Re: EA-18G vs ES-3

[Andrew C. Toppan]

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/

[Brian]

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
> How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?

It's planned to be a EA-6B replacement, that is, stand off jamming. What
amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that is in dire
need of replacement.

> the P-3 ASW and the EP-3 SIGINT/ELINT platforms are still our
> best lines of "defense", it is jut that they are not tactical
> platforms that can go with the fleet. I wonder if the V-22,
> should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
> as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
> mission?

I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform for
SIGINT.

[Thomas Schoene]

Brian wrote:
> "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
> ...
>> How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?
>
> It's planned to be a EA-6B replacement, that is, stand off jamming.

Also more stand-in escort jamming and SEAD/strike, though not as much as
originally planned, it looks like.

> What amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that
> is in dire need of replacement.

It's not all the same, by any means. AIUI, big chunks will be replaced; it
may be ALQ-99 in name only when they're done with it.

>> I wonder if the V-22,
>> should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
>> as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
>> mission?
>
> I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform
> for SIGINT.

Indeed. The SIGINT collection task looks to go to UAVs. (the Navy has
swong back and fromth on the MR-UAV and UCAV-N, with the difference being
the degree of loitering reconaisance the platform can do, as opposed to
out-and-back bomb dropping)

A KV-22 tanker is interesting. Depending on the numbers you look at, it may
have rather less gas to pass than a Super Hornet.


--
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)

[Brian]

"R. David Steele" > wrote in message
...
>
> |I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform for
> |SIGINT.
>
> Actually it would do well for the Army and Marines. The Army
> uses the EH-60A with the Quik-Fix (AN/ALQ-151) system. It is
> their main SIGINT system and does countermeasures.

Quickfix is simply a horrible system which is why it's nearly (or is it
completely) gone. Army tactical sigint is still in the 80's.

> The RC-12 Guardrail is another platform based on the Beechcraft
> Super King Air (C-12). It is a SIGINT, ELINT and COMINT
> platform.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/guardrail.htm
>
> Thus I do feel that the V-22 could do either the Quickfix or
> Guardrail missions for the Army.

Could it do it? Sure. Would it be efficient? Probably not. I can't imagine
it's a great platform for sticking all kinds of antennas on and doing orbits
for hours. If they want a manned platform, a EC-2 might be a good idea but
it looks like UAV's will do it couple with (hopefully) more support fom the
EP-3's.

[Brian]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Brian wrote:
> > What amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that
> > is in dire need of replacement.
>
> It's not all the same, by any means. AIUI, big chunks will be replaced;
it
> may be ALQ-99 in name only when they're done with it.

Let's hope so. AOC had a good article on the Growler and indicated it would
be on par with ICAP-III and have a totally new interface. I still think they
need a better jam section.

[Andrew C. Toppan]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:37:20 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?

As a replacement for the EA-6B - a jammer.

> wonder if the V-22,
>should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
>as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
>mission?

I can't see why you would want it for either role. It's not even
remotely the right type of platform.

--
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/

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, R. David
Steele > wrote:

> |> How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?
> |
> |It's planned to be a EA-6B replacement, that is, stand off jamming. What
> |amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that is in dire
> |need of replacement.
> |
> |> the P-3 ASW and the EP-3 SIGINT/ELINT platforms are still our
> |> best lines of "defense", it is jut that they are not tactical
> |> platforms that can go with the fleet. I wonder if the V-22,
> |> should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
> |> as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
> |> mission?
> |
> |I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform for
> |SIGINT.
>
> Actually it would do well for the Army and Marines. The Army
> uses the EH-60A with the Quik-Fix (AN/ALQ-151) system. It is
> their main SIGINT system and does countermeasures.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/eh-60a.htm
> also the advanced version
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/eh-60l.htm
>
> The RC-12 Guardrail is another platform based on the Beechcraft
> Super King Air (C-12). It is a SIGINT, ELINT and COMINT
> platform.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/guardrail.htm
>
> Thus I do feel that the V-22 could do either the Quickfix or
> Guardrail missions for the Army.
>

Probably so, but do understand they are different missions. Quick-Fix is
a reasonably autonomous platform.

Guardrail is a sensor and relay platform which uses a ground processing
facility; which can trasmit processed intelligence to supported units
via the Guardrail relay. Given there isn't a huge need for EW skill
aboard the Guardrail, it's especially attractive for UAV replacement.

