EP-3 replacement?

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/

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...

The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane. That's a
trivial quibble so don'yt get locked up on it Andrew.
Whats getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat surviviable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.
I get the impression the the surviviability coommunity has languished
on the back burner for way too long. Maybe their discipline will get
the focus it so sorely deserves: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/
But as far as the ACS goes. The problem of the lack of organic ISR
aboard carriers is well recognized.
• Precise, persistent ISR from a mix of space and
airborne systems is a must:
– Future airborne ISR will consist of a mix of manned (e.g.,
JSTARS) and unmanned systems
– Manned ISR systems will be predominantly land-based and will
reach the battlefield using airborne refueling
– Today's unmanned ISR systems are a combination of short (e.g.,
Predator) and long (e.g., Global Hawk) range systems.
– If the Navy is to provoke strike capability with minimal land-based
support, it will need sea-based ISR Unmanned Air Vehicle
(UAVs).

This really is worth the effort to open and actually read:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
If the EMB-145 is picked, the navy will be saddled with a short legged
fragile platform that, surviviability issues aside, will be a burden
for both the tankers and maintenance. At least with the G-450 it will
be a fragile platform with some modicum of legs.

Andrew Toppan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...
And with the spelling errors fixed...
The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane.
That's a trivial quibble so don't get locked up on it Andrew.
What's getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat survivable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much doubt the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.
I get the impression the the survivability ommunity has languished
on the back burner for way too long. Maybe their discipline will get
the focus it so sorely deserves: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/
But as far as the ACS goes. The problem of the lack of organic ISR
aboard carriers is well recognized.
• Precise, persistent ISR from a mix of space and
airborne systems is a must:
– Future airborne ISR will consist of a mix of manned (e.g.,
JSTARS) and unmanned systems
– Manned ISR systems will be predominantly land-based and will
reach the battlefield using airborne refueling
– Today's unmanned ISR systems are a combination of short (e.g.,
Predator) and long (e.g., Global Hawk) range systems.
– If the Navy is to provoke strike capability with minimal land-based
support, it will need sea-based ISR Unmanned Air Vehicle
(UAVs).

This really is worth the effort to open and actually read:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf
If the EMB-145 is picked, the navy will be saddled with a short legged
fragile platform that, survivability issues aside, will be a burden
for both the tankers and maintenance. At least with the G-450 it will
be a fragile platform with some modicum of legs.

On 12/3/03 4:46 AM, in article
, "s.p.i."
wrote:

Andrew Toppan wrote in message
. ..
On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform.

But it's darn close to the C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8/707, which certainly is...
And with the spelling errors fixed...
The basic 707 was the progeny of the Dash-80 as well. I will give you
that. However the differences between the 707 and C-135 are so
significant you can't really consider them the same airplane.
That's a trivial quibble so don't get locked up on it Andrew.
What's getting missed here is the fact that the 707 and C-135 are much
closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V
and EMB-145 for that matter). Putting the newer civil designs as faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a recipe for disaster down the road. They
are simply not your Granddaddy's civil designs.
Now that the MANPAD threat is really real, things may well change
since it now makes commercial sense to make large civil transports at
least somewhat survivable to battle damage. Good thing that was a
Jurrasic 'bus that took the hit. Confronted with a big piece of wing
missing, I very much doubt the notoriously enigmatic flight logic in the
newer ones would have performed very well with a quarter of the wing
gone.

1. The 767 may be a bit more fragile (because it is more efficiently
designed) than the 707, and certainly more rugged than the EMB-145, but I
believe it is more survivable against MANPADS threats than either because it
has pod mounted engines on the wings that burn much cooler than the
(original) 707 engines. Plus, having only 2 engines (vice 4) is good (less
SA-7 targets out there to hit). If the EMB-145 takes a missile in the
vicinity of the engines, you likely lose the tail and the jet.

2. Despite my personal lack of faith in Airbus and their automation--which
I've never flown... Just heard about through others, I believe that
fly-by-wire jets handle damage better than their direct hydraulic
counterparts. For instance damaged Hornets fly very well. They don't know
that the pieces are missing. They just try to make the airplane do what the
pilots want.

3. I'd think the major reason NOT to pick the EMB-145 (aside from the fact
that it's NOT a U.S. airplane) would be that it's so payload limited.

--Woody

On 3 Dec 2003 02:34:24 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V

Since the 767 is not a candidate for this mission, I really don't care about
it's capabilities.

