EP-3 replacement?

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high
value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure
as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary

Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions (RC-12, RC-7,
RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian designs.

So far this has not been an issue, so it seems reasonable for the replacement
to follow the same course.

"So far" is right. That was in the Cold War paradigm. However these
platforms have all taken on a more tactical role than they have had
previously which will put them over or near hot battlefields in the
future. The chances of these aircraft taking rounds is much greater
than it was.
Its interesting to note that the P-3 replacement won't be tasked over
land(according to a recent AW&ST article). The navy expects to use
UCAVs for the job instead.
One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform. Also today's
civil designs are not as over engineered as the Dash-8 was.
On a another note I got a little bit of admittedly apochryphal info
about the DHL Airbus. Apparently the aircraft was in a bank at the
time of impact which may explain why it was hit well outboard on the
wing. Now how true this really is I'm not sure.
From the close up pictures I got in an email it looks like those guys
don't need to ever play the lotto because in getting that aircraft
back to the deck before the outer 25 per cent of the wing burned away,
they used up every bit of the luck they may ever have coming their
way.

On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...

The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane. That's a
trivial quibble so don'yt get locked up on it Andrew.
Whats getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat surviviable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.
I get the impression the the surviviability coommunity has languished
on the back burner for way too long. Maybe their discipline will get
the focus it so sorely deserves: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/
But as far as the ACS goes. The problem of the lack of organic ISR
aboard carriers is well recognized.
• 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).

This really is worth the effort to open and actually read:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
If the EMB-145 is picked, the navy will be saddled with a short legged
fragile platform that, surviviability issues aside, will be a burden
for both the tankers and maintenance. At least with the G-450 it will
be a fragile platform with some modicum of legs.

On 3 Dec 2003 02:34:24 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V

Since the 767 is not a candidate for this mission, I really don't care about
it's capabilities.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 3 Dec 2003 02:34:24 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V

Since the 767 is not a candidate for this mission, I really don't care about
it's capabilities.

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will
both be expected to be over hot battlefields. Considering the vital
importance of their mission, even a semi-capable opponent is likely to
consider expending resources to neutralize them. Putting these faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a real head up the butt idea.
Lest you think that these aircraft will operate in a benign
environment, think again...
"The Army and Navy plan to make the Aerial Common Sensor
multi-intelligence aircraft one of the first assets to reach the
battlefield in the future fight.

ACS, which will replace the Army's Guardrail Common Sensor and
Airborne Reconnaissance Low platforms, will be able to deploy anywhere
in the world in 36 hours — 60 hours ahead of the brigade-level unit of
action, said Lt. Col. Adam Hinsdale, the program's system
synchronization officer.

The system, which will operate off of a commercial jet, is a
corps-level system that will carry a variety of payloads to detect,
classify, accurately locate, track and rapidly disseminate information
to war fighters at all echelons. ACS also will have communications
relay and limited command and control capabilities.

As one of the first systems to the fight, ACS will provide early
intelligence that could help shape the first stages of battle,
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."

On 4 Dec 2003 16:20:13 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will

We're talking about MMA (737 is a candidate), and ACS (biz-jet sized). No
767s in the mix.

--
Andrew Toppan --- --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 4 Dec 2003 16:20:13 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will

We're talking about MMA (737 is a candidate), and ACS (biz-jet sized). No
767s in the mix.

It really doesn't matter since each is designed to FAR Part 25 specs.
Since the 767 is expected to be the biggest player (in terms of money
as much as size)in this trend its worth including in the discusion.
Unless any of these aircraft is modified to reduce their vulnerability
to battle damage, the OP-2E experience will see a tragic reprise.
http://aircommandoman.tripod.com/Nak...TAFB/id16.html

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 4 Dec 2003 16:20:13 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will

We're talking about MMA (737 is a candidate), and ACS (biz-jet sized). No
767s in the mix.

May I also add, it was you who brought up the the RC-135 which in turn
lead to a discussion of the B767...

Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions
(RC-12, RC-7,
RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian
designs.

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...
And with the spelling errors fixed...
The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane.
That's a trivial quibble so don't get locked up on it Andrew.
What's getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat survivable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much doubt the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.
I get the impression the the survivability ommunity has languished
on the back burner for way too long. Maybe their discipline will get
the focus it so sorely deserves: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/
But as far as the ACS goes. The problem of the lack of organic ISR
aboard carriers is well recognized.
• 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).

This really is worth the effort to open and actually read:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
If the EMB-145 is picked, the navy will be saddled with a short legged
fragile platform that, survivability issues aside, will be a burden
for both the tankers and maintenance. At least with the G-450 it will
be a fragile platform with some modicum of legs.

On 12/3/03 4:46 AM, in article
, "s.p.i."
wrote:

Andrew Toppan wrote in message
. ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...
And with the spelling errors fixed...
The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane.
That's a trivial quibble so don't get locked up on it Andrew.
What's getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat survivable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much doubt the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.

1. The 767 may be a bit more fragile (because it is more efficiently
designed) than the 707, and certainly more rugged than the EMB-145, but I
believe it is more survivable against MANPADS threats than either because it
has pod mounted engines on the wings that burn much cooler than the
(original) 707 engines. Plus, having only 2 engines (vice 4) is good (less
SA-7 targets out there to hit). If the EMB-145 takes a missile in the
vicinity of the engines, you likely lose the tail and the jet.

2. Despite my personal lack of faith in Airbus and their automation--which
I've never flown... Just heard about through others, I believe that
fly-by-wire jets handle damage better than their direct hydraulic
counterparts. For instance damaged Hornets fly very well. They don't know
that the pieces are missing. They just try to make the airplane do what the
pilots want.

3. I'd think the major reason NOT to pick the EMB-145 (aside from the fact
that it's NOT a U.S. airplane) would be that it's so payload limited.

--Woody