EA-18G vs ES-3

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/

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/

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/

----------
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

In article . net,
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

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

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

"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.....

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

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/