Talk:Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Too American-centric?

Epopt, it may be useful to make the (introdcution of the) article a little less American-centered. I'm not sure if the plane is used by other nations, but the plane was not built by the US Navy (but by Grumman, if I'm correct - why don't you mention it?), though that is the primary employer of the planes, of course. Good job on the rest; maybe you should give the source of the picture? jheijmans

Given that the Hawkeye was designed specifically for the use of the US Navy, and old sold after the fact and in smaller numbers to other nations, it makes sense for the article to devote more attention to its US Navy service. Red XIV 3 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

The other nations that use it include Japan, Singapore, Egypt, Israel and France.

Since this is about 4 years old, and the article matches normal practice in the aviation pages I'm going to remove this tag. The US Navy or any military branch that I know of actually "builds" a plane. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the lack of any description on the operation of the aircraft by other operators apart from the US Navy was the reason the tag has been on for so long. Perhaps that needs to be addressed before the tag is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this article as being US-centric as there's almost no coverage of the development of foreign variants of the aircraft and its use by services other than the USN. As this is still the case, I've restored the tag. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It lists the variants that every nation uses including:

"E-2K Similar to E-2C Hawkeye 2000. Republic of China (Taiwan) named it E-2K."

and

"In late 2006, the US announced that it intended to sell three P-3C Orions equipped with the E-2C Hawkeye 2000 system to the Pakistan Navy. These aircraft will provide Pakistan with search surveillance, and control capability in support of maritime interdiction operations."

Even the pictures have a non-US aircraft: "French Navy Hawkeye onboard the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle."

Its a very advanced military Aircraft made in the USA and as such its export :::is very closely controlled by the United States. Their is no bias in that.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) :::21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The bias is lack of mention in any detail of the operational use or otherwise for foreign operators. For example was the US Navy the only operator to use the E-2 in the Gulf War ? you would not know from the article as it does not mention any operational history for any non-American users. Are all them used on carriers - dont know it doesnt say. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Nick is talking mainly about Operational history section. Coverage is almost all US with nothing about use by ROC, Israel or the other operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I find such tags highly insulting, as they are almost always used only in cases of so-called American bias. It's a US airacraft in service in far greater numbers than all the other nations combined. There's just more to write about. It's hardly a "bias". - BillCJ (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Under Operators: France: Aviation Navale is the only operator other than the US Navy to employ Hawkeyes on board aircraft carriers. Oddly enough, the Operators section has some good info on the E-2 is service with other nations. Move it somewhere else if you like. - BillCJ (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking Bill. Moved the French and Israeli info to the Op history section. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) I've replaced Globalize header with more-approporiate "Expand-section" tag. This is not "bias" or "perspective" on a certain POV, just a lack of coverage of other users, which would only go in the Operational hisotry section anyway. Perhaps we can create a tag for WP:AIR that addresses the specific issue of the history of other users, rahter than having to use generic tags that aren't really that appropriate to this issue. - BillCJ (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Bill - I think that that tag works better than the globalise one I added. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree with the initial thread poster that the Lead should at least mention foreign service, but I'm not sure how to do so succinctly. Feel free to take a stab at it. - BillCJ (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Crashing into a tower?

A 10 sec clip (1.85 MB)

Is this real? -- Toytoy 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's a clip from a Command & Conquer game (don't ask me which one). RoadKillian 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

E-2C Picture?

The last picture on the page looks like a E2-D because it has 8 propellers, while the E-2C has 4 blades, fully feathered, reversible, pitch constant-speed propellers.--RebelWeasel22 2:22, 20 July 2007

Agree - caption corrected. MilborneOne 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Per the text, E-2C Hawkeye 2000s have been fitted with 8-bladed props under the NP2000 program. The E-2D has not flown yet (scheduled for Aug 07!), and is still under development; IOC is 2011. - BillCJ 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK apologies - I went by one of the captions on the image description page! (one says E-2D and one E-2C). I think it should be side NH-603 which makes it serial number 165812 an E-2CMilborneOne 23:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Confused about when it happened

I am getting pretty confused about the timing of the introduction of the E-2. The article mentions three different introduction times:

The twin turboprop aircraft was designed and developed in the 1950s ...
The original E-2C, ..., became operational in 1973.
Since replacing the E-1 in 1964, the Hawkeye has been the eyes of the fleet....

Can someone explain or correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddler3 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The twin turboprop aircraft was designed and developed in the 1950s ...

True it was developed in the 1950s and first flew in 1960.

The original E-2C, ..., became operational in 1973.

The E-2C was a latter variant of the E-2 so 1973 is probably correct.

Since replacing the E-1 in 1964, the Hawkeye has been the eyes of the fleet....

True the first E-2s were introduced in 1964 into USN service.

All appears to be OK. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts about the early evolution of the E-2C. The first iteration of the E-2C utilized the APS-120 radar system. As there were numerous "issues" with the APS-120's ability to track overland or in "high clutter" areas, an update program was undertaken to install digital processing on the receive side of the radar and incorporate some modest counter-interference/ECM measures. All that constituted what was known as the E-2C ARPS (Advanced Radar Processing System). When added with the CP upgrades (16K vice 8K memory modules) and the ALR-73 (replaced the ALR-59) PDS, that constituted the "base" model E-2C for much of the late 70's/early 80's. Another iterim model was built in the early-mid 80's with an improved dome (TRAC-A and 8-channel rotary joint) and some additional improvements in counter-ECM which led to the APS-137, and that in turn, was re-baselined as the Group 0 E-2C. On a sidebar note - VAW-122 was one of the last fleet squadrons operating the APS-125 a/c because they were using a trial SATCOM installation that could not use the same rotary joint as the TRAC-A/APS-137 radar. - SJS--Steeljawscribe (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the build status of the E-2? When was the last brand-new - not upgraded E-2 built? Where were E-2 built? Was production like ever moved? Production/ not upgrade sites. Wfoj2 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

E-2D stats

Can we have a stat block with the E-2D numbers from the story book?

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html

Hcobb (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Specifications

The specifications has been cited to the US Navy fact file - thius has the problem that much of the specification data in the section is not in the fact file - things like wing area, climb rate, range etc. While some of this can be found from other sources, much of the specifications, such as weight) will vary markedly between early and later E-2Cs. For instance the 76 Jane's All The Worl's Aircraft gives an empty weight of 37,678 lb and a MTOW of 51,569 lb, while the corresponding figures from the 2003 Jane's are 40,484 lb and 54,426 lb. We therefore need to be very careful about mixing sources for things like weight and performance.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I would not have expected such a weight change. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering that comparing early and late E-2C, that virtually every bit of electronics has been changed, with several new systems (such as CEC and satellite communications) added, its perhaps more surprising that the weight hasn't changed more!Nigel Ish (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC),

First all female US Navy combat flight crew

link 1

link 2

On Jan. 25, 2012, the US Navy had its first all female combat crew on an E-2. I don't know if these things are generally mentioned in articles about various aircraft, so I thought I'd mention it here in case anyone missed it. Dismas|^(talk) 01:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I would mention this on the squadrons wiki page Hughespj1 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

source

Eric Margolis is not a sps again check Toronto Sun, CNN, and Huffington Post.

If it is true, there should be plenty of sources, not just one journalist. Flayer (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

4 Questions on the Hawkeye

Some of these questions are probably pretty dumb, but I was hesitant to add things to the article that might be wrong.

Would I be correct if I said that the Hawkeye can oversee an area about 3/4 the size of the state of Alaska? Or is my math or understanding off?
Is it a fair to consider the Hawkeye as an airbourne air-traffic-control facility, or is this a gross oversimplification?
What was the reasoning for giving the Hawkeye prop power rather than jet power? And is the continued use of prop power due to aspects of the plane's design, or because of a benefit(s) seen in the prop power? Related, is the Hawkeye now the only prop-driven fixed-wing aircraft serving in the US armed forces?
Where does Hawkeye come from? I'm guessing that M*A*S*H has nothing to do with it.
~~Why is this night different from all other nights?~~ (oops)

--Badger151 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alaska's a big place. The E-2 can only do radar coverage of about 1/4th of the main portion, and at the edges, it'd be spotty. Fortunately, there are a bunch of E-3s in Alaska that do a much better job.
Much more than ATC...especially, with the E-2D variant. It is more of a battlefield director.
Fuel efficiency, loiter time, and the fact that the slow stall speed of turboprops makes it easier to operate from aircraft carriers. It is not the only such aircraft...C-130, C-27, and CN-235
Dunno
You're drunk? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On the name Hawkeye, I've never heard anything definitive. However, naval AEW aircraft are often referred to the "Eyes of the Fleet," hence HawkEYE is a fitting name. -- BillCJ 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been flying the Hawkeye for over 20 years and have never once (before viewing this page) heard the term "Super Fudd". I question the accuracy of this moniker. Stormy. Stormy, I first got with VAW-123 in 1970, Super Fudd was around but not that widely used. Hummer or even Hummeroid. The old E-1 wqas known as Willy Fudd so Super Fudd was a natural evolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.114.0 (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Stormy - I entered the community in '78 and only came across the term in my VAW research where it was used infrequently in the very early days (think: W2F/E-2A). By the time the Hawkeye had a large enough footprint in the fleet, "hummer" became the accepted nickname. -SJS--Steeljawscribe (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I drew a somewhat crude "map" of what an E-2C can cover (assuming good weather conditions): http://i.imgur.com/Zgdyu2Z.jpg It is safe to say that an E-2 can cover a pretty good chunk of Alaska. It's worth noting that an E-3 Sentry requires some 20 people to do what the E-2C does with five!
ATC is one of the many, many missions the E-2C can do. E-2s from VAW-77 performed ATC functions after Hurricane Katrina and vectored several hundred helicopters and small aircraft in the greater NOLA area with zero incidents, and there was no ground-based ATC whatsoever at the time. E-2s provided ATC services after the Indonesian Tsunami of (I think) 2006 and the Japanese earthquake/tsunami a few years ago.
The answer is pretty simple; a greater mass of air (from a big prop) moved at a slower speed transfers more energy to the air; this results in greater thrust at a lower fuel consumption. The trade-off is lower maximum speed, but of all the things an E-2C needs to function correctly, high speed is definitely not one ;). There are several prop-driven planes in the military; the C-130 (which uses very nearly the same engine and prop, coincidentally) is a big one, and there are several small prop planes used in VIP transport and whatnot. And yes, the Navy operates C-130s!
Hawks in nature are well-known for their excellent eye sight; they are known to be able to spot a field mouse from several thousand feet in the air with regular accuracy. I feel the name is quite appropriate.

It's worth noting that with the NP2000, Hawkeyes don't really "hum" any more. You can still hear them, but you can't feel them. Shame. Also, I've never heard of "super fudd" before either; I'm half tempted to either update it to reflect its uniquely early usage, or just delete it. It's verging on irrelevant.-- Hawkeye1893 (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I will add some more questions - Other than propeller is there an easy external physical difference of a E-2D from an E-2C ? From article a Hawkeye 200 has the "eight-bladed propellers as part of the NP2000 program", does not necessarily make the aircraft a E-2D. I have seen with pictures some have an upward projection above the center of the radar-dome - so do not what does this distinguish? Would you say a this time mid 2017 - near all of the US E-2 are Hawkeyes? What year is current projection of when US fleet will be all E-2D ? In addition to folding wings, does the Radardome retract/ change height for storage? thanks in advance Wfoj3 (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Production prediction

"Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye early-warning-and-control aircraft: A total of 65 more aircraft are forecast to be built from 2013 through 2022."^[1] — [1] "Military Aircraft Update: Northrop Grumman E-2". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 175 (39). Aviation Week Intelligence Network: 89. 21 November 2013. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

References

^ "Military Aircraft Update: Northrop F-5/T-38". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 175 (39). Aviation Week Intelligence Network: 89. 21 November 2013.

That is Vague. For how old that was it could represent 2 things- first being the upgrade of most to all E-2C to E-2D standards. . Or it might represent - yes eventually fleet will be all E-2D; and they will be all build new. - What is the total # or E-2 Airframes ever build - not just upgrades Would be nice # to have in article.

Wfoj3 (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

article image

Please consider use a more representative image for this aicraft: a mountain ?? put a carrier please !! thanks for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.115.109 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible cover-up uncovered

The israeli E-2C Hawkeye allegedly sent to the museum is actually a mock-up, because its original example was downed by a syrian S-200 Vega missile. 82.131.133.58 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source please? Otherwise it appears a wishful fantasy. Happy Hannukah! Irondome (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Variants

To complete the variants section does anybody have information on the E-2 flown without radome and pedestal (as shown in the EP-3 episode of JAG)--Petebutt (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you know the full name and season and episode number? - BilCat (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the Grumman C-2 Greyhound - a derivative of the E-2 for Carrier onboard delivery duties?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Patented folding wing?

I suggest that the word patented be dropped from the folding wing description since if first appeared on the F4F-4 in 1941. It was novel then but by the time first E-2 was designed, the patent was long expired, no longer novel and an obvious choice for the E-2 design especially since it was used on the E-1. 66.41.204.4 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

[1] "Military Aircraft Update: Northrop F-5/T-38". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 175 (39). Aviation Week Intelligence Network: 89. 21 November 2013.

[1]