A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

EP-3 replacement?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 3rd 03, 10:34 AM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #3  
Old December 5th 03, 12:20 AM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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."
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AC-130 Replacement Contemplated sid Military Aviation 29 February 10th 04 10:15 PM
Magneto/comm interference on TKM MX-R Narco 120 replacement Eugene Wendland Home Built 5 January 13th 04 02:17 PM
Canada to order replacement for the Sea King Ed Majden Military Aviation 3 December 18th 03 07:02 PM
Narco MK 16 replacement SoulReaver714 Aviation Marketplace 1 September 23rd 03 04:38 PM
Hellfire Replacement Eric Moore Military Aviation 6 July 2nd 03 02:22 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.