EA-18G vs ES-3

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.

Please note - I'm a former AW - not a driver, but I think I have my
basic facts correct.
Regards,

snipped...

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)

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.


--
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)

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)

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:37:08 GMT, R. David Steele
wrote:

I have been out of the loop for a while. Hope that you folks
might bring me up to speed. What happened to the ES-3?

It was retired 9 years ago.

At the
time it looked like it could do the SIGINT/ELINT mission as it
had room for the gear plus a crew of four. Made it a good
replacement for the EA-6.

Not at all. EA-6B is not a SIGINT/ELINT platform, it is a combat
jammer. *Completely* different missions.

--
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/