SEAD
-
Can u quote my ignorance on ur above claims?Originally posted by Johnston:Yes you do need me to test you, considering that you did not know of the ES-3 Shadow, which is now standard issue on USN Carrier Air Wings.
Were you aware of the EP-3 Orion before i jogged your memory?
Quick, you haven't answered the question.
Is there, or is there not, EF/A-18s in the pipeline? -
Good job.Originally posted by fett:if i'm not wrong, it should be EF/A-18 Superhornet. This variant is suppose to be the EW fighter of the F/A-18 Superhornet family. It will replace the EA-6 that's in US naval aviation service now. That was what i read years ago, but i do believe the situation is unchanged. It was envisioned that the naval air arms will be operating only 3 or 4 platforms when most of the 70s era aircrafts are retired.
and i don't quite agree with using bombers for SEAD. we should be using precision strike instead of indiscriminate area suppression.
You win the Gold Prize.
Yes, of course, big ol' strategic bombers shouldnt be used for SEAD.
But we're talking USAF.
25 F-15E's sent over.
"BDA? We don't need no stinkin BDA!"
Well, the last i heard, they were still pushing Mr Hornet. -
Whats wrong to say that the EF-111 is not a delicated SEAD aircraft when it is in fact an aircraft which require other fighters in the effort to complete the SEAD mission? The reason why US replace the EF-111 is because of the bloody reason.Originally posted by Johnston:By the way, you invented "delicated" and "discruptive" aircraft?
And did i not aknowledge that the EF-111 is a SEAD aircraft?
I think u seriously have a ego problem here. -
Yes, as soon as you copy my signature and edit your post to reflect that.Originally posted by foxtrout8:Can u quote my ignorance on ur above claims?
Of course you need me to test you.
*pats ungodly thick pile of reference material*
And just for your info.
Today's CVW
14 F-14 Tomcat
36 F/A-18 C Hornet
4 E-2C Hawkeye
4 EA-6B Prowler
6 S-3B Viking
2 ES-3B Shadow
4 SH-60F
2 HH-60G
Total of 72 frames (not including transitionals).
Im almost afraid to ask you if there is or is not a MIG-25 Reconnaisance variant. -
If there are no differences between an aircraft which can perform SEAD and an aircraft delicated for SEAD, then all aircrafts in this world which can either discrupt AD pieces via EW or destroy them by munitions can be called delicated SEAD aircrafts.
The reason why there is a difference between aircrafts which can perform SEAD and delicated SEAD aircrafts is that the latter have the ability to detect, discrupt and destroy them. -
I realli dun understand what is ur problem?Originally posted by Johnston:Yes, as soon as you copy my signature and edit your post to reflect that.
Of course you need me to test you.
*pats ungodly thick pile of reference material*
And just for your info.
Today's CVW
14 F-14 Tomcat
36 F/A-18 C Hornet
4 E-2C Hawkeye
4 EA-6B Prowler
6 S-3B Viking
2 ES-3B Shadow
4 SH-60F
2 HH-60G
Total of 72 frames (not including transitionals).
Im almost afraid to ask you if there is or is not a MIG-25 Reconnaisance variant.
And u almost forgetten the Foxtrouthornet. -
Well, the USAF seems to think differently.
http://www.geocities.com/letourneauboy/JointDocument2.pdf
SUPPRESSION OF ENEMY AIR DEFENSES (SEAD)
is any activity that neutralises, destroys, or temporarily degrades enemy surface based air defenses by DESTRUCTIVE or DISRUPTIVE means.
This is the official US outlook.
So by that, the EF-111 Raven is a SEAD aircraft.
Because it DISRUPTS enemy radar, such as AA/SAM radar.
So there. -
Originally posted by Johnston:
I SAID THAT THE SPARKVARK IS A SEAD AIRCRAFT BUT NOT A DELICATED ONE. DUN YOU GET IT?? THAT REASON IS ONE OF THOSE WHICH RETIRED THE SPARKVARK. BTW, UR LINK IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ONE.
Well, the USAF seems to think differently.
http://www.geocities.com/letourneauboy/JointDocument2.pdf
SUPPRESSION OF ENEMY AIR DEFENSES (SEAD)
is any activity that neutralises, destroys, or temporarily degrades enemy surface based air defenses by [b]DESTRUCTIVE or DISRUPTIVE means.
This is the official US outlook.
So by that, the EF-111 Raven is a SEAD aircraft.
Because it DISRUPTS enemy radar, such as AA/SAM radar.
So there.
[/b]
What is ur problem? -
I'm hanging you high-high because you had the temerity to assume that the S-3 is solely an ASW aircraft.Originally posted by storywolf:Viking is anti-sub !
Which means:
A) You did not research carefully before speaking.
B) You are ignorant of the SEAD situation today.
The problem here is i have personally written two papers on SEAD.
Although they got stuck in the shuffle in FSD though. -
I HAVE TO WARN U BEFORE UR COCK UP BRAIN GET ALL THE DIRT. STORYWOLF IS NOT FOXTROUT8, FOXTROUT8 IS ME AND I AM NOT STORYWOLF.Originally posted by Johnston:I'm hanging you high-high because you had the temerity to assume that the S-3 is solely an ASW aircraft.
