"sid" wrote in message
om...
"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.

Yes, but again, their exposure is an order of magnitude less than that
experienced by MC-130's and AC-130's.

The days of these aircraft standing
off in benign airspace a la Cold War style are over:
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/111803ISR.pdf

SOF platforms like the Combat Talon and Spectre operate in airspace that is
much more dangerous than that experienced by the E-8 or ARL-M's.

. Without early air dominance, many ISR systems could not
have been used to optimal effect.

Combat Talons operate in an environment that does not require "air
dominance". The AC-130's have to operate down within the MANPADS envelope to
be very effective (which is why they operate almost exclusively at
night--the last one to try daylight operations got picked off by a SAM
during ODS). When was the last time you heard of an ARL-M or E-8 doing
either?

- Vulnerable manned aircraft like JSTARS & EP-3 operated deep
in Iraqi airspace

AFAIK, the E-8 remained outside the SAM threat envelope. Not sure what the
operating altitude was for the Aries, but I'd be surprised if they ever
ventured down into the MANPADS range or within the engagement circle of
larger Iraqi SAM's.

- Aerial refueling tankers penetrated to support ISR

I know of one report of a KC-135 going *towards* Baghdad at one point, but
did it enter within range of the surviving Iraqi AD assets? Doubt it.

- 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." ...

Obviously to be done using oblique imaging or UAV's reporting to the
aircraft--you don't think they intend to conduct overflights of an enemy
possessing an decent IADS, do you?


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".

In which case it had either be very stealthy or use long range
sensors/UAV's; otherwise it will be meat for an IADS.


As I mentioned in previous posts, the aircraft in question make fine
civil transports, but shoot at them and you have death traps.

No, you have to *hit* them in order to make them a "deathtrap". How many
KC-135's, KC-10's, E-8's, EP-3's, or ARL-M's have been hit during combat
operations to date? None. How many have even been shot *at*? Again, AFAIK,
none.

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.

Since they are not going into the hot part of the bad guy's threat envelope,
why do they need to be survivable in terms of enemy weapons effects?

Later attempts to back engineer vulnerability improvements into former
transports have proven less than sucessful and expensive. The P-3
comes to mind.

None of which have been lost due to combat operations, IIRC.


So development of ths AX or whatever may prove a good thing.

Since the SOF platforms operate in an entirely different threat environment,
I fail to see the connection to programs like ACS. Remember that the ACS
platform will be one of the current flock of business jets (Gulfstream and
Bombadier being major competititors for that role right now). The E-10 is
going to use a 767 platform. Now why do you think you know something about
the unsuitability of these systems that the combined brain power of the
USAF, USN, and US Army don't?

Brooks

Also
Boeing and the other civil transport manufacturers now have a viable
commercial reason to harden their aircraft due to the MANPADS threat.