EA-18G vs ES-3

"Brian" wrote...

The Prowler's SIGINT capability is nil. There is almost no analysis
capabilty nor does there need to be. Sending info to a *ARM isn't the same
thing as ELINT/SIGINT. Even the shipboard system I worked wasn't considered
a full blown SIGINT/ELINT system without a few add on's and even then it
wasn't a preferred platform. To really do SIGINT/ELINT, you need receivers
that are very sensitive and can measure incredibly minute differences in
signals. The ALQ-99 and other EW platforms can pick out signals but they
don't need the razor accuracy of a ELINT receiver. Take a look at the
equipment that was in the ES-3 and look at the ALQ-99, they are completely
different systems. When the Navy gave up the ES-3, they gave up tactical
airborne ELINT.

I never claimed that the Prowler had a capability equivalent to the ES-3, EP-3,
or EA-3. I firmly believe that such dedicated ESM systems are needed. However,
your counterclaim that the Prowler's SIGINT/ELINT capability is "nil" shows you
do not know the system's full capability, and/or you do not appreciate the time
sensitivity of tactical ESM.

You don't always need a "full blown" system or a "preferred platform."
Sometimes you only need a capable platform with an operator that knows what he's
doing. I've worked with more than a few EA-6B ECMOs who knew how to wring a few
extra data points out of the ALQ-99...

Once in a while, you only had to have a capable system and a lucky operator...
We were flying around one day with an AWG-21 and a STARM on board, and picked up
a signal that shouldn't have been where it was. Turned out to be a Bear coming
from an unexpected direction, and we were the first ones to detect it. Other
sensors picked it up well after we reported back to the ship...

Good one Chad! LOL

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:27:24 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp wrote:

It's the difference between - "oh, there's an SA-6 radar over there"
(OPELINT) and "What the hell's this signal? Better record the pulse
shape, prf and so on for analysis" (TECHELEINT).

Not to mention the much more common Direct Radiation Yoke Emission
Recording/Locating Intel, or DRYERLINT.

Exactly Brian, thanks.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:09:52 -0500, "Brian"
wrote:


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:9f6%b.408640$na.796343@attbi_s04...
"fudog50" wrote...
You really are out of the loop R.David.

1.) The Prowler was never a a SIGINT/ELINT platform and never
will be, nor will the "Growler".

Maybe you are the one out of the loop... The Prowler has significant
SIGINT/ELINT capabilities, even though it is not a "dedicated" SIGINT
platform.
When I was flying Standard ARM equipped A-6s in the early 80s, we worked
closely
with the Prowlers to develop tactical capabilities in those regimes. Even
the
AWG-21 system in the A-6 had some SIGINT/ELINT capability (better with the
missile seeker)...

The Prowler's SIGINT capability is nil. There is almost no analysis
capabilty nor does there need to be. Sending info to a *ARM isn't the same
thing as ELINT/SIGINT. Even the shipboard system I worked wasn't considered
a full blown SIGINT/ELINT system without a few add on's and even then it
wasn't a preferred platform. To really do SIGINT/ELINT, you need receivers
that are very sensitive and can measure incredibly minute differences in
signals. The ALQ-99 and other EW platforms can pick out signals but they
don't need the razor accuracy of a ELINT receiver. Take a look at the
equipment that was in the ES-3 and look at the ALQ-99, they are completely
different systems. When the Navy gave up the ES-3, they gave up tactical
airborne ELINT.

Nice tap dancing there John R.
It's all good, can we move on?

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:41:02 GMT, "John R Weiss"
wrote:

"Brian" wrote...

The Prowler's SIGINT capability is nil. There is almost no analysis
capabilty nor does there need to be. Sending info to a *ARM isn't the same
thing as ELINT/SIGINT. Even the shipboard system I worked wasn't considered
a full blown SIGINT/ELINT system without a few add on's and even then it
wasn't a preferred platform. To really do SIGINT/ELINT, you need receivers
that are very sensitive and can measure incredibly minute differences in
signals. The ALQ-99 and other EW platforms can pick out signals but they
don't need the razor accuracy of a ELINT receiver. Take a look at the
equipment that was in the ES-3 and look at the ALQ-99, they are completely
different systems. When the Navy gave up the ES-3, they gave up tactical
airborne ELINT.

I never claimed that the Prowler had a capability equivalent to the ES-3, EP-3,
or EA-3. I firmly believe that such dedicated ESM systems are needed. However,
your counterclaim that the Prowler's SIGINT/ELINT capability is "nil" shows you
do not know the system's full capability, and/or you do not appreciate the time
sensitivity of tactical ESM.

You don't always need a "full blown" system or a "preferred platform."
Sometimes you only need a capable platform with an operator that knows what he's
doing. I've worked with more than a few EA-6B ECMOs who knew how to wring a few
extra data points out of the ALQ-99...

Once in a while, you only had to have a capable system and a lucky operator...
We were flying around one day with an AWG-21 and a STARM on board, and picked up
a signal that shouldn't have been where it was. Turned out to be a Bear coming
from an unexpected direction, and we were the first ones to detect it. Other
sensors picked it up well after we reported back to the ship...

See, here is what currently happens there, I'm sure you knew this but
are forgetting Thomas?

The tanker does not fly with the strike package. The S-3's launch
first then go to a designated rendevouz point All the talk about
tanker speed is irrelevant. Then "most" of the time the airforce
tankers are at their designated hookup points on the way in to the
box right before the push, then on the way out. On the way home, the
S-3's are waiting to give a last drink if needed before and during
recovery ops.

Which A/C in the package launch last? The Prowlers! They have the most
fuel onboard. S-3's, then the E-2's, then Hornets ( the F-18's head
straight for the tanker), then Tomcats and last, Prowlers. Of course
planeguard is already out there, and maybe if in range, the COD will
launch.

Of course this will change slightly with the Rhino's, I haven't done a
cruise with the E/F's onboard yet, but I will be making Lincoln's next
cruise.

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:00 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Thomas Schoene wrote:
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.



And reading the rest of the thread, I think I was probably confusing my
terms. I think "escort tanker" is what I should have been saying here.

Thank you - you put it much better than I could have...
Regards,

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 17:11:25 GMT, fudog50 wrote:

See, here is what currently happens there, I'm sure you knew this but
are forgetting Thomas?

The tanker does not fly with the strike package. The S-3's launch
first then go to a designated rendevouz point All the talk about
tanker speed is irrelevant. Then "most" of the time the airforce
tankers are at their designated hookup points on the way in to the
box right before the push, then on the way out. On the way home, the
S-3's are waiting to give a last drink if needed before and during
recovery ops.

Which A/C in the package launch last? The Prowlers! They have the most
fuel onboard. S-3's, then the E-2's, then Hornets ( the F-18's head
straight for the tanker), then Tomcats and last, Prowlers. Of course
planeguard is already out there, and maybe if in range, the COD will
launch.

Of course this will change slightly with the Rhino's, I haven't done a
cruise with the E/F's onboard yet, but I will be making Lincoln's next
cruise.

Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:14:00 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Thomas Schoene wrote:
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.



And reading the rest of the thread, I think I was probably confusing my
terms. I think "escort tanker" is what I should have been saying here.

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)