[fudog50]

ACS will be replacing the EP-3's by 2015.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:17:31 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Brian wrote:
>> "R. David Steele" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?
>>
>> It's planned to be a EA-6B replacement, that is, stand off jamming.
>
>Also more stand-in escort jamming and SEAD/strike, though not as much as
>originally planned, it looks like.
>
>> What amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that
>> is in dire need of replacement.
>
>It's not all the same, by any means. AIUI, big chunks will be replaced; it
>may be ALQ-99 in name only when they're done with it.
>
>>> I wonder if the V-22,
>>> should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
>>> as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
>>> mission?
>>
>> I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform
>> for SIGINT.
>
>Indeed. The SIGINT collection task looks to go to UAVs. (the Navy has
>swong back and fromth on the MR-UAV and UCAV-N, with the difference being
>the degree of loitering reconaisance the platform can do, as opposed to
>out-and-back bomb dropping)
>
>A KV-22 tanker is interesting. Depending on the numbers you look at, it may
>have rather less gas to pass than a Super Hornet.

[fudog50]

Look at ACS David, it is replacing both guardrail and the ARL for the
Army, and the EP-3 for the Navy.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:22:22 GMT, R. David Steele
> wrote:

>
>|> How is the EA-18G being used, or at least planned for?
>|
>|It's planned to be a EA-6B replacement, that is, stand off jamming. What
>|amazes me is they plan to stick on the same ALQ-99 system that is in dire
>|need of replacement.
>|
>|> the P-3 ASW and the EP-3 SIGINT/ELINT platforms are still our
>|> best lines of "defense", it is jut that they are not tactical
>|> platforms that can go with the fleet. I wonder if the V-22,
>|> should it ever become operational, will be able to function well
>|> as a refueling platform and in the SIGINT/ELINT (tactical)
>|> mission?
>|
>|I doubt it, the V-22 doesn't strike me as a very efficient platform for
>|SIGINT.
>
>Actually it would do well for the Army and Marines. The Army
>uses the EH-60A with the Quik-Fix (AN/ALQ-151) system. It is
>their main SIGINT system and does countermeasures.
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/eh-60a.htm
>also the advanced version
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/eh-60l.htm
>
>The RC-12 Guardrail is another platform based on the Beechcraft
>Super King Air (C-12). It is a SIGINT, ELINT and COMINT
>platform.
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/guardrail.htm
>
>Thus I do feel that the V-22 could do either the Quickfix or
>Guardrail missions for the Army.

[Thomas Schoene]

R. David Steele wrote:
>> Look at ACS David, it is replacing both guardrail and the ARL for the
>> Army, and the EP-3 for the Navy.
>
> Do you mean the Common Support Aircraft (CSA)?

No, this is a ground-based aircraft, not a carrier plane like CSA.


> This is a nice platform that should replace the C-2, C-12, and
> S-3. Has it been announced who will make it?
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/csa.htm

CSA is dead (yor several years). They may not have formally terminated it,
but there's no movement on it, and it does not appear in the Navy's future
aircraft procurement plans.

> Also The KC-X or KC-767 program makes sense. Likewise use the
> 767 (E-767) to replace the E-3 AWACS. There was talk of having a
> P-7 which would be based on the 737 (which is being made into a
> cheaper AWACS the E-737.

P-7 was actually a P-3 development, not a 737. It was shelved sometime in
the 1990s.

The Navy is now looking at a program called the MAritime Multi-Mission
Aircraft. A 737 deriviative is a candidate for that, competing against a
modernized P-3.

--
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)

[Andrew C. Toppan]

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/

[Andrew C. Toppan]

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/

[Andrew C. Toppan]

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/

[D]

----------
In article >, No Spam
> wrote:

> R. David Steele: Rest assured that's definitely NOT your father's
> ALQ-99 getting stuck into the EA-18G.
>
> The new EW systems and capabilities appearing in the EA-18G will be
> vastly superior to the ALQ-99 of the past and present. Yes, some
> ALQ-99 hardware from the EA-6B *is* being carried over (primarily the

Is it going to be possible to use a two-man crew to perform the jamming
mission? Right now the EA-6B has a four-man crew, although I've heard that
they often conduct missions with only three aboard.




D

[Allen Epps]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> ----------
> In article >, No Spam
> > wrote:
>
> > R. David Steele: Rest assured that's definitely NOT your father's
> > ALQ-99 getting stuck into the EA-18G.
> >
> > The new EW systems and capabilities appearing in the EA-18G will be
> > vastly superior to the ALQ-99 of the past and present. Yes, some
> > ALQ-99 hardware from the EA-6B *is* being carried over (primarily the
>
> Is it going to be possible to use a two-man crew to perform the jamming
> mission? Right now the EA-6B has a four-man crew, although I've heard that
> they often conduct missions with only three aboard.
>
>
>
>
> D
Operational missions are never flown with three on board. CQ, and PMCF
yes.
The couple flights I've had in the Growler sim (along with a couple
thousand hours in the Prowler) has proven to me the job can be done
with two folks, particularly if the ICAP III system lives up to the
press releases.
Pugs

[Pechs1]

Not a 'weasel' guy but with today's avionics, I think two guys in a 'bug
weasel' can do the job well. Afterall, the fighter mission can be done in a
single seat fighter.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[MICHAEL OLEARY]