--
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 3 Dec 2003 02:34:24 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

closer to the B-17 in terms of toughness than the 767 is (and the G-V

Since the 767 is not a candidate for this mission, I really don't care about
it's capabilities.

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will
both be expected to be over hot battlefields. Considering the vital
importance of their mission, even a semi-capable opponent is likely to
consider expending resources to neutralize them. Putting these faux
warbirds in Harm's Way is a real head up the butt idea.
Lest you think that these aircraft will operate in a benign
environment, think again...
"The Army and Navy plan to make the Aerial Common Sensor
multi-intelligence aircraft one of the first assets to reach the
battlefield in the future fight.

ACS, which will replace the Army's Guardrail Common Sensor and
Airborne Reconnaissance Low platforms, will be able to deploy anywhere
in the world in 36 hours — 60 hours ahead of the brigade-level unit of
action, said Lt. Col. Adam Hinsdale, the program's system
synchronization officer.

The system, which will operate off of a commercial jet, is a
corps-level system that will carry a variety of payloads to detect,
classify, accurately locate, track and rapidly disseminate information
to war fighters at all echelons. ACS also will have communications
relay and limited command and control capabilities.

As one of the first systems to the fight, ACS will provide early
intelligence that could help shape the first stages of battle,
Hinsdale said Nov. 18 during a Defense News Media Group conference,
ISR Integration 2003: The Net-Centric Vision, in Arlington, Va.

For instance, it could warn forces if their port of entry has been
compromised "before we put our sons and daughters in harm's way."

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
1. The 767 may be a bit more fragile (because it is more efficiently
designed) than the 707, and certainly more rugged than the EMB-145, but I
believe it is more survivable against MANPADS threats than either because it
has pod mounted engines on the wings that burn much cooler than the
(original) 707 engines. Plus, having only 2 engines (vice 4) is good (less
SA-7 targets out there to hit). If the EMB-145 takes a missile in the
vicinity of the engines, you likely lose the tail and the jet.
Good points all Woody, but...
That may well be true when considering just the engines, however even
those high bypass CFMs are sitting out huge amounts of hot air as
well. In the final analysis they may not be cool enough to matter and
numbers may be better. The question I have is, has the analysis ever
been done?
http://www.survice.com/SIPapers/Inte...Assessment.pdf
Of course much about this topic is beyond open source:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/PDF...201%202003.pdf

Also, what about the susceptability to hydraulic ram effects (which
likely ignited the DHL wing)? How about susceptabilty of the
hydraulics, which the DHL lost? As I mentioned in another post, the
latest generation glass cocpit planes are designed to "never" go dark
(civil ones at least). Has the location of bus ties , or no ballistic
protection around E&E bays, or closely collocated cable runs that will
make the airframes such easy pickin's ever been considered.
There is a more fundamental question though. Why MUST the G.I.B.'s be
on the aircraft anyway? I could see why in 1946, or even 1986, but
2006?
You are aware of the initial skepticism towards the 2 man EA-18 and
that by accounts is working out nicely. In this day of UAVs and high
bandwidth do they need to still be there?
A smaller, more manueverable platform would fare much better and the
risk of losing those rare individuals and their sensitve knowledge
should be reduced to the very barest minimum.

2. Despite my personal lack of faith in Airbus and their automation--which
I've never flown... Just heard about through others, I believe that
fly-by-wire jets handle damage better than their direct hydraulic
counterparts. For instance damaged Hornets fly very well. They don't know
that the pieces are missing. They just try to make the airplane do what the
pilots want.
The combat survivability of the fly-by-wire systems was a big topic
early on. Rules are built into the logic of your Bugs' guts to deal
with degraded performance:
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/~survive/
How much you wanna bet EADs has no such provisions in their code or
that they or Boeing or Embraer or Gulfstream (actually Honeywell and
Goodrich to name a coupleof the avionic vendors) has even seriously
considered the topic for their civil aircraft?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/23.pdf

3. I'd think the major reason NOT to pick the EMB-145 (aside from the fact
that it's NOT a U.S. airplane) would be that it's so payload limited.

--Woody
They plan on getting around the foriegn built conundrum by assembling
the aircraft here and tallying up the US made components. You are so
right about payload and why the Navy wants to get saddled with another
short range platform that is land based is a big question.

On 4 Dec 2003 16:20:13 -0800, (s.p.i.) wrote:

Whatever Andrew. The MC2A-which is expected on a B767-and ACS will

We're talking about MMA (737 is a candidate), and ACS (biz-jet sized). No
767s in the mix.

