world of aviation logo

RAAF Growler in Nellis engine fire incident “beyond economic repair”

written by WOFA | August 20, 2018

A file image of the damaged RAAF Growler. (Barry Ambrose)
A file image of the damaged RAAF Growler. (Barry Ambrose)

The RAAF EA-18G Growler which experienced an engine fire on takeoff from Nellis AFB in January has been officially deemed “beyond economic repair and has been withdrawn from service”, Defence has confirmed.

In an August 13 statement to the ABC, a Defence spokesman said, “The investigation into the EA-18G Growler aircraft incident at Nellis Air Force Base has been completed and was provided to the Chief of Air Force on 30 July 2018. A review of the recommendations is underway.”

The aircraft, serial A46-311, was taking off from Nellis AFB on January 28 for a familiarisation flight in preparation for Exercise Red Flag 18-1 when it suffered a catastrophic engine failure. The two crew members stayed with the aircraft until it came to rest between Nellis’s eastern runway and a parallel taxiway, and were able to exit the jet and get clear of the growing fire.

It is understood that, had the failure happened a couple of seconds later, the aircraft would have been committed to the takeoff and the crew would probably have had to eject over the desert north of the base.

“The highly-trained aircrew responded to the emergency situation and performed a ground evacuation,” a Defence spokesman said on February 27.

“The Directorate of Defence Aviation and Air Force Safety (DDAAFS) Accident Investigation Team (AIT), working in cooperation with the United States Navy, have carried out engineering inspections that indicate the most likely cause is an engine component failure.”

Sources say that a high-pressure compressor disk of the right-hand engine suffered a catastrophic uncontained failure. The turbine disk broke into three major pieces and these were ejected from the aircraft, with one destroying the right-hand vertical stabiliser, another considerably damaging the left engine, and the third damaging the runway.


It is unclear whether the RAAF will look to replace the aircraft, or whether it will be considered part of an acceptable rate of attrition which would have been a factor when the original order for 12 Boeing-built EA-18Gs was placed.

As to the possibility of compensation for the component failure leading to the loss of a near-new jet which had less than 200 hours on it, Defence would only say that it “is exploring options for the recovery of economic losses resulting from the incident.”

This is likely to be a process which will primarily involve government-to-government negotiations through the US Navy as the foreign military sales (FMS) parent service, rather than with Boeing as the prime contractor or General Electric as the engine manufacturer.

photo – Barry Ambrose


  • TSV


    Surely that’s covered under warranty!

  • Mick C


    Warranty for Equipment that can be sent to war?

  • raymond wilmont


    If i had a new car i expect to be covered by warranty but multi million dollar jet aircraft when it failed on american soil give us a new one for free

  • Bill Hart


    Hey guys, it is called attrition. These machines do not come with a warranty, once delivered they are used till defunct! De Havilland were not obliged to give the Royal Navy two replacement Sea Vixens for the two I had to jump out of, I’m just grateful that Martin Baker provided them with good seats!

  • TwinTiger


    Yes. Its now in the “parts bin”

  • Ray E


    Still a useful airframe – target practice for A-10 strafing runs!

  • Michael


    Why not bring it back to Australia for a museum display?

Comments are closed.


Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year