Well, Andrew,
What are you talking about??? I have been in the VQ community for a
great many years, additionally I asked my coworkers
(IFT's/EWOPS/CEVALS,,,LABOPS etc...) about the RC-7,,,nobody ever
heard of it, so obviously the RC7 doesn't even have anything to do
with the same mission as an EP-3, let alone being a replacement for
it. I personally don't give a damn about replacing other services
aircraft,,,just the EP-3. My critical views are based on being in the
program. I can't imagine substituting a "realtime" platform (EP-3) for
basically a "pipeline" like RJ or Guardrail, (SINGCARS
notwithstanding). My point was about CVBG support. Not on the ground
old information (relatively after it has sifted through all the
channels) troop support. The army and airforce should keep that job
and leave CVBG support to the Navy.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:57:34 -0500, Andrew Toppan
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:45 GMT, user wrote:

thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they

Maybe if you don't know what the various aircraft *are*, you shouldn't be so
critical of the plans to replace them.