--
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/

One point overlooked that I feel very strongly about.....
A lot has been surmised about the roles of UAV's in the future....
We have a whole society and culture of aircrew out there that would be
out of a job...at the same time keeping in mind the danger and the
volunteer nature of being an aircrewman. At some point, we have to
realize why we put ourselves "in harms way",,,,its fun goddammmitt!!!
C'mon, we drive racecars,,motorcycles,,,dive,,boats,,,fly GA lanceair
320's,,etc...you get the point. Human Nature is to get the adreneline
flowing, (my best adreneline highs have been on the 5 flight decks I
worked on). I sincerely hope we NEVER go the route of having robots
and UAV's performing all the dangerous stuff. Calculated risk is a fun
thing. OBTW, a pilot is a very highly respected career and looked up
upon by the majority of the public. Increasingly, a pilot on Comm Air
Jets, especially Airbus are losing their pilot skills and becoming
more "systems managers". C'mon, lets get real, we can afford this and
its time to put a stop to this engineer motivated desire of
automation. Sure we have the technology to take humans out of the
loop, but whats wrong with people having fun and enjoying life??? Ask
any Pilot: Do you want to be known as a Pilot,,,or an "airborne
systems management specialist"??? That gives a lot for our younger
generation to aspire to....

On 4 Dec 2003 17:50:52 -0800, (s.p.i.)
wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
1. The 767 may be a bit more fragile (because it is more efficiently
designed) than the 707, and certainly more rugged than the EMB-145, but I
believe it is more survivable against MANPADS threats than either because it
has pod mounted engines on the wings that burn much cooler than the
(original) 707 engines. Plus, having only 2 engines (vice 4) is good (less
SA-7 targets out there to hit). If the EMB-145 takes a missile in the
vicinity of the engines, you likely lose the tail and the jet.
Good points all Woody, but...
That may well be true when considering just the engines, however even
those high bypass CFMs are sitting out huge amounts of hot air as
well. In the final analysis they may not be cool enough to matter and
numbers may be better. The question I have is, has the analysis ever
been done?
http://www.survice.com/SIPapers/Inte...Assessment.pdf
Of course much about this topic is beyond open source:
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/PDF...201%202003.pdf

Also, what about the susceptability to hydraulic ram effects (which
likely ignited the DHL wing)? How about susceptabilty of the
hydraulics, which the DHL lost? As I mentioned in another post, the
latest generation glass cocpit planes are designed to "never" go dark
(civil ones at least). Has the location of bus ties , or no ballistic
protection around E&E bays, or closely collocated cable runs that will
make the airframes such easy pickin's ever been considered.
There is a more fundamental question though. Why MUST the G.I.B.'s be
on the aircraft anyway? I could see why in 1946, or even 1986, but
2006?
You are aware of the initial skepticism towards the 2 man EA-18 and
that by accounts is working out nicely. In this day of UAVs and high
bandwidth do they need to still be there?
A smaller, more manueverable platform would fare much better and the
risk of losing those rare individuals and their sensitve knowledge
should be reduced to the very barest minimum.

2. Despite my personal lack of faith in Airbus and their automation--which
I've never flown... Just heard about through others, I believe that
fly-by-wire jets handle damage better than their direct hydraulic
counterparts. For instance damaged Hornets fly very well. They don't know
that the pieces are missing. They just try to make the airplane do what the
pilots want.
The combat survivability of the fly-by-wire systems was a big topic
early on. Rules are built into the logic of your Bugs' guts to deal
with degraded performance:
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/~survive/
How much you wanna bet EADs has no such provisions in their code or
that they or Boeing or Embraer or Gulfstream (actually Honeywell and
Goodrich to name a coupleof the avionic vendors) has even seriously
considered the topic for their civil aircraft?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/aircraft/23.pdf

3. I'd think the major reason NOT to pick the EMB-145 (aside from the fact
that it's NOT a U.S. airplane) would be that it's so payload limited.

--Woody
They plan on getting around the foriegn built conundrum by assembling
the aircraft here and tallying up the US made components. You are so
right about payload and why the Navy wants to get saddled with another
short range platform that is land based is a big question.

user wrote in message . ..
One point overlooked that I feel very strongly about.....
A lot has been surmised about the roles of UAV's in the future....
We have a whole society and culture of aircrew out there that would be
out of a job...at the same time keeping in mind the danger and the
volunteer nature...
So by this logic it would be best to get naked, paint yourself blue,
and go on the attack with a spear...Those old Celts were REAL
Warriors!!