SEAD
-
OH IM SORRY, I MISTAKEN IT. ANYWAY I WAS LOOKING FOR A PROVE TO PROVE THAT THE PLANE IS RETIRED. I WAS TOO EXCITED... BUT I WAS RIGHT.Originally posted by Johnston:The day i allow myself to be upstaged by a 1987 student, is the day i dump this name.
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 first ES-3A was delivered in 1991. U.S. carriers typically deploy with two Shadow aircraft embarked. All ES-3 aircraft are scheduled to be removed from active service and placed in storage by September, 1999.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-es3.html
SO AGAIN, DUN COME AND TEACH MI. -
thank you, i think. but it seems that talk of US navy not knowing how to buy planes anymore looks ot be true. and why the hell they dump A-6? they don't have any medium attack now. ya, it was long ago but i can't get over it.Originally posted by Johnston:Good job.
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. -
Good job.Originally posted by fett: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.
anyway, nowadays everyone talking about swing-role. so not likely to have only one-dimensional design no more.
You win a Tiger. -
U GET THE ANSWER IN ONE OF MY QUOTES. IT SEEMS LIKE U ARE NOT OBSERVING WELL.Originally posted by Johnston:But you did not answer the fundamental QUESTION:
Is there, or is there not a Electronic variant of the Hornet? -
But i must teach you, because you, in the first place, ASSUMED that the Viking is solely an ASW aircraft, when it can do these roles also.Originally posted by foxtrout8:SO AGAIN, DUN COME AND TEACH MI.
Aerial Refuelling
Electronic Means
COD
And today, they want to make the Viking able to target precision weapons.
Of course i must teach you the difference between a Skywarrior and a Viking. -
It seems like the only thing senior about you is the number of your posts and the CAPS you are using.Originally posted by foxtrout8:U GET THE ANSWER IN ONE OF MY QUOTES. IT SEEMS LIKE U ARE NOT OBSERVING WELL.
As i recall, fett answered the question first, and you were not able to.
Not without flipping through the Net. -
S-3 was solely an ASW fix-wing aircraft. it's role was only expanded later on.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.
so i guess, everyone's right
-
DUN ASSUME SO MUCH AND ADMIT YOUR MISTAKE THAT THERE IS NO MORE ES-3B IN CURRENT SERVICE AND UR CVG ORBAT AND SOME OR UR POSTS ARE TOTALLY CRAPPY.Originally posted by Johnston:But i must teach you, because you, in the first place, ASSUMED that the Viking is solely an ASW aircraft, when it can do these roles also.
Aerial Refuelling
Electronic Means
COD
And today, they want to make the Viking able to target precision weapons.
Of course i must teach you the difference between a Skywarrior and a Viking.
BTW WHEN DID I ASSUME THAT THE VIKING HAVE THROUGHOUT IT'S OPERATION LIFE HAVE ONLI ONE ROLE?
DUN COME AND TEACH ME WHEN U ARROGANTLY MAKE SO MUCH MISTAKES.
MY MISTAKE WAS SKIN DEEP. IT WAS DUE TO THE MISREADING OF A LETTER. YOUR MISTAKE WAS A MORE OBVIOUS ONE WHEN YOU HAPPILY STATED TAT THE SHADOW IS IN THE CURRENT CVG ETC.
I SAID I KIND OF LOVE THIS.... -
HE IS WRONG BECAUSE HE STUPIDLY STATED THAT THE ES-3B IS IN CURRENT SERVICE. AND BTW, ES-3B IS A SIGINT PLANE NOT A SEAD AIRCRAFT.Originally posted by fett:S-3 was solely an ASW fix-wing aircraft. it's role was only expanded later on.
so i guess, everyone's right
QUOTED: ES-3A is a high winged, jet powered, twin engine, carrier-based electronic reconnaissance mission aircraft equipped with folding wings, a launch bar, and a tailhook
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/es-3_shadow.htm
QUOTED: The ES-3 Shadow, replaced the EA-3 Skywarrior and entered fleet service in 1993. The ES-3 is a carrier-based, subsonic, all-weather, long-range, electronic reconnaissance aircraft. It operates primarily with carrier battle groups providing Indications and Warning (I&W) support to the battle group and joint theater commanders. It carries an extensive suite of electronic sensors and communications gear.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-es3.html
SORRY FOR MY CAPITAL LETTERS, IT IS NOT FOR YOU MY FRIEND (FETT). -
IF IM NOT WRONG, A FEW DAYS AGO SOMEONE WITH THE NICK OF FAZ1 POSTED AN ARTICLE ON WAFF. GO LOOK AT IT FOR MORE DETAILS.Originally posted by Johnston:As i recall, fett answered the question first, and you were not able to.
Not without flipping through the Net.
BTW, IF U DUNNO WHAT IS WAFF, U CAN STOP BEING QL AND REALLY PACK UP AND SLEEP. -
I think it is enough for today.
