E-2D and Maritime Security

[mike]

E-2D and Maritime Security
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf

[hcobb]

On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
> E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf

Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
One.

Pity the Brits don't get this.

-HJC

[David E. Powell]

On May 28, 10:44*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>
> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
> One.
>
> Pity the Brits don't get this.
>
> -HJC

Japan has used E-2s I believe.

[Don Harstad]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
...
On May 28, 10:44 pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>
> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
> One.
>
> Pity the Brits don't get this.
>
> -HJC

Japan has used E-2s I believe.


The French fly them from a carrier. Taiwan flies them in a land-based mode.
Israel used to fly them.

Don H.

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval hcobb twisted the electrons to say:
> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
> One.

Two ...

> Pity the Brits don't get this.

Oh I think you find the RN gets this completely ... Hence why it's had
AEW / ASAC aircraft since 1982. It's just that the current government
would ordinarily prefer to spend the $$$ on moreschoolsandhospitals(TM)
and ATM wants to keep it's head down because the people are being
"nasty" to it!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[guy]

On 29 May, 03:44, hcobb > wrote:
> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>
> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
> One.
>
> Pity the Brits don't get this.
>
> -HJC

Er, except for a brief interlude (late 70s early 80s) the RN has had
AWACS since just after WW2

Guy

[Robert Sveinson]

"guy" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 May, 03:44, hcobb > wrote:
>> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>
>> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>>
>> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
>> One.
>>
>> Pity the Brits don't get this.
>>
>> -HJC
>
> Er, except for a brief interlude (late 70s early 80s) the RN has had
> AWACS since just after WW2
>
> Guy

I seem to remember that in late 1944, or early
1945 the RAF were developing,
an AWACS type of system, so that
the bombers could go deep into Germany.

[LIBERATOR[_3_]]

On May 28, 8:28*pm, Mike > wrote:
> E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf

Amazing photo and profiling but isn't this all better done from a
satellite? The plane has a limited duration of being airborne.

Or is having a plane known with it all the disguise that they are
already using a satellite with it?

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "guy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 29 May, 03:44, hcobb > wrote:
>>> On May 28, 7:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>>>
>>> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>>>
>>> Navies of the world which have the ships to operate such aircraft:
>>> One.
>>>
>>> Pity the Brits don't get this.
>>>
>>> -HJC
>>
>> Er, except for a brief interlude (late 70s early 80s) the RN has had
>> AWACS since just after WW2
>>
>> Guy
>
> I seem to remember that in late 1944, or early
> 1945 the RAF were developing,
> an AWACS type of system, so that
> the bombers could go deep into Germany.

Some testing was done with a modified Wellington but
it never entered service. The first AEW aircraft to enter
squadron service was the AEW Avenger. The RN used
the AEW Skyraider equipped with the APS-20 radar
which was in turn superseded by the Fairey Gannet.

The responsibility for AEW remained with the RN until the
retirement of the Fleet carriers and Gannet in the early 1970's

The first operational RAF AEW unit was 8 Squadron equipped
with Shackletons equipped with the now rather elderly APS-20
radars in 1972.

Keith

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Sveinson" > wrote in message
> ...

>> I seem to remember that in late 1944, or early
>> 1945 the RAF were developing,
>> an AWACS type of system, so that
>> the bombers could go deep into Germany.
>
> Some testing was done with a modified Wellington but
> it never entered service.

The outline is as follows,

The idea of Air Control of Interception was proposed by
Watson-Watt in August 1941, the idea being as a control
for fighters intercepting Fw200 over the Atlantic.

The Telecommunications Research Establishment modified
Wellington R1629 with a rotating Yagi dipole antenna, 9
inch PPI, high powered transmitter and an ASV II radar.
Trials in 1942 and 1943 were quite successful, the system
was dismantled in April 1943.

There is a 3 page article on the system by Lawrence Hayward in
the spring 2004 edition of Aviation World.

With the use of He111s flying over the North Sea at low level
to launch V-1s against the UK the ACI/AWACS was revived
as operation Vapour.

This time ASV VI was the radar, trials and some operational
sorties were done in January 1945. Sea returns provided the
usual low altitude range problem, at higher altitudes aircraft were
detected at 14 miles range. Just as the system was being put
into operation the Luftwaffe effectively ceased He111 V-1
operations. The only interceptions made were of allied
aircraft.

The plan was to convert the Wellingtons of 407 squadron
into airborne control, with the step after that to use B-24s
for round the clock coverage.

It was fun if you were in the Mosquito XXX, to stay with
the Wellington, you flew with flaps and undercarriage down,
at low altitude.

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/rcaf/exag0306.html

See The History of Air Intercept Radar and the British
Nightfighter by Ian White and Diver! Diver! Diver! by Brian
Cull and Bruce Lander

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 29 May 2009 23:01:24 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

Fascinating story; thanks!!!!! :-)

[Aurelius]

Mike pisze:
> E-2D and Maritime Security
> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf

Well, this plane carries APY-9 brand-new phased-array radar which is
capable to guide new Standard SM-3 and SM-6 missiles. Therefore it can
revolutionarize maritime combat to some degree, in my view!

[hcobb]

On May 28, 10:18 pm, "Don Harstad" > wrote:
> Japan has used E-2s I believe.
>
> The French fly them from a carrier. Taiwan flies them in a land-based mode.
> Israel used to fly them.
>
> Don H.

Japan has not used them from carriers and the next Frog carrier (to
match the E-2D timeframe) won't be able to.

Plans for a half dozen Nip carriers would bring Chinese pressure on
North Korea faster than you can say "Kim Impossible".

-HJC

[hcobb]

On May 29, 3:26 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
> On May 28, 8:28 pm, Mike > wrote:
>
> > E-2D and Maritime Securityhttp://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/857.pdf
>
> Amazing photo and profiling but isn't this all better done from a
> satellite? The plane has a limited duration of being airborne.

If you have full carriers you can send Super Hornet tankers up to
refuel them.

-HJC

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval hcobb twisted the electrons to say:
> Japan has not used them from carriers and the next Frog carrier (to
> match the E-2D timeframe) won't be able to.

Seeing as how the French haven't decided if they're going to get a second
carrier yet[1] how can you be so sure that said carrier when/if it turns
up will not be compatiable with the E-2?

[1] <http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL0635303320080506> or <http://tinyurl.com/ln9yyt>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[hcobb]

On May 30, 6:31 am, Alistair Gunn > wrote:
> In sci.military.naval hcobb twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Japan has not used them from carriers and the next Frog carrier (to
> > match the E-2D timeframe) won't be able to.
>
> Seeing as how the French haven't decided if they're going to get a second
> carrier yet[1] how can you be so sure that said carrier when/if it turns
> up will not be compatiable with the E-2?

Even better. Zero carriers equals zero capability.

-HJC

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article4183255.ece
President Sarkozy ditches Franco-British carrier project

[Alistair Gunn]

In sci.military.naval hcobb twisted the electrons to say:
> Even better. Zero carriers equals zero capability.

Except that they already have a carrier with E-2 capability, thus
indicating greater than zero capability ...

> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article4183255.ece
> President Sarkozy ditches Franco-British carrier project

That article predates mine, he may have ditched the idea of an
Anglo-French carrier project (wise idea for both sides IMHO) back in June
2008 but he has not, of May 2009, decided whether there will be a 2nd
carrier ... Do try and keep up!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...