SEAD

last SG · 2004-11-01T01:59:09+00:00

who cares who comes first, the rifles are identical, except the trigger area.

foxtrout8 SG

I dun need u to test me.

foxtrout8 SG

All ground attack aircraft can destroy AD pieces and some aircraft have capabilities to discrupt such systems but the fact is, not all aircraft are delicated SEAD (wild weasel) fighters which can detect, discrupt and engage this pieces.

Those are my opinions, you can disagree and im ok with it.

Johnston SG

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?

fett SG

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.

and if i'm not wrong, f5 is still in the interception role and a4 the strike/CAS role. f16c/d, i think, were bought with an eye toward deep interdiction/SEAD capacity. let me know if i'm wrong

Johnston SG

By the way, you invented "delicated" and "discruptive" aircraft?
Smile

foxtrout8 SG

Can u quote my ignorance on ur above claims?

Johnston SG

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.

foxtrout8 SG

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.

And did i not aknowledge that the EF-111 is a SEAD aircraft?

I think u seriously have a ego problem here.

Johnston SG

Yes, as soon as you copy my signature and edit your post to reflect that.

Smile
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.

foxtrout8 SG

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.

foxtrout8 SG

I realli dun understand what is ur problem?

And u almost forgetten the Foxtrouthornet.

Johnston SG

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.

foxtrout8 SG

Originally posted by Johnston:
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]

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?

Johnston SG

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.

foxtrout8 SG

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.

Im going to love this arguement.

Johnston SG

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.

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.

fett SG

[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.

Johnston SG

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.

foxtrout8 SG

AND STUPIDLY U DUNNO THAT THE ES-3B HAD RETIRED 13 YEARS AGO.

foxtrout8 SG

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »