The Prowler is living proof that an aircraft does not have to be a stealthy, super high tech (and mega $$) aircraft like the Raptor to perform brilliantly.
The Navy is going in the wrong direction entirely by trying to replace this aircraft with a version of the Hornet. Crew will be reduced by 50% and the process will have to be automated considerably to accomodate the loss of crew.
Considering the age of the Prowler and it's electronics systems, that should not be a problem. The EF-111, which had the same mission and used some of the same equipment, only had a two man crew. If the A-6 had been upgraded with new wing and engines, (a version of the Hornet's engines IIRC) as planned, the Prowler would have benefited from that as well. As is, the Prowler likely is much more maintenance intensive than the Growler (EF-18) which will replace it.
The really sick thing was pulling the EF-111 out of service and NOT replacing it with a more modern airframe. We'd have a bunch more platforms out there jamming the IEDs if the Air Force also had a dedicated jamming platform.
The Navy is going in the wrong direction entirely by trying to replace this aircraft with a version of the Hornet. Crew will be reduced by 50% and the process will have to be automated considerably to accomodate the loss of crew.
You got it - Cost savings for the sake of "theoretical" cost savings is a dangerous game...and is/will cost us lives.
The Prowler (EAB6) should have been upgraded based off itself - Just as the 14's (Cat's) should have - We've made the 18's a jack of all trades but not expectational at anything....(and the cost savings aren't what they were all suppose to be to boot....for universal equipment replacement).