Which means:
A) You did not research carefully before speaking.
B) You are ignorant of the SEAD situation today.
The problem here is i have personally written two papers on SEAD.
Although they got stuck in the shuffle in FSD though.
Im going to love this arguement. -
My problem is that i, myself, me, yes me, only me, truly me, solely me, on my own, singlehanded, alone, lone ranger-ly, have written on this subject and you have not.Originally posted by foxtrout8:I SAID THAT THE SPARKVARK IS A SEAD AIRCRAFT BUT NOT A DELICATED ONE. DUN YOU GET IT?? THAT REASON IS ONE OF THOSE WHICH RETIRED THE SPARKVARK. BTW, UR LINK IS NOT AN OFFICIAL ONE.
What is ur problem?
And you seem to think that aircraft should be "delicated".
Did you bother to read the PDF?
2. Purpose
This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Yes, if you require the same document from an official website, be assured i can produce one if i want to.
Hmm. So my link has to be "official", for the document to be "official"?
I must have written that paper all by myself. -
[quote]Originally posted by Johnston:
[b]
So..... your telling me that Artillery with a maximum range of 50 or so klicks is not suited for taking out SHORAD and V-SHORAD assets? hmm. You'd rather risk a few multi-million dollar aircraft to take out those AA guns and Short-range SAMs?
I remind you now that a commando team, armed with the right equipment, can do as much damage as a flight of dedicated SEAD aircraft. For example, they could laser designate LGB strikes, missiles, so on, so forth. Artillery strikes? Naval gun fire? A couple shots of .50 through the radar battery?
And of course let's not forget a enemy rifleman firing his rifle into the air is also air defence.
to use the artillery arms to suppress AD is, frankly, pretty stupid. arti are not suppose to be deploy at or near forward edge, so it's not really 50km (mostly for ERBB rounds. more likely sub 40km range). the prefer method is deploy in such a way that 2/3 forward and 1/3 back, as far as range is concern (if i remember correctly). also, the main objective of the support arms is the support the maneuver of the combat arms. if the enemy is destory, than SAM is a non issue.
and why use commando teams for SEAD? thought their primary mission is intelligence gathering.
riflemen as AD? i think you read too much into Flight of the Intruder. and the chance of that is like 1 to 1 million, if not billion. also, i don't think the average grunt is stupid enough to draw attention to himself. -
Doesn't matter im an equal opportunity shooter.
You make a statement that i KNOW is wrong, darn right i'd call the Cavalry in. -
AND STUPIDLY U DUNNO THAT THE ES-3B HAD RETIRED 13 YEARS AGO.Originally posted by Johnston:Yes, as soon as you copy my signature and edit your post to reflect that.
Of course you need me to test you.
*pats ungodly thick pile of reference material*
And just for your info.
Today's CVW
14 F-14 Tomcat
36 F/A-18 C Hornet
4 E-2C Hawkeye
4 EA-6B Prowler
6 S-3B Viking
2 ES-3B Shadow
4 SH-60F
2 HH-60G
Total of 72 frames (not including transitionals).
Im almost afraid to ask you if there is or is not a MIG-25 Reconnaisance variant. -
LOLX, THIS COMES FROM SOMEONE WHO KEEP ON ARGUEING ABT WAT ES-3B SHIT IN TODAY'S CVG WHEN IT WAS LONG RETIRED.Originally posted by Johnston:Doesn't matter im an equal opportunity shooter.
You make a statement that i KNOW is wrong, darn right i'd call the Cavalry in.
I DUN NEED YOU TO TEACH MI. -
yes, it is stupid.Originally posted by fett:[quote]Originally posted by Johnston:
[b]
to use the artillery arms to suppress AD is, frankly, pretty stupid. arti are not suppose to be deploy at or near forward edge, so it's not really 50km (mostly for ERBB rounds. more likely sub 40km range). the prefer method is deploy in such a way that 2/3 forward and 1/3 back, as far as range is concern (if i remember correctly). also, the main objective of the support arms is the support the maneuver of the combat arms. if the enemy is destory, than SAM is a non issue.
and why use commando teams for SEAD? thought their primary mission is intelligence gathering.
riflemen as AD? i think you read too much into Flight of the Intruder. and the chance of that is like 1 to 1 million, if not billion. also, i don't think the average grunt is stupid enough to draw attention to himself.
So stupid, that learned Military Men have ordered their guns to fire on known locations of enemy air defenses assets.
It's so stupid, that people actually waste ink and time and saliva writing on it in official papers.
So stupid. Yes.
So because the BC's job is to support the armor and inf, he won't use a few shells on known AA assets? What if said AA assets blow up our own aircraft?
Commando teams can do whatever they damn well are ordered to. If you order them to kidnap someone, bring them back for your pleasure, you can.
I beg your pardon.
Did you or did you not go through anti-aircraft drill?
