AC-130 Replacement Contemplated

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
FYI, I stopped going to your sources shortly after determining that you were
twisting the position of the Lexington Institute in regards to the viability
of using commercial airframes in roles such as ACS and E-10.

Never, not once, have you cited any references, at least I've offered
up SOMETHING to supoort my case. You say I twisted what Lexington
Institute has to say. You are completely wrong.
In the ISR lessons learned, Dr. Thompson was addressing ISR as it
stood this summer in light of recent experiences. You've ignored the
"lessons unlearned" part quite well.
In the ACS paper, of the two platforms, he very much sided against the
EMB(and I couldn't agree with him more), but he figures cost will be
the driver in the program which means the EMB may well end up the
choice. He never stated an opinion one way or the other about using
civil airframes.
Ditto for the paper on the E-10. As a matter of fact, he is stressing
the importance of fielding the radar and not really even broaching
what airframe(more on theat later) it will be on. Those two papers had
a very narrow focus. You are putting more into them than they offer.
At least I've cited references, most of which are .mil. When are you
going to back up your "facts" with anything other than your derisive
retorts?

Please point to the "special engineering" that sets an AFSOC CN 235/295
apart from one of those Gulfstreams.

As one whose day job involves aviation safety and aircraft
engineering, I can say a whole lot about this....but I won't bore you.
In a nutshell, what the CN-235 has going for it is its very
simplicity. Also its relatively clandestine use-its not emitting, nor
loitering for long periods on station like the ACS and E-10
will-certainly helps in reducing its suceptability as well.
I knew some SOF types when I lived near Hurlburt some years ago, and
they hated that airplane by the way. In their words, "What a piece of
crap". IIRC there is talk of replacing them...but I won't twist
anything for you.
Not much is written about the AX yet, but I'll wager a bet that it
certainly will benefit from survivability analysis and engineering.
Wanna put some cash on it?

Fact is they are very vulnerable platforms that are being considered
for vital missions and that potential adversaries are building weapons
to field against.

Big jump from that Russian firm "slowly" pursuing a very long range AAM
program to "are building".

The Novator AAM is in slow development. The S-300 S-400 are no joke
systems. Its explicitly stated they are intended to be employed
against AWACS. No twisting from me here Kevin. Read it for yourself...
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s400triumph.htm
"While the Triumph[S-400] SAM system is capable of firing older 48N6E
missiles, it will use a brand new missile currently in final stages of
development. This new missile would feature a combination of
semi-active/active homing, an effective range of up to 400km and it
will be capable of hitting new-generation air-to-surface missiles and
AWACS aircraft."

Look, we are NOT sending them into contested airspace, OK? Period.
There is that strange "OP-2E's" you keep ranting about... And again, we are
not going to send these assets in against "undue risk".

Some guys whose remains finally made it home to Arlington recently
were certainly ordered into contested airspace in their ISR
assets...Even in the face of "undue risk". The job had to get done.
Thats what war-real war-is about Kevin.

You seem to be suffering from a fairly bad bout of "Victory Disease"
Kevin, this may help you get over it:
http://www.army.mil/prof_writing/vol...03/9_03_5.html

That some AF units seem to be exempt from the possibility of taking
enemy fire has been a long term inherent cultural issue apparently.
I'm not the only one to say it either:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...jun/cahoon.htm

You didn't bother to read this I presume...Go ahead. Learn something
new Kevin. Its an old paper, but pertinent to the debate.

C-17 drivers just recently went through combat certification for the
first time. The question begs, why weren't they treated as warfighters
all along?

Meaningless. ACS and E-10 are not airlifters. Airlifters may indeed have to
drop down into a MANPADS/AAA threat environment to perform their
mission--ACS and the E-10 do not.

Whats not meaningless is the fact...yes Fact...the AF was caught off
guard about the need to consider the C-17 a warplane and its operators
warfighters. From AvWeek Jan.5'04:
"The C-130 community has had a weapons instructor course (WIC) for
many years. But no one expected the C-17 force to [come] under fire
very often...."

Judging from what was written in 1983 all the way to what was written
in 2004, the AF has a relatively poor track record at figuring out
which of their assets may be getting shot at down the road.

Quick! Call the Pentagon and tell them you have discovered the flaw in the
plans that so many professionals have been developing for decades now!

