"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
"sid" wrote in message
m...
After having been excoriated for saying that civil designs such as
those envisioned for the MC2A and ACS have no business over the
battlefield, this article gives me a bit of gratification:

There is quite a gulf between the kind of "battlefield" (or more
specifically "battle environment") that the special operations aircraft have
to operate in and that which the E-10 will be expected to survive. So I am
not really sure what your point here is...?

Brooks


Not nearly as big a gulf as you characterize. ISR assets are now
enmeshed in tactical operations. The days of these aircraft standing
off in benign airspace a la Cold War style are over:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/111803ISR.pdf
• Without early air dominance, many ISR systems could not
have been used to optimal effect.
– Vulnerable manned aircraft like JSTARS & EP-3 operated deep
in Iraqi airspace
– Aerial refueling tankers penetrated to support ISR
– Unmanned vehicles nearly defenseless if attacked

To illustrate further, here are some comments on the expected use the
of the ACS:
http://www.defensenews.com/conferenc...3/2409450.html
....As one of the first systems to the fight, ACS will provide early
intelligence that could help shape the first stages of battle,[LtCol]
Hinsdale said Nov. 18 during a Defense News Media Group conference,
ISR Integration 2003: The Net-Centric Vision, in Arlington, Va.
For instance, it could warn forces if their port of entry has been
compromised "before we put our sons and daughters in harm's way." ...

Since the ACS will be "one of the first systems to the fight" its
axiomatic that air dominance may not be assured when the ACS "arrives
to the fight".

As I mentioned in previous posts, the aircraft in question make fine
civil transports, but shoot at them and you have death traps. They are
designed to withstand component failure;not damage.
Their electrical, avionics, and fuel systems in particular are
exceptionally vulnerable to even slight damage. In order to hold down
costs, these vulenrabilities are not being addressed as they get
shoehorned into military applications. These ain't your granddaddy's
C-135.
Later attempts to back engineer vulnerability improvements into former
transports have proven less than sucessful and expensive. The P-3
comes to mind.

So development of ths AX or whatever may prove a good thing. Also
Boeing and the other civil transport manufacturers now have a viable
commercial reason to harden their aircraft due to the MANPADS threat.