EP-3 replacement?

I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With
all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early
retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest???

Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails
and RC7's.


"user" wrote in message
...
I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With
all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early
retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest???

Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream?
EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the **** are they
thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they
aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has
their **** in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me
on what RC7 is??? Thanks...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith"
wrote:

Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails
and RC7's.


"user" wrote in message
.. .
I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With
all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early
retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest???

user wrote in message . ..
Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream?
EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the **** are they
thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they
aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has
their **** in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me
on what RC7 is??? Thanks...

A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high
value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure
as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary
that will be able to seriously threaten these aircraft and there may
well be a day this mission may not get performed bwecause the threat
to the aircraft is simply too high.
In this day of UCAVs and bandwidth, why must the high value operators
be onboard? I gues they will evolve into UAV wranglers.
A stealthy robust unmanned sensor platform that sends data remotely
would make more sense. Something that could land on the boat would
make some sense too.

RC-7 info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avbtsv2.html
It still amazes me somebody seriously thought that keeping them in
their very 70's burnt orange airline livery was keeping them "low
profile". Hmm, if I were to see a large turboprop with an American
flag and some weird white bulges on the ramp in BOG, I wouldn't be
suspicious of its purpose since its painted like an airliner... Now
that was the stupidest thing I ever saw.




On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith"
wrote:

Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails
and RC7's.


"user" wrote in message
.. .
I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With
all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early
retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest???

user wrote in message . ..
Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream?
EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the **** are they
thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they
aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has
their **** in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me
on what RC7 is??? Thanks...

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith"
wrote:

Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails
and RC7's.


"user" wrote in message
.. .
I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With
all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early
retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest???



Correction to my last.. the Gulfstream entry is a G-450. I still
question the whole concept of using either airframe, but I'd sure as
hell pick the G-450. Inability to live up to range promises has
plagued every EMB-145 variant fielded so far. I doudt things would get
better when you start sticking stuff all over the outside.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:45 GMT, user wrote:

thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they

Maybe if you don't know what the various aircraft *are*, you shouldn't be so
critical of the plans to replace them.

--
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 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high
value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure
as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary

Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions (RC-12, RC-7,
RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian designs.

So far this has not been an issue, so it seems reasonable for the replacement
to follow the same course.

--
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/

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high
value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure
as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary

Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions (RC-12, RC-7,
RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian designs.

So far this has not been an issue, so it seems reasonable for the replacement
to follow the same course.

"So far" is right. That was in the Cold War paradigm. However these
platforms have all taken on a more tactical role than they have had
previously which will put them over or near hot battlefields in the
future. The chances of these aircraft taking rounds is much greater
than it was.
Its interesting to note that the P-3 replacement won't be tasked over
land(according to a recent AW&ST article). The navy expects to use
UCAVs for the job instead.
One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform. Also today's
civil designs are not as over engineered as the Dash-8 was.
On a another note I got a little bit of admittedly apochryphal info
about the DHL Airbus. Apparently the aircraft was in a bank at the
time of impact which may explain why it was hit well outboard on the
wing. Now how true this really is I'm not sure.
From the close up pictures I got in an email it looks like those guys
don't need to ever play the lotto because in getting that aircraft
back to the deck before the outer 25 per cent of the wing burned away,
they used up every bit of the luck they may ever have coming their
way.

Well, Andrew,
What are you talking about??? I have been in the VQ community for a
great many years, additionally I asked my coworkers
(IFT's/EWOPS/CEVALS,,,LABOPS etc...) about the RC-7,,,nobody ever
heard of it, so obviously the RC7 doesn't even have anything to do
with the same mission as an EP-3, let alone being a replacement for
it. I personally don't give a damn about replacing other services
aircraft,,,just the EP-3. My critical views are based on being in the
program. I can't imagine substituting a "realtime" platform (EP-3) for
basically a "pipeline" like RJ or Guardrail, (SINGCARS
notwithstanding). My point was about CVBG support. Not on the ground
old information (relatively after it has sifted through all the
channels) troop support. The army and airforce should keep that job
and leave CVBG support to the Navy.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:57:34 -0500, Andrew Toppan
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:45 GMT, user wrote:

thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept
fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know
what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they

Maybe if you don't know what the various aircraft *are*, you shouldn't be so
critical of the plans to replace them.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:37:42 GMT, user wrote:

Well, Andrew,
What are you talking about??? I have been in the VQ community for a
great many years, additionally I asked my coworkers
(IFT's/EWOPS/CEVALS,,,LABOPS etc...) about the RC-7,,,nobody ever
heard of it, so obviously the RC7 doesn't even have anything to do

It does not surprise me that Navy (VQ) people would not know about an Army
platform.

with the same mission as an EP-3, let alone being a replacement for
it.

Nobody said it would be.

I personally don't give a damn about replacing other services
aircraft,,,just the EP-3. My critical views are based on being in the

Fortunately, other people take a broader view of these topics, and make
decisions accordingly.

--
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/