EA-18G vs ES-3

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:05:08 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Do you mean the Common Support Aircraft (CSA)? I was doing some

No, he means ACS, which is exactly what he said...a replacement for
the Army and Navy SIGINT platforms.

CSA has been dead for years.

--
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/

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:47:16 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

Any sources on the ACS (what does that stand for)?

Do a web search on "ACS, EP-3E" and you'll find it.

It does look
like the 767 will be the future for the AWACS, refueling and
other missions.

Your point being????

However, we do need a replacement for the C-2 and the C-12 (and
their variants) as well as the S-3. The CSA is a good idea.

C-2 will likely be replaced by a new C-2. The production line still
exists for E-2C Hawkeye 2000.

C-12 is nothing but a small commercial turboprop and can be replaced
by another such aircraft.

S-3 is being retired without replacement.

--
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/

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 03:29:06 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

What is interesting is that the mindset now is joint platforms.
I do not know how that came into being but it is about time.

Aside from fighters, I don't think things are that much more "joint"
than they were in the past. A lot of the logistics types have been
used by multiple services for years (C-130, 707 variants, C-135
variants, C-20, C-9); even combat aircraft such as the A-7 for
decades, and going back to WWII, even bombers such as B-25.

JSF, if it works out, will be a "first" in the realm of joint
fighters.

--
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/

Actually, what you are referring to is called a 'Wet Wing tanker' like the
old KA-6 that could fly with the strike package. S-3B do indeed mission
tank on a regular basis, usually at a fixed point in space or 'dragging' the
fighters toward an objective but never once the strike package has begun
their route.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
ink.net...
Charlie Wolf wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:50:21 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

R. David Steele wrote:
snipped...
The S-3 is even slower than the EA-6. That's why they weren't able
to use the S-3 as a mission tanker for strike fighters like the
F/A-18.
Where did you get that from? S-3's have been tanking Lawn Darts since
the RAG stood up at Cecil Field in the early 90's. S-3 has a dash
speed of 450 kts. It can easily do 400 kts straight and level. That
is way above tanking speed.

Right. That's why I said *mission* tanker. AIUI, the S-3 was fine for
tanking around the carrier, but did not have the speed to keep pace with a
strike package en-route to the target area.

--
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)

Scott wrote:
Actually, what you are referring to is called a 'Wet Wing tanker'
like the old KA-6 that could fly with the strike package. S-3B do
indeed mission tank on a regular basis, usually at a fixed point in
space or 'dragging' the fighters toward an objective but never once
the strike package has begun their route.

Well, I'll admit I've gotten quite an education in tanker ops overt the last
couple of days. Thanks guys.

--
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)