AirTalk.org Aviation discussions newsgroups   Archives   FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  EP-3 replacement? Goto page 1, 2  Next          AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Naval Aviation View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message user Guest Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:05 am    Post subject: EP-3 replacement? I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest??? Back to top Michael Smith Guest Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 11:16 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails and RC7's. "user" <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote Quote: I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest??? Back to top user Guest Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:25 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream? EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the fuck are they thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has their shit in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me on what RC7 is??? Thanks... On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith" <Mystic.Mike (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails and RC7's. "user" <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:adp5sv89b08u9s6bt8nm9c0ciils2tb03q (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest??? Back to top s.p.i. Guest Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:31 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? user <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream? EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the fuck are they thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has their shit in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me on what RC7 is??? Thanks... A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary that will be able to seriously threaten these aircraft and there may well be a day this mission may not get performed bwecause the threat to the aircraft is simply too high. In this day of UCAVs and bandwidth, why must the high value operators be onboard? I gues they will evolve into UAV wranglers. A stealthy robust unmanned sensor platform that sends data remotely would make more sense. Something that could land on the boat would make some sense too. RC-7 info: http://www.vectorsite.net/avbtsv2.html It still amazes me somebody seriously thought that keeping them in their very 70's burnt orange airline livery was keeping them "low profile". Hmm, if I were to see a large turboprop with an American flag and some weird white bulges on the ramp in BOG, I wouldn't be suspicious of its purpose since its painted like an airliner... Now that was the stupidest thing I ever saw. Quote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith" [email]Mystic.Mike (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email]> wrote: Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails and RC7's. "user" <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:adp5sv89b08u9s6bt8nm9c0ciils2tb03q (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest??? Back to top s.p.i. Guest Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 10:46 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? user <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote Quote: Right,,,,,and what platform is gonna replace Guardrail??? Gulfstream? EMB-190??? This will go to the top on my "what the fuck are they thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they aren't going away anytime soon. That program is fully funded and has their shit in one sock. Too bad the Navy can't do the same. Enliven me on what RC7 is??? Thanks... On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 23:16:33 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Smith" [email]Mystic.Mike (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com[/email]> wrote: Merged with US Army's Airborne Common Sensor Programme to replace Guardrails and RC7's. "user" <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in message news:adp5sv89b08u9s6bt8nm9c0ciils2tb03q (AT) 4ax (DOT) com... I've heard lotsa talk about MMA for the mother P-3 rplacement. With all the FLE issues affecting the airframe and an early retirement,,,what about the EP-3 repalcement? Whats the latest??? Correction to my last.. the Gulfstream entry is a G-450. I still question the whole concept of using either airframe, but I'd sure as hell pick the G-450. Inability to live up to range promises has plagued every EMB-145 variant fielded so far. I doudt things would get better when you start sticking stuff all over the outside. Back to top Andrew Toppan Guest Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:45 GMT, user <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they Maybe if you don't know what the various aircraft *are*, you shouldn't be so critical of the plans to replace them. -- Andrew Toppan --- [email]actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net[/email] --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ Back to top Andrew Toppan Guest Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2003 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (s.p.i.) wrote: Quote: A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions (RC-12, RC-7, RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian designs. So far this has not been an issue, so it seems reasonable for the replacement to follow the same course. -- Andrew Toppan --- [email]actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net[/email] --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ Back to top s.p.i. Guest Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:20 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? Andrew Toppan <actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net> wrote Quote: On 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (s.p.i.) wrote: A G-V or EMB-145. I still question the wisdon of putting such high value mission on airframes that are well designed to withstand failure as opposed to damage. Eventually we will run up against an adversary Remember, *all* the aircraft performing these various missions (RC-12, RC-7, RC-135, EP-3) are