to WP:Aircraft's specifications template? (Born2flie 07:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Yes. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Proposal to merge this article with Advanced Capability EA-6B.

  • Merge: There is really not enough content on the page to warrant having its own article. The program was cancalled in 1995, so there is not going to be any new information forthcoming to significantly alter the current contents. In addition, the program only concerned the EA-6B. The EA-6 article is not all that long, so the additional material won't hurt, and can probably be added intact. - BillCJ 04:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No contest: After 9 days, am proceeding with the merge. - BillCJ 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed. - BillCJ 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

USMC plans

It's been claimed that USMC will use Prowlers until 2019 and get an EW variant of the F/A-35. Is this reasonably correct?

I know the USMC is supposed to use the EA-6B until around that time, but I don't beleive a final decision has been made on what will replace it as yet. If someojne has a source that it's been decided, please post it. - BillCJ 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Will AvLeak do? http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PARISJAM.xml&headline=Stealthy%20Jammer%20Considered%20for%20F-35

BTW, has the Op History been blanked on this article? I wanted to toss in Wesley's (Clark, not Crusher) two bits on the aircraft

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2000/000229wc.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

I'm not sure where the 40 lost a/c came from, but I have found some other information. GAO report number GAO-03-51 entitled 'Electronic Warfare: Comprehensive Strategy Still Needed for Suppressing Enemy Air Defenses' which was released on November 25, 2002 states 122 EA-6B prowlers remained in service following two losses in 2001. Following that report, it is known that at least one other was lost, (a crash in Oregon March 2006). There a a number of sources that agree that the total production run was 170 aircraft. (this one has BuNo's too, this one lists variants and another with BuNos). According to an online AMARC database only 1 has been to AMARC and it was returned to service. So we're missing about 50 aircraft. Based on that information, and the fact that the EA-6B had a very high loss rate in the early 1980s ("the EA-6B aircraft experienced accident rates in fleet operations that were nearly three times higher than all other Navy and Marine aircraft combined."), 40 aircraft lost to crashes is not out of the question, considering that 50 are officially not in service. --Dual Freq 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll have to take your word on that as I'm getting "The page you tried to access is only available to paid subscribers." for that page. --Dual Freq 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

From 1995, "There are 130 EA-6B airframes remaining. 70 have the ICAP II Block 82 configuration, 57 have the ICAP II Block 86/89 configuration and 3 are experimental." That would seem to back the assertion that 40 airframes were lost, but doesn't say why. I'd like to find a cite for the 40 number in the incident section. --Dual Freq 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Losses

After sifting through Ejection history and Google news, I came up with 40 a/c lost with very little difficulty. Most were from the ejection page and wouldn't include those lost where no ejection occurred. I placed the list here if any one cares. I'd say it confirms that at least 40 aircraft were lost due to various accidents and IMHO the list is still short 10 a/c that probably crashed. --Dual Freq 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering it I can use User:Dual_Freq/EF-111#EA-6B_Aircraft_by_MP_and_BN as a List of EA-6B Prowler aircraft article or something similar. Any comments? It would be a shame to waste it, but if its not needed in main space, then I can keep it there. Discovered 45 crashed, all but two associated with BuNo's. --Dual Freq 02:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice list, but I think the problem with others would be WP;NOT, as "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists." The whole list is not notable, even though some of the aircraft are. I objected when the dude put up a list of every Liberator in RAF service, so I can't really say this one would be OK. However, I won't make a stink or AFD it either! You might try the Airframes Wikia that one of our WP:AIR editors put up for things like this - I think it was Rlandmann, but I'm not certain. - BillCJ 04:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make contact with Rlandmann and see if there is a need for the EF-111 and EA-6 lists there. It's probably a bit overboard for wikipedia anyway. --Dual Freq 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
List of C-130 Hercules crashes seems to be a similar effort. --Dual Freq 23:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ejection

hi! does this aircraft have ejection seats?? --Philtime (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately its been used quite a bit since over 40 aircraft have been lost, as noted above. The seats are apparently designated GRU-7EA. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
then you should note this in the article... --Philtime (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

EA-6A coverage?