A picture for you...
Good night my friend. -
no prob. just don't pop a blood vessel, both of you. you guys have been very informative.Originally posted by foxtrout8:HE IS WRONG BECAUSE HE STUPIDLY STATED THAT THE ES-3B IS IN CURRENT SERVICE. AND BTW, ES-3B IS A SIGINT PLANE NOT A SEAD AIRCRAFT.
QUOTED: ES-3A is a high winged, jet powered, twin engine, carrier-based electronic reconnaissance mission aircraft equipped with folding wings, a launch bar, and a tailhook
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/es-3_shadow.htm
QUOTED: The ES-3 Shadow, replaced the EA-3 Skywarrior and entered fleet service in 1993. The ES-3 is a carrier-based, subsonic, all-weather, long-range, electronic reconnaissance aircraft. It operates primarily with carrier battle groups providing Indications and Warning (I&W) support to the battle group and joint theater commanders. It carries an extensive suite of electronic sensors and communications gear.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/aircraft/air-es3.html
SORRY FOR MY CAPITAL LETTERS, IT IS NOT FOR YOU MY FRIEND (FETT). -
Thank you.Originally posted by fett:no prob. just don't pop a blood vessel, both of you. you guys have been very informative.
Goodnight to you also. -
who cares who comes first, the rifles are identical, except the trigger area.Originally posted by Johnston:I should think i know my H&K history.
It's the MSG-90 that is the clone of the PSG-1.
The chain goes like this.
PSG-1 released.
MSG-3 released.
MSG-90 released. (One year after MSG 3)
COST! COST! COST!
I don't know how to shoot the darn thing but damn right i know the stats. -
"Just because a fighter was originally built to be a high-altitude interceptor means it cant be a SEAD fighter too? " Is that a stupid argument or what ! If like that also want to argue, I can also say 747 is a passenger plane, but that does not mean it cannot be a SEAD role ! Well is stupid enough to spend all that money and risk it to be shot down, a 747 also can be use for sead, just arm it with laser defense system, EW ... etc. yes it also can be SEAD plane, but at what cost and how effective. We are talking about facts not right down to stupid arguement like yours !Originally posted by Johnston:http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/es-3_shadow.htm
Ok. my bad.
Just because a fighter was originally built to be a high-altitude interceptor means it cant be a SEAD fighter too?
Hmm.
The P-3 Orion was originally built to be an ASW aircraft.
So what was the example that crashed with an PLAF aircraft doing? ASW work?
No, it was the EP-3 Orion ELINT aircraft.
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.
P-3 orion is both a ASW or EW platform ! Also note
Which Air Force's standards are you talking about now? The last i remember was RAF and USAF practice different SEAD tactics.
Note both P-3 or viking are use as EW warfare planes - yes ! But there is a totally different between EW warfare planes and SEAD !
A P-3 or viking can be a EW planes but never be SEAD planes. Your argument already show you don't even know the different between EW and SEAD ! SEAD role need planes that is fast and put Gs to break missile locks also they are operating in enemy terrority so expect to fight in and out !
Yes Artillery and soldiers can destory air defense ! but that show you how little knowledge you have in the battle of order ! The air defense is well behind the enemy frontline, so well protected, you think you know where they are ? You have to find them ! You think sending commando team down walk walk all over the place to look for them without being caught !
"And of course let's not forget a enemy rifleman firing his rifle into the air is also air defence" you may as well say ! you just need to talk cock, and enemy fighter pilot all die laughing in air !
Once again, EW is EW, it is not SEAD ! not sure if you are in SBSK airforce ! this simple basic stuff also don't know ! -
Don't you sound just like SBSK ! alway when lose the reasoning, claiming to test people knowledge ! Why don't you just use your other Nick SBSK instead !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. -
Bloody stupid, argument !Originally posted by Johnston:yes, it is stupid.
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.
You think AA asset is sitting there in the open for what it it protecting something, and you think AA is without ground force protection ! The moment you move up to attack, enemy amour and artilleries will engage your armour !
As for Commando, you have to insert far away and walk to destory AA, how many day is lost ! How big a team or a few team is enough to do enough damage ! So if engage how many will be lost ! You think all AA together ! how many AA can they destory at a time ! Using SEAD aircraft is faster and put the lesses number of men at risk.
Haha you really a damn lance corporal only ! No wonder brain full of your 3 mth BMT concept only. You think experience soldier so stupid to stand there to shoot to attract the plane more !!! BMT only teach you that only !
Also you think you cowboy, stand there with M16 and shoot out with a heli with machine guns !!! dumb !
By the way , you cook or driver is it ? Anyway since you live the same schedule as our friend SBSK, we will just have to wait till 6 p.m. onward before we get anything back from you ! haha ! -
X2....Originally posted by storywolf:Don't you sound just like SBSK ! alway when lose the reasoning, claiming to test people knowledge ! Why don't you just use your other Nick SBSK instead ! -
Speaking of SEAD, I do believe that the common doctrine is to create "sanitized" corridors along deep-interdiction routes instead of wiping clean the entire area off anti-aircraft assets.