based on (if not converted directly from) civilian designs. So far this has not been an issue, so it seems reasonable for the replacement to follow the same course. "So far" is right. That was in the Cold War paradigm. However these platforms have all taken on a more tactical role than they have had previously which will put them over or near hot battlefields in the future. The chances of these aircraft taking rounds is much greater than it was. Its interesting to note that the P-3 replacement won't be tasked over land(according to a recent AW&ST article). The navy expects to use UCAVs for the job instead. One small quibble, the C-135 never was a civil platform. Also today's civil designs are not as over engineered as the Dash-8 was. On a another note I got a little bit of admittedly apochryphal info about the DHL Airbus. Apparently the aircraft was in a bank at the time of impact which may explain why it was hit well outboard on the wing. Now how true this really is I'm not sure. From the close up pictures I got in an email it looks like those guys don't need to ever play the lotto because in getting that aircraft back to the deck before the outer 25 per cent of the wing burned away, they used up every bit of the luck they may ever have coming their way. Back to top user Guest Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:37 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? 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 with the same mission as an EP-3, let alone being a replacement for it. 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 program. I can't imagine substituting a "realtime" platform (EP-3) for basically a "pipeline" like RJ or Guardrail, (SINGCARS notwithstanding). My point was about CVBG support. Not on the ground old information (relatively after it has sifted through all the channels) troop support. The army and airforce should keep that job and leave CVBG support to the Navy. On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:57:34 -0500, Andrew Toppan <actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net> wrote: Quote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:25:45 GMT, user <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: thinking about" lists. More importantly, how does this ACS concept fit with CVBG support??? Stupidiest move I've ever seen. I don't know what an RC7 is??? Rivet Joint maybe? Well, RJ has all the money, they Maybe if you don't know what the various aircraft *are*, you shouldn't be so critical of the plans to replace them. Back to top Andrew Toppan Guest Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:37:42 GMT, user <foodog130 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: 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. Quote: with the same mission as an EP-3, let alone being a replacement for it. Nobody said it would be. Quote: 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 --- [email]actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net[/email] --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ Back to top Andrew Toppan Guest Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:44 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (s.p.i.) wrote: Quote: 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... -- Andrew Toppan --- [email]actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net[/email] --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ Back to top s.p.i. Guest Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:34 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? Andrew Toppan <actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net> wrote Quote: On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (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. Back to top s.p.i. Guest Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:46 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? Andrew Toppan <actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net> wrote Quote: On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (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. Back to top Doug Woody and Erin Beal Guest Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:16 am    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On 12/3/03 4:46 AM, in article [email]e7981103.0312030246.3eda6456 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com[/email], "s.p.i." <sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote: Quote: Andrew Toppan <actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net> wrote in message news:<9b3isv04fmjkdb05lgup9qofgrslivt607 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>... On 26 Nov 2003 20:20:54 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (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 Back to top Andrew Toppan Guest Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: EP-3 replacement? On 3 Dec 2003 02:34:24 -0800, [email]sidthefltrspoofr (AT) yahoo (DOT) com[/email] (s.p.i.) wrote: Quote: 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 --- [email]actoppan (AT) gwi (DOT) net[/email] --- "I speak only for myself" "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/ Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First         AirTalk.org Forum Index -> Naval Aviation All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2   Jump to: Select a forum Aviation----------------alt.aviationAviation safety EnhancementPlanes, gliders and flying in AustraliaAviation et pilotage (Français)rec.aviationAviation (Aerobatics)Hot air, gas balloons and airshipsHang-gliding, paragliding, foot-launched flightAircraft Design & BuildingInstrument Flight RulesAviation (Classifieds)Military AircraftNaval AviationAviation (Miscellaneous Topics)Owning AirplanesAviators (General Discussions)Aviation related productsAircraft RestorationHelicopters and rotary wing aircraftsFlight SimulationSailplanesAviation (Students)Light aircraftFlying related activities in the UK Airports----------------alt.airportsEdinburgh Airport Glasgow Airport Humberside Airport Luton Airport Aberdeen Airport Glasgow Prestwick Airport  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2006 phpBB Group SEO toolkit © 2004-2006 webmedic.