Re: EP-3 replacement?

Andrew Toppan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> On 26 Nov 2003 02:31:02 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.