New Queer? for the fleet, EF-18G

Good comments Pugs,
However my kind of smart ass remarks about the 60-400Hz range had
nothing to do with lo-band jammers in the lower MHz range, maybe you
missed that, sorry.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , fudog50
wrote:

The ranges in the cascades and olympics maybe??? Also, the
ALQ-99 support??? CVWP maybe??? You mentioned a "whole lot of other
reasons", which there are many. I think the biggest competition on the
west coast would be Lemoore of course, but I've heard about the noise
complaints and lack of hangar space there. Yes, there are noise issues
in Whidbey, I had to sign sort of a waiver when I bought my house
there 10 years ago that I knew I was in a certain noise area.. But I
know from experience here at the Lake and up at Whidbey, that the
400's are quieter than those 408 A/B's. It all depends which
politico's go for it the most I suppose.
I only hope from a logistics standpoint that they decide to
base it on both coasts. As a prior Prowler MMCO, it is very painful
and expensive to move 5 jets and 155 personnel plus all the support
items necessary cross country every deck cert, TESTA 1/2, TESTA 3/4,
COMPTUEX and JTFEX, just like the Tomcat guys have to do going east to
west. And very expensive.


I think AlQ-99 support is pretty small potatos in the cost issue. None
of this will happen quickly so NUW will be around for awhile. I think
the issue will come down to training airspace. The Oly, Okanoagan and
Roosevelt MOA's and the Darrington Special Use airspace are simply not
available elswhere not to mention the IR and VR routes. If they don't
get used we will lose then and getting them back won't be an option.
The airspace at Fallon, Lemore, W-72, Key Weird and such are pretty
saturated let alone buildings, noise and all the other issues.

With regard to EMI and your comment about low band pods VAQ-35 did, in
fact, have two A/B band pods which went down into the low 200 MHZ range
and up to 1090MHZ IIRC. They were FIWC (aka FEWSG aka FTRG) assets and
were 0-3G limited and flared landings only. They were built on a low
band 99 pod and canoe and externally looked like every other low band
pod.

Pugs

Pechs,
About a month ago I raised the same issue in here and it was so rudely
(maybe not accurately) pointed out to me that the 'Rhino's are already
performing that role and had gone through DT/OT and everything using
that mission. I hadn't seen it yet, and talking to my shipmates here
in the Vampires, they hadn't used this profile yet. The S-3 is a
goner, (2005) no plans for long term tanker use, sadly. To me, this
will make our reliance on AF tankers more prevalent. We lose some of
our sef-sufficiency for sure, not sure what the trade-offs of having
Rhinos play tanker. I'm sure there still has to be something in the
air for every recovery, for blue water ops and that dreaded sip of
petrol before rigging the barricade.

But On 31 Dec 2003 14:49:19 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

many- EF-18G built and flying? According to who? BRBR

But what about tankers? What do current airwings, populated by a bunch of
'Bugs' use? Refueling packages on the wings of other Bugs??

Is the S-3 gone as a tanker?

Is there any plan to convert some of these to permanent KS-3s(A good idea,
IMO)?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

In article , fudog50
wrote:

Good comments Pugs,
However my kind of smart ass remarks about the 60-400Hz range had
nothing to do with lo-band jammers in the lower MHz range, maybe you
missed that, sorry.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:

foo,
Sorry brain addled by work, I added an M to the Hz and synapses long
dormant snapped to life recalling the halceon days of doing the FIWC
thing before I registered sarcasm.
I just saw my my "Tan, Drink, Fly" patch from VAQ-35 with an
embroidered Prowler front end with fishing rods, skies and golf bags
stuffed in the back. I was in 35 for 19 months before going TAR as the
squadron was closing down and in that time went on 27 detachments. Got
a hell of a lot more flight time than most of the fleet Prowler guys in
the 93 timeframe. I had four months in a row with more than 60 hours a
month, of course I was also the Scheds "O" We had 11 airframes (2
were dead birds) and maint could often get 6 flyable with five crews in
the squadorn. Everyone was second tour Prowlers at least until the
women and a couple other guys came aboard so tons of experience and a
bunch of good folks.
Pugs

Noise complaints here at Lemoore? Who would be making those complaints? The cows?

fudog50 wrote in message . ..
The ranges in the cascades and olympics maybe??? Also, the
ALQ-99 support??? CVWP maybe??? You mentioned a "whole lot of other
reasons", which there are many. I think the biggest competition on the
west coast would be Lemoore of course, but I've heard about the noise
complaints and lack of hangar space there. Yes, there are noise issues
in Whidbey, I had to sign sort of a waiver when I bought my house
there 10 years ago that I knew I was in a certain noise area.. But I
know from experience here at the Lake and up at Whidbey, that the
400's are quieter than those 408 A/B's. It all depends which
politico's go for it the most I suppose.
I only hope from a logistics standpoint that they decide to
base it on both coasts. As a prior Prowler MMCO, it is very painful
and expensive to move 5 jets and 155 personnel plus all the support
items necessary cross country every deck cert, TESTA 1/2, TESTA 3/4,
COMPTUEX and JTFEX, just like the Tomcat guys have to do going east to
west. And very expensive.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:45:34 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Andrew Toppan
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:31:01 -0800, "Yofuri" wrote:

Old news; already built and flying. Looking for a job?

