Wrong on many counts. The 2 ECMOs in the back gave greater capability for collecting elint, but the jamming ability was no better. The EF-111 didn't normally use automatic jamming, but since the pilot handles his own radio calls and the nav suite was lights years superior in the EF, the 1 EWO could handle the jamming workload easily.
Internal generators is one of the main reasons the transmitters worked regularly on the EF. Based on my hours in the Prowler, my earlier post claiming 80% effectiveness for them was optimistic. We typically would launch 3 and see which 2 had the most functional transmitters.
And there is no getting around 10 transmitters in the EF, every sortie.
I never, ever heard of an EF-111 transmitter catching fire.
And I have no idea why you think the EFs couldn't operate from an expeditionary airfield.
And as I mentioned, the ONLY reason the EF couldn't carry 4 HARMs on every mission is that the USAF, with unbeatable stupidity, refused to put the capability into the jet. In fact, they had the wire going to the wing stations cut so they could tell Congress with a straight face, "It cannot be done."
Based on all the reworked Air Force BCM gear we used to get from Indianapolis you folks had plenty of problems with the Raven's ECM suite. However, when you've got greater proportional funding than your counterparts it probably didn't seem that way. You love the Raven and that's all fine and dandy but the Prowler is a more flexible platform.
The 99E was more costly and time consuming to upgrade/modify and couldn't keep pace with advances in the TJS. No TERPES or TEAMS. Did you have band 9/10 capability in '91? As for the speed disparity, the Prowler was designed from the outset to accompany a subsonic strike package. The Raven was a modified "fighter"/bomber that was designed from the outset to have supersonic speed. Had it been a subsonic platform too it's very likely that they would have utilized pods instead of a pallet. However, none of those BUFF crews that VMCJ-1 & 2 supported during Linebacker II ever complained about the EA-6As speed and I'll bet that the Nighthawk pilots over Baghdad didn't complain either. Nobody has ever been lost when protected by a Prowler but a Raven was lost in Desert Storm evading a SAM.
How long would it take your O level guys to replace a jammer or an exciter if they failed BIT while you taxied to the active?
I never, ever heard of an EF-111 transmitter catching fire.
Doesn't mean that it couldn't happen, the Grumman and NAESU guys used to talk about it and if it did what type of fire suppression was available for the pallet? Could the whole thing be pickled? Did you have any coolanol level indicators on your panel?
Based on my hours in the Prowler, my earlier post claiming 80% effectiveness for them was optimistic.
The Raven wasn't subjected to cat shots, arrested landings and a highly corrosive ambient environment. As for mission capability, you flew with Purple VAQs not VMAQs and there's a big difference between a Navy AIMD and a MALS. There's even a difference in assets between VAQs. The Air Force's intermediate maintenance activity was also quite a bit different than that of the Marine Corps and Navy. Lots of test and check and not much component level repair with the zoomies. I'd venture that not many of the Air Force assets spent a lot of time AWP. Plus the fleet of aircraft to support was smaller.
And I have no idea why you think the EFs couldn't operate from an expeditionary airfield.
You had ZERO SATS capability in a Raven not to mention no way to fly from the boat. What do you think the fatigue factor of the Raven crews from the UK was compared to the Prowler crews operating from the America during Eldorado Canyon?
And as I mentioned, the ONLY reason the EF couldn't carry 4 HARMs on every mission is that the USAF, with unbeatable stupidity, refused to put the capability into the jet.
You don't need to explain to me the fact that the Air Force has had its head in its dirt chute regarding EW for a very, very long time.