The two seat variant will require the pilot to be more involved in the EA
mission. This can be accomplished since the pilot workload for flying the
aircraft will be significantly less than flying the Prowler. Although, it
really depends upon the mission profile. There may be times when both Pilot
and WSECMO are significantly undertasked and other times where both are
overtasked. The training and experience of the aircrew will make the
difference in the latter scenario. The prioritization of tasks has always
been the key. Also, ECMOs/WSOs will train in the same seat in the aircraft
all the time. This will enhance the training of the individual as well as
the synergistic relations of the CRM between the pilot and Ecmo/Wso. The
final point is that we already bought the plane so we have to make it work.
-Moe

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Not a 'weasel' guy but with today's avionics, I think two guys in a 'bug
> weasel' can do the job well. Afterall, the fighter mission can be done in
> a
> single seat fighter.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
> Phlyer

[M. B.]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> Not a 'weasel' guy but with today's avionics, I think two guys in a 'bug
> weasel' can do the job well. Afterall, the fighter mission can be done in
a
> single seat fighter.
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Some things to consider in this discussion:
1. Current state of the development of the system (the heart of the EA-18
is the ALQ-218) and it's strengths and weaknesses. Test report for EA-6B
ICAP III (ALQ-218 that will eventually end up in the EA-18) is complete and
should be on the streets very soon.
2. Squadron tactics and Airwing SOPs for employment of the EA-18 have yet
to be determined. Will you always deploy EA-18's in section (more
F/A-18-like) or as singles supporting a package or CAS stack (more
EA-6B-like)? Will the EA-18 venture into that "weasel" territory that the
Prowler guys have mostly left to the F-16CJs?
3. Will the PMAs decide to acquire capabilities for the platform strictly
for SEAD/HARM role or will they decide to use the pre-existing capability of
the F/A-18 to employ JSOW (or pick your hard-kill weapon of choice) in a
DEAD role? Will EA aircrew train to that capability?
4. I don't think you can really say the fighter mission is done in a
single-seat fighter. Do F/A-18s ever go out alone on a fighter mission?
What about section integrity? What about sorting? Yeah, sure it's a
single-seat aircraft, but the mission is really accomplished by multiple
aircraft and thus, multiple aircrew right? What about the E-2 or E-3
providing AEW? You could consider them part of the fighter mission, true?
If you're going to counter with "well, US pilots aren't GCI-dependent like
foreign militaries", I invite you to watch what happens sometime when a
Prowler guy turns on the USQ-113 during an AIC.

The bottom line is that the decision to go to a 2-man crew may be right or
may be wrong. I don't know that answer. What I do know is that until the
first pair of OPERATIONAL flyers jumps into that jet and figures out what
they can and can't do, until they go to an Airwing Fallon and find
themselves task-saturated (they'll be doing HARM, A/A self-defense and EA
simultaneously with a 2-man crew) I don't think it's even worth speculating.

Let the hate-mail commence.....

[D]

There is a report in the latest issue of Aviation Week that the USMC is
beginning a study to see if they can use the F-35 STOVL version in the
jammer role, replacing the Prowler. It would be a single seat aircraft.




D

[Andrew C. Toppan]

EA-18G vs ES-3? Huh?????

I hope somebody realizes EA-18G is a replacement for the EA-6B, NOT
the ES-3, which is long gone already.

--
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/

[Pechs1]

MB writes-<< 4. I don't think you can really say the fighter mission is done
in a
single-seat fighter. Do F/A-18s ever go out alone on a fighter mission?
>><BR><BR>

Sure they do. But the original post and discussion was about 2 seat 'E' models
vs more people in another platform, ala the EA-6 or 3. Avionics advances has
reduced the workload and need for a GIB, in fighters. I have always maintained
that a highly manuverable single seat A/C, with good avionics, RHAW gear, can
do the job of a less capable A/C. In fact, it is, ala the F-18 vs the Turkey.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Tiger]

Pechs1 wrote:

>MB writes-<< 4. I don't think you can really say the fighter mission is done
>in a
>single-seat fighter. Do F/A-18s ever go out alone on a fighter mission?
>
>
>>><BR><BR>
>>>
>>>
>
>Sure they do. But the original post and discussion was about 2 seat 'E' models
>vs more people in another platform, ala the EA-6 or 3. Avionics advances has
>reduced the workload and need for a GIB, in fighters. I have always maintained
>that a highly manuverable single seat A/C, with good avionics, RHAW gear, can
>do the job of a less capable A/C. In fact, it is, ala the F-18 vs the Turkey.
>P. C. Chisholm
>CDR, USN(ret.)
>Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
>
>
F/A-18 the Swiss Army knife of airplanes. Whats next the Hornet with the
toothpick?