http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601668/posts
Since he has flown in both types, and I personally like his conclusions better, I'll side with him. ;^)
But you're right, the Raven and the Prowler were designed for two different missions. The Raven doesn't have to survive cat shots, sea spray, or arrested landings. The Raven had supersonic dash capability and a 1300 mile combat radius. The Raven could lead a strike package consisting of F-15Es or F-16s and keep up. And the Raven had a 1200 mile combat radius.
The Prowler was originally designed to accompany subsonic strike packages, so supersonic dash was not important. The Intruder's 800 mile combat radius was adequate because it was as good or better than the combat radius of the carrier strike packages it originally was designed to accompany. However, with the (stupid) early retirement of the Ravens, the Prowler fleet is being overtaxed trying to do both Navy and Air Force missions.
With the Growler, one can see which way the Navy is going for it's future EW, and it looks more like the Raven than the Prowler.
One who puts his trust in the knowledge, forethought and vision of the powers that be at NAVAIR will soon be disappointed.
In addition, a clean Super Hornet, let alone a dirty one, cannot exceed Mach 1 below Angels 10, so "supersonic dash" is a moot point. Ingressing a strike package at higher altitude, which is where you'll need to be to exceed Mach 1, is crappy tactics. Compare the Super Hornet with a Hornet and you'll find it's a performance dog. NAVAIR has sold out the taxpayer yet again and too many people have allowed themselves to be suckered. That's one of the many reasons why the Marine Corps will continue to operate their Prowlers.