I wonder if these corridors are fixed throughout the entire duration of the air campaign or does the air force open and close each corridor in order to not allow enemy air defences from adapting, I mean come on, they can read a map as well as the air force planners can.
-
Originally posted by storywolf:Bloody stupid, argument !
You think AA asset is sitting there in the open for what it it protecting something, and you think AA is without ground force protection ! The moment you move up to attack, enemy amour and artilleries will engage your armour !
As for Commando, you have to insert far away and walk to destory AA, how many day is lost ! How big a team or a few team is enough to do enough damage ! So if engage how many will be lost ! You think all AA together ! how many AA can they destory at a time ! Using SEAD aircraft is faster and put the lesses number of men at risk.
Haha you really a damn lance corporal only ! No wonder brain full of your 3 mth BMT concept only. You think experience soldier so stupid to stand there to shoot to attract the plane more !!! BMT only teach you that only !
Also you think you cowboy, stand there with M16 and shoot out with a heli with machine guns !!! dumb !
By the way , you cook or driver is it ? Anyway since you live the same schedule as our friend SBSK, we will just have to wait till 6 p.m. onward before we get anything back from you ! haha !
-
I think in most cases, anti aircraft assets are sort out, 'sanitized' (as what u say) and if possible destroryed. You see, it is much more cheaper wiping off the enemy's air defence to the minimum as you can than u frequently have to require heavy EW support in every sorties. You see, the allies fail to neutralise the serbian's SAM system during the first few days of the Kosovo war and subsequently eventhough all air sorties are accompanied by EW or SEAD aircraft to their fully capability that they can arrange, SAM is a major problem in the war (despite the low number of allied aircraft downed).Originally posted by Laplace:Speaking of SEAD, I do believe that the common doctrine is to create "sanitized" corridors along deep-interdiction routes instead of wiping clean the entire area off anti-aircraft assets.
I wonder if these corridors are fixed throughout the entire duration of the air campaign or does the air force open and close each corridor in order to not allow enemy air defences from adapting, I mean come on, they can read a map as well as the air force planners can.
Of course what happened in kosovo was due to many reasons which limits the effectiveness of the SEAD forces, however what is clear to me is that, it is through their fully ability that they try to neutralise the threat using force but they just fail to neutralise all. All in all, i cant realli think of any instances in which the force ceteris paribus, chose not to completely neutralise but just open corridors despite them having to know the threat and their capability to hit it. -
:/Originally posted by storywolf:Yes Artillery and soldiers can destory air defense ! but that show you how little knowledge you have in the battle of order ! The air defense is well behind the enemy frontline, so well protected, you think you know where they are ? You have to find them ! You think sending commando team down walk walk all over the place to look for them without being caught !
"And of course let's not forget a enemy rifleman firing his rifle into the air is also air defence" you may as well say ! you just need to talk cock, and enemy fighter pilot all die laughing in air !
!
Air defence ranges all the way from the rifleman firing his rifle at a helicopter, to very large SAM systems that have ranges over a hundred clicks.
Are you presuming to tell me that Artillery Bns cannot fire missions to destroy the enemy's SHORAD and V-SHORAD defenses?
That's a load of bull, because such systems have ranges of up to ten klicks.
And as such, they often accompany the forward echelons.
I think?
No i don't think.
I know.
I know for a fact that contrary to previous published arguments that the F-117A's penetrated Iraq all on their own during Gulf War 1, they were preceded by
1) SpecOps teams targeting Iraqi AA EW-Systems and radar batteries
2) USAF MH-53J Pave Lowes leading
3) AH-64 Apache attack helos
4) F-117A -
Yes, it's so dumb.Originally posted by storywolf:Haha you really a damn lance corporal only ! No wonder brain full of your 3 mth BMT concept only. You think experience soldier so stupid to stand there to shoot to attract the plane more !!! BMT only teach you that only !
Also you think you cowboy, stand there with M16 and shoot out with a heli with machine guns !!! dumb !
So dumb that the VC and NVA's one tactic in the early days of the war was to point up and shoot.
And did they, or did they not bring down US helicopters?
Yes.
That settles the point. -
Yes, it's so dumb.Originally posted by storywolf:Haha you really a damn lance corporal only ! No wonder brain full of your 3 mth BMT concept only. You think experience soldier so stupid to stand there to shoot to attract the plane more !!! BMT only teach you that only !
Also you think you cowboy, stand there with M16 and shoot out with a heli with machine guns !!! dumb !
So dumb that the VC and NVA's one tactic in the early days of the war was to point up and shoot.
And did they, or did they not bring down US helicopters?
Yes.
That settles the point.
I shall take this opportunity to remind you that even today, .50 cal machine guns are accepted AA armament for tanks.
