Re: EA-18G vs ES-3

[Thomas Schoene]

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? 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.

The ES-3 was never a replacement for the EA-6. It did ELINT collection
while the EA-6 did jamming and SEAD. The ES-3 disappeared in 1999 thanks to
funding shortages.

> What it that the ES-3, like the EA-6, can not keep with the
> F/A-18 and the F-35? Or is this just a bone to Boeing?

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.

> I assume that the EA-18G will only have a crew of two. But then
> isn't the F/A-18 now being used for refueling along with the S-3?

Soon to be "instead of" the S-3. When more air wings deploy with two Super
Hornet squadrons, the plan is for them not to have any S-3s. Single-seat
Super Hornets do tanker duties.


--
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)

[fudog50]

You really are out of the loop R.David.

The ES-3 did the same job as the EP-3, although much watered
down. Just like the ASW S-3 did the same job as the P-3, and even more
watered down. However, the "Shadow" did have one advantage over the
ARIES II; the APS-137 ISAR for targeting capabilities. But it had
very limited actual "spook" value.

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

2.) The S-3 has been used for 6 years now, and still is the
primary tanker, what are you guys talking about?

3.) Yes, the plan is to start to bring on-line the E/F for
tanker duties, ( I know it's already being done, but S-3's are still
the primary tanker until "sundown" in 2005).

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:50:21 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>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? 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.
>
>The ES-3 was never a replacement for the EA-6. It did ELINT collection
>while the EA-6 did jamming and SEAD. The ES-3 disappeared in 1999 thanks to
>funding shortages.
>
>> What it that the ES-3, like the EA-6, can not keep with the
>> F/A-18 and the F-35? Or is this just a bone to Boeing?
>
>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.
>
>> I assume that the EA-18G will only have a crew of two. But then
>> isn't the F/A-18 now being used for refueling along with the S-3?
>
>Soon to be "instead of" the S-3. When more air wings deploy with two Super
>Hornet squadrons, the plan is for them not to have any S-3s. Single-seat
>Super Hornets do tanker duties.

[Charlie Wolf]

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...

[John R Weiss]

"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)...


> 2.) The S-3 has been used for 6 years now, and still is the
> primary tanker, what are you guys talking about?

The S-3 is a good overhead tanker, and a workable mission tanker, but cannot be
used in an escort tanker role because of its speed limitations. That limitation
means more rendezvous will have to take place for on-station tanking, because
the tanker cannot go with the strike group.

[fudog50]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:58:13 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

Hey John R.,
A valiant effort at trying to discredit what I posted, nice
try.
We can exploit different systems and use them in ways they
were not intended. Part of a skippers fitreps are gauged at how he
develops new and unique tactics, I'm sure you know that already. I
think you are wrong about your insinuation I am not correct in what I
posted. I beleive you need to get in the loop and find out what the
acronyms SIGINT and ELINT really mean, and how the spook community
uses them.
Good on ya for your development of AWG-21/Standard ARM
tactics, pretty cool, but whatever you want to call them, it ain't
SIGINT/ELINT. I only know about the Prowler from my experience as
MMCO, and 3 cruises with Prowlers, we never did any of what the
intelligence community calls SIGINT/ELINT. The ALQ-99 Receivers do a
great job at picking up, analyzing and targeting what has already been
programmed in, but it still ain't SIGINT/ELINT.
I also have been in a Viking squadron (3 cruises) , P-3's (6
deployments) and currently EP-3's. I also did some work with VQ-5's
det (ES-3's) in Misawa in 95.
I didn't think I was out of the loop, but by your definitions,
to you I am, so thanks for enlightning me on those whatever you want
to call them tactics you guys developed 20 years ago. That loop has
been closed for 15 years.
Also what you are saying is I am wrong and that the Growler
will be used for SIGINT/ELINT??? Show us please?

>"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)...
>
>
>> 2.) The S-3 has been used for 6 years now, and still is the
>> primary tanker, what are you guys talking about?
>
>The S-3 is a good overhead tanker, and a workable mission tanker, but cannot be
>used in an escort tanker role because of its speed limitations. That limitation
>means more rendezvous will have to take place for on-station tanking, because
>the tanker cannot go with the strike group.

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:37:14 GMT, fudog50 > wrote:

>The ALQ-99 Receivers do a
>great job at picking up, analyzing and targeting what has already been
>programmed in, but it still ain't SIGINT/ELINT.

I agree that *detecting* and/or locating known radar types is not
SIGINT, but it surely is OPELINT (versus the analysis of singal that
makes up TECHELEINT). Or so I was taught many moons ago.

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).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Chad Irby]

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Thomas Schoene]

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)

[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/

[Thomas Schoene]

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)

[Brian]

"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.

[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.

[John R Weiss]

"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...

[fudog50]

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.

[fudog50]

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.
>

[fudog50]

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...

[fudog50]

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.

[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.

[Charlie Wolf]

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.

[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)

[Ron]

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

Wasnt that the P-6?


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Thomas Schoene]

Ron wrote:
>> P-7 was actually a P-3 development, not a 737. It was shelved
>> sometime in the 1990s.
>>
>
> Wasnt that the P-6?

No.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-7.htm

--
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)

[Ron]

> Wasnt that the P-6?
>
>No.
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-7.htm

I think you are right. I thought I remembered P-6, but I cant find anything
online about it


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Brian]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> > Wasnt that the P-6?
> >
> >No.
> >
> >http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/p-7.htm
>
> I think you are right. I thought I remembered P-6, but I cant find
anything
> online about it

The P-6 was the P-3 replacement called something like LRAACA. It was going
to be the killer ASW/ASuW platform but was cancelled around 1991.

[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/

[Scott]

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)
>
>
>
>

[Thomas Schoene]

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)