"Bernhard Rohrer" wrote in message ...
Hi

how do people rate the Embraer military models EMB 145 AEW&C and the EMB 145
RS/AGS? I know the formar uses the Erieye radar so it should be quite good.
how do the hold up to NATO stuff?

thanks

Bernhard

Yet again, shortsighted, budget-driven PowerPointing is taking
precedence over some hard learned lessons of war. Now its true the
DHC-7s have done the Army well in Columbia , but how well will these
civil airframes fare against a credible air defense? Again, I bring up
the OP-2E story for reference:
http://home.att.net/~c.jeppeson/igloo_white.html

Bottom line is civil airframes are not built to take rounds. Will the
EMB145 version of the "JungleJet" be reengineered to have critical
components physically separated so one round will have less of a
chance to make the aircraft immediately unflyable? How about
self-sealing fuel tanks? How well with this airframe hold up in
continued ops from an austere field? Will it have the legs to get to
the fight?

When the ISR model was developed after WWII it made sense to have a
large crew to collect and evaluate the data. With all the advancements
in the last half century do we still need these valuable people and
their sensitive knowledge OVER the battlefield in a vulnerable
aircraft? Or is this being done just because thats the way its always
been done?

Specific to the EMB-145. It has matured into an excellent piece of
equipment for low density routes on mid length city pairs. Since its
early FADEC issues have been fixed its been a fairly good little
airliner. Two complaints usually heard about are that its notorious
lack of legs compared to what Embraer has advertised, and its relative
fragility maintenance wise(this latter common to all of EMB's
products). Regarding the austere field issue that will be a real
problem. Each model introduced so far has never had the range that has
been advertised. All in all in a civil operation it works. The same
won't be true if pressed into a military role.

So if the EMB is fielded as the Navy's ISR platform as well as for the
Army's ACS then expect more of an impact on an already too thin tanker
force. Also specific to the Navy is the clear need for carrier borne
ISR assets and selection of this platform would further detract from
that effort. This is not my trollish idea; its the Defense Science
Board's:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
• Precise, persistent ISR from a mix of space and
airborne systems is a must:
– Future airborne ISR will consist of a mix of manned (e.g.,
JSTARS) and unmanned systems
– Manned ISR systems will be predominantly land-based and will
reach the battlefield using airborne refueling
– Today's unmanned ISR systems are a combination of short (e.g.,
Predator) and long (e.g., Global Hawk) range systems.
– If the Navy is to provoke strike capability with minimal land-based
support, it will need sea-based ISR Unmanned Air Vehicle
(UAVs).


So while the EMB may work well looking for squatters in the Amazon,
its usefulness as a US ISR platform is questionable. Expect trouble
getting the aircraft to the flight. Expect a low mission capability
rate from austere fields. Expect battle losses from what should have
been relatively minor battle damage.