The average grunt would like to do something to the enemy rather than cower there and die. And you do know that rifle bullets can arc for quite a while?
Take an infantry battalion, all shooting up. Find a helicopter pilot who would want to fly in there. -
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0128.pdf
There you go.
Read the page before you go off ranting singlish.
Lockheed Martin has converted 16 S-3A Viking antisubmarine-warfare aircraft into a replacements for the EA-3B. One squadron on each coast has been established and utilizes the designation VQ. This aircraft will serve as the over the horizon "ears" for the modern carrier battlegroup
Quick.
Is there, or is there not, Electronic variants of the Viking in service? -
Artilleries and SOF troops can be use to suppress enemy air defense by using the massive blanketing firepower of the former and the lethal hit, seek and run of the latter but riflemen is certainly a no no.Originally posted by fett:[quote]Originally posted by Johnston:
[b]
to use the artillery arms to suppress AD is, frankly, pretty stupid. arti are not suppose to be deploy at or near forward edge, so it's not really 50km (mostly for ERBB rounds. more likely sub 40km range). the prefer method is deploy in such a way that 2/3 forward and 1/3 back, as far as range is concern (if i remember correctly). also, the main objective of the support arms is the support the maneuver of the combat arms. if the enemy is destory, than SAM is a non issue.
and why use commando teams for SEAD? thought their primary mission is intelligence gathering.
riflemen as AD? i think you read too much into Flight of the Intruder. and the chance of that is like 1 to 1 million, if not billion. also, i don't think the average grunt is stupid enough to draw attention to himself. -
woah heng luckily i nv get involved =D
-
Quoted: Flying out of NS Rota, Spain, the last EA-3B's in service were retired from the U.S. Navy Oct. 1, 1991.Originally posted by Johnston:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0128.pdf
There you go.
Read the page before you go off ranting singlish.
Lockheed Martin has converted 16 S-3A Viking antisubmarine-warfare aircraft into a replacements for the EA-3B. One squadron on each coast has been established and utilizes the designation VQ. This aircraft will serve as the over the horizon "ears" for the modern carrier battlegroup
Quick.
Is there, or is there not, Electronic variants of the Viking in service?
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/es-3_shadow.htm -
The day i allow myself to be upstaged by a 1987 student, is the day i dump this name.Originally posted by foxtrout8:LOLX, THIS COMES FROM SOMEONE WHO KEEP ON ARGUEING ABT WAT ES-3B SHIT IN TODAY'S CVG WHEN IT WAS LONG RETIRED.
I DUN NEED YOU TO TEACH MI.
Flying out of NS Rota, Spain, the last EA-3B's in service were retired from the U.S. Navy Oct. 1, 1991.
Do you know your alphabet?
EA-3B
ES-3B -
Quoted:The 50 TACAIR air wing includes the following fixed wing aircraft: 20 F-14D "Bomcats" (Tomcats with a strike role), 36 F/A-18 Hornets, eight S-3A/B Vikings, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks. Both F-14D and S-3B Viking aircraft are being phased out by the USN, to be replaced by F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Air wings can be varied according to the nature of the operation: for example, in 1994, 50 army helicopters replaced the usual air wing on the USS Dwight D Eisenhower during operations off Haiti.
GOT ES-3B IN THE ABOVE QUOTATION? EVEN THE S-3B IS FACING IT'S FATE.
AS I HAD SAID, THE ES-3Bs ARE ALL MOTHBALLED. UR POST ON THE CURRENT CVG IS CRAP.
DUN COME AND TEACH ME. -
EA-3B = Echo - Alpha - three - BravoOriginally posted by foxtrout8:Quoted: Flying out of NS Rota, Spain, the last EA-3B's in service were retired from the U.S. Navy Oct. 1, 1991.
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/es-3_shadow.htm
ES-3B = Echo - Sierra - three - Bravo
In addition the EA-3 is a conversion of the Douglas A3 Skywarrior.
The ES-3 is a conversion of the Lockheed Martin S3 Viking.
Do you need me to go further? -
it's dedicated SEAD. example could be MiG 23(fighter/interceptor) and MiG 27(strike). both have similar airframe, but different avionics suite make the planes more suitable for one aspect of the air mission than the other.Originally posted by foxtrout8:If there are no differences between an aircraft which can perform SEAD and an aircraft delicated for SEAD, then all aircrafts in this world which can either discrupt AD pieces via EW or destroy them by munitions can be called delicated SEAD aircrafts.
The reason why there is a difference between aircrafts which can perform SEAD and delicated SEAD aircrafts is that the latter have the ability to detect, discrupt and destroy them.
anyway, nowadays everyone talking about swing-role. so not likely to have only one-dimensional design no more. -
But you did not answer the fundamental QUESTION:Originally posted by foxtrout8:DUN COME AND TEACH ME.
Is there, or is there not a Electronic variant of the Hornet?
And you managed to mix up a Vietnam era aircraft with a modern aircraft.
So.... is the USN still using A-4 Skyhawks?
They can take off from carriers, you know.