EP-3 replacement?

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

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
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.
Good points all Woody, but...
That may well be true when considering just the engines, however even
those high bypass CFMs are sitting out huge amounts of hot air as
well. In the final analysis they may not be cool enough to matter and
numbers may be better. The question I have is, has the analysis ever
been done?
http://www.survice.com/SIPapers/Inte...Assessment.pdf
Of course much about this topic is beyond open source:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/PDF...201%202003.pdf

Also, what about the susceptability to hydraulic ram effects (which
likely ignited the DHL wing)? How about susceptabilty of the
hydraulics, which the DHL lost? As I mentioned in another post, the
latest generation glass cocpit planes are designed to "never" go dark
(civil ones at least). Has the location of bus ties , or no ballistic
protection around E&E bays, or closely collocated cable runs that will
make the airframes such easy pickin's ever been considered.
There is a more fundamental question though. Why MUST the G.I.B.'s be
on the aircraft anyway? I could see why in 1946, or even 1986, but
2006?
You are aware of the initial skepticism towards the 2 man EA-18 and
that by accounts is working out nicely. In this day of UAVs and high
bandwidth do they need to still be there?
A smaller, more manueverable platform would fare much better and the
risk of losing those rare individuals and their sensitve knowledge
should be reduced to the very barest minimum.

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.
The combat survivability of the fly-by-wire systems was a big topic
early on. Rules are built into the logic of your Bugs' guts to deal
with degraded performance:
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/~survive/
How much you wanna bet EADs has no such provisions in their code or
that they or Boeing or Embraer or Gulfstream (actually Honeywell and
Goodrich to name a coupleof the avionic vendors) has even seriously
considered the topic for their civil aircraft?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/23.pdf

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
They plan on getting around the foriegn built conundrum by assembling
the aircraft here and tallying up the US made components. You are so
right about payload and why the Navy wants to get saddled with another
short range platform that is land based is a big question.