Is this article supposed to cover the A model too? There's more on that in the A-6 Intruder article than here. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if I could find enough additional info on the EA-6A to matter much anyway.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A models tend to be the original iteration of an airframe used for operational testing before the mass production of said airframe. Some are simply not very notable. Some were converted into the B-models with only slight modifications. There indeed may be no operational or external differences.
There are significant differences in the EA-6B and the A-6 though. — BQZip01 — talk 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not looking to list each airframe and its history. So the notable comment does not quite seem to fit. The A-model has the same basic role and was a forerunner to the B-model. So the EA-6A has closer ties to this article than the A-6 one. But as I already stated there appears to be little info to add over the text already in this article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the B's are all new construction, except FrankenProwler. EF-111A was all converted F-111A's. I'll have to look closer tonight. Also This says that 15 of the 28 A's were new-builds too. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a little EA-6A info. That pretty well covers it without getting too detailed. Some of prototypes EA-6Bs may not have been new builds. I'll start adding more B-model history tonight. Will try to include what rebuild/new build info I can find. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

jbaugher has buno lists that have some of the developmental EA-6B's that were converted A-6A's for testing.

  • 148615 converted to EA-6B electronic test aircraft.
  • 149479 converted to EA-6B second development aircraft.
  • 149481 converted to EA-6B aerodynamic demonstrator.

This also mentions the conversions at the bottom, though the jbaugher one doesn't say anything about the NEA-6B's and neither mentions the disposition of the YEA-6B's or NEA-6B's. I'm pretty confident though that unlike the EF-111A, the 170 production EA-6B's are all new construction. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Those totals have been added. There were 3 prototypes, 5 development and 170 production EA-6Bs built according what I have. No designations mentioned for proto and dev ones though. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ECMO, not EWO ?

I believe the NFOs in the EA-6B are ECMOs, not EWOs. EWO is the Air Force term if I remember correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.248.182 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's how the Navy fact file describes them. Wording has been fixed. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vertical Tail

In describing the EA-6B, this article states: "The forward fuselage was lengthened to create a rear area for a larger four-seat cockpit, and an antenna fairing was added to the tip of its vertical stabilizer." The antenna fairing was a carry-over from the EA-6A. This sentance makes it sound like it was new to the EA-6B. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

EA-6A with no faring at the peak of its tail, just the antenna
EA-6B with faring at the peak of its tail (labeled as "Vertical Fin Extension").
I think you are confusing the radome of the antenna on the tail (which was indeed on both models) with the additional faring that was added on top. Hope this addresses your concerns. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unauthorized Flight - the Cavalese Cable Car Disaster

I've got to take issue with this statement: A USMC EA-6B Prowler, BuNo 163045, from VMAQ-2 caused the Cavalese cable car disaster on 3 February 1998, accidentally cutting the cables of a cableway in Italy during an unauthorized low level flight in mountainous terrain, killing 20 civilians.

This flight was not unauthorized and was being executed according to the training and readiness standards. The accident occurred primarily because the aircraft was off the centerline of the route and due to the visual deception of the valley in which the cable car trolley was located. Any comments before I delete "unauthorized"? ~~Michael Kies~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.232.44.130 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Only dedicated aerial radar jammer aircraft?

The article says, "Since the retirement of the EF-111 Raven in 1995, the EA-6B is the only dedicated aerial radar jammer aircraft of the U.S. Armed Forces" (no citation is given). What about the EA-18G Growler? Zaxius (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

See the similar text in the Lead, which has the year right and does mention the EA-18G. The text in the Operational history section has been corrected to match. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grumman EA-6B Prowler/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

poorly constructed history. It lists as a subject "operational history" yet it only mentions current operations. Current operations are not history! What about operations in the 70's 80's 90's I am sure this aircraft has a deep and interesting operational history.Cliffwalk (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grumman_EA-6B_Prowler/Archive_1&oldid=1226379666"