EF-18G built and flying? According to who? The Navy apparently doesn't think
so, or they wouldn't have awarded a large contract to develop the aircraft.

F/A-18E/F is "built and flying". EF-18G has been under discussion and
preliminary development for some time, so the contract is no surprise.

--
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/

The F airframe has been fitted and flown with the the ALQ-99 pods which
will used as exiting as GFE or Government Furnished Equipment for the
project. The ESM pods on the wingtips have been flown and have gone
through extensive integration work. The simulator and avionics
integration work has been going on for at least 7 years as I flew the
sim in St Louis back in the 96 timeframe. It's evolved nicely and I
flew the more recent verion on a roadshow at Andrews last year. All in
all Boeing/Mcair as put a lot of their own money into this project
over the last little bit knowing the Navy would figure out the Prowler
was going to die much quicker than the projected. I would regard the
technology as low risk, the question will be more who gives up a slot
for E/F production if the Navy decides they want the airframes sooner
than 09.
The next issue is why keep them at Whidbey (except for airspace and
whole lot of other reasons not the least of which is Elk hunting and
steelhead fishing) ;^

Pugs

On 12/31/03 8:49 AM, in article
, "Pechs1"
wrote:

many- EF-18G built and flying? According to who? BRBR

But what about tankers? What do current airwings, populated by a bunch of
'Bugs' use? Refueling packages on the wings of other Bugs??

Is the S-3 gone as a tanker?

Is there any plan to convert some of these to permanent KS-3s(A good idea,
IMO)?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Soon gone.

F/A-18E/F will be the only tanker left. Scary.

On 12/31/03 9:54 AM, in article , "Mike
Kanze" wrote:

Back in the early 1970s when the Prowler was hitting the fleet, the question
in FITRON Ready Rooms was, "How much gas can it give?"

Plus ça change!

It was an O-level mod to plumb the Prowler for a buddy store. One of our
CPO's at The Lake was proposing it to the fleet as the Intruder was
retiring, but the proposal didn't make it far.

The community stiff-armed it because the jet only had so many stations for
pylons and you either carry pods or tanks. With the (then and current)
Prowler shortage, ALQ-99 seemed more important.

--Woody

On 12/31/03 1:56 PM, in article ,
"Andrew Toppan" wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003 14:49:19 GMT, (Pechs1) wrote:

Is the S-3 gone as a tanker?

That's basically all the S-3 does now.

Until it is retired without replacement sometime in the next few years.

Is there any plan to convert some of these to permanent KS-3s(A good idea,

No.

--
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/


What's the replacement for the S-3? CSA got cancelled years ago.

Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote:

What's the replacement for the S-3? CSA got cancelled years ago.

For ASW, MH-60Rs and prayer, mainly. For everything else, land-based air
and the Super Bug.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

fudog50 wrote:

Unsat J,
Thanks to O.J for pasting the link, (which says absolutely
nothing about the questions I asked), so go "JEEZ" yourself for cryin
out loud! Do you even know what DT/OT and IOC are? I'll leave it at
that.

I can guarantee you he does. I can also guarantee you that you are
displaying your own ignorance by asking:

Any details on the contract? How about the SOW? I'd be interested to
see it, along with the milestones and when DT/OT/IOC is supposed to
take place.

when the source was clearly identified as a newspaper article. I've
been playing around the DoD world, either in the military or working
for them via a beltway bandit, since 1961 and I've *never* seen
information about a contract's SOW, milestones, DT/OT/IOC, etc.,
published in a newspaper article. Or in a website article. Or in a
magazine article. I generally see snippets of info on that sort of
thing in the presentations put out by the Program Office's or
Manufacturer/Prime Contractor's Power Point Rangers.

Maybe you want to try an FOI request with DoN for the info you are
seeking.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

Yeah, what's the Fleet coming to when VFA guys return from the first combat
deployment of their latest and greatest killing machine and brag about what
a great tanker it is...

"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/03 8:49 AM, in article
, "Pechs1"
wrote:

many- EF-18G built and flying? According to who? BRBR

But what about tankers? What do current airwings, populated by a bunch
of
'Bugs' use? Refueling packages on the wings of other Bugs??

Is the S-3 gone as a tanker?

Is there any plan to convert some of these to permanent KS-3s(A good
idea,
IMO)?
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Soon gone.

F/A-18E/F will be the only tanker left. Scary.