From whats written below its a topic of offical debate, but mostly
classified apparently...As it should be. My guess is that the
Budgeteering and Powerpointing Prowess is most important in
acquisitions right now. Suriviablity analysis is not getting the
attention it needs.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/SIGINTWP.pdf
"ADA Susceptibility: GR/CS and ARL susceptibility to SA 10 and SA 12
threats was
the cornerstone of the argument to eliminate them from the system.
While it is true that they are susceptible to the threats, they are no
less so than many of the retained systems. Rivet Joint,EP3, ES3, all
retained by the study, fly at altitudes similar to Army systems. Their
survivability will require stand-off as well. GR/CS normally flies in
the same vicinity as JSTARS and AWACS, two targets an enemy would
likely pursue with more vigor than an RC12. Discussions
made it clear that the entire air campaign was not considered in the
analysis. In fact, constraints of the ADA threat were not uniformly
applied. Had it been so, many other platforms would have to become
HAPs as well (JSTARS, AWACS)."

I don't know where you get these ideas, but the E-8 JSTARS surveillance
range reportedly reaches out to around 250 km--SA-10/12 manage what, maybe
90 km?

Since I'm sure you didn't open up the link on the S-400 , here is what
it says:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
S-300PMU1 S-300MU2 S-400
Range, km (max) 150 200 400
Altitude, km (max) 25-27 25+ 25+
Altitude, km (min) 10 10 10

So why were they concerned. Obviously the longer range threat had not
been rendered below the "undue threat" threshold.

That is not what the evidence indicates. In fact, were any longer range
systems used to engage the KC's? Nope--the threat was ameliorated.

We know that after the fact. With tankers going "forward". , maybe its
time they need some WICs as well. And why stop there include the ISR
folks as well.

As an FYI the whole point about the E-10 could well be moot:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/02094wna.xml

My beef is that these airframes represent easy kills and the COTS
culture is ignoring the problem. The threat to them while airborne
isn't there today, but some guys who mean us ill will are working hard
on that problem. Easy kills on the tarmac are another issue as well
and certainly possible today. A few bits of shrapnel and its Buh-Bye
shiny new 767-400. An airframe that can be expected to take a measured
amount of battle damage is a necessity for ALL military aircraft. The
problem is, in order to save costs, this analysis is not getting done.
It'll cost lives down the road too, just like past times when
vulnerability issues were ignored.
What the DOD and the manufacturers should do is subject these
airframes to some rigourous survivability analysis. To digress a bit,
the MMA is expected to retain the low level recce and sub attack
mission, so the MMA really needs the benefit of such analysis as well.
Modify FAR PART 125 and MIL-STD-1530A damage tolerance standards to
include the spectre of the MANPADS threat, and spread the total costs
over civil and military production alike.

I'm off the soapbox.

And, oh yes, I DO know what the "L" in ARL means...

sid

"sid" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

rant snipped


Look, we are NOT sending them into contested airspace, OK? Period.
There is that strange "OP-2E's" you keep ranting about... And again, we
are
not going to send these assets in against "undue risk".

Some guys whose remains finally made it home to Arlington recently
were certainly ordered into contested airspace in their ISR
assets...Even in the face of "undue risk". The job had to get done.
Thats what war-real war-is about Kevin.

Are you talking about the DASH-7 ARL that punched into a freakin'
mountainside? Geeze, just what kind of damage tolerance are you demanding?

snip


I don't know where you get these ideas, but the E-8 JSTARS surveillance
range reportedly reaches out to around 250 km--SA-10/12 manage what,
maybe
90 km?

Since I'm sure you didn't open up the link on the S-400 , here is what
it says:
http://www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm
KEY CHARACTERISTICS
S-300PMU1 S-300MU2 S-400
Range, km (max) 150 200 400
Altitude, km (max) 25-27 25+ 25+
Altitude, km (min) 10 10 10

Uhmmm...isn't S-400 the ABM derivitive? Which explains it longer
range--against targets waaay upstairs in their radar horizon at that range?
As to the others....250 km is greater than either of them. Now, how often
are you going to see those systems up near the FLOT? That's right--pretty
much never. Talk about being an ATACMS magnet...

snip

My beef is that these airframes represent easy kills and the COTS
culture is ignoring the problem. The threat to them while airborne
isn't there today, but some guys who mean us ill will are working hard
on that problem. Easy kills on the tarmac are another issue as well
and certainly possible today. A few bits of shrapnel and its Buh-Bye
shiny new 767-400. An airframe that can be expected to take a measured
amount of battle damage is a necessity for ALL military aircraft.

Oh, gee whiz, what about those C-40's? And those aircraft specified to go
into low threat areas? I guess you would discount the future use of CRAF
assets as well, right? What with all of those nasty super long range
AAM's...oops, that's right, they are just ghostware.

snip


And, oh yes, I DO know what the "L" in ARL means...

I don't think you do, from the angle of your rants. It does NOT mean "low
altitude", nor does it mean "low chance of surviving its mission".

Brooks


sid