Well, This Should Please Jennings

[B777LR]

Given the ENORMOUS cost of maintaining manned SIGINT platforms, I suspect it will be a cold day when we see another platform like the RC-135 or EP-3E built from the ground up.  There is virtually nothing you can do with one that you can't do with a UAV or a satellite.  The Global Hawk is an amazing piece of machinery.

J

I suppose the P-8 Poseidon / 737-800 with raked wingtips, would partially be able to take up that role as well. Or a future replacement for the E-3s (E-767 for the USAF? ).  

[elmayerle]

Honestly, I don't think you'll ever see an "RC-45".  So much of that mission is being undertaken via satellite and by UAVs, I think the days of the manned recce platform are numbered.  Likely if anything we'll see some specific ones (Cobra Ball RC-135S's) replaced by something like a 737-800 (P-8A) derivative, but not by a 767.  It'll be interesting to see what develops.  The RC fleet has LOADS more hours on it than any tanker does.

I could see EP-8s replacing EP-3Es.  Only 11 of the original EP-3E conversions are still flying (one was destroyed when the pilot landing "lnng" on a 15,000 ft. runway) and even the "new" ones manufactured/being manufactured by the Integrated Systems Division of LE Communications in Waco, TX are converted from P-3Cs brought in from D-M.  Since the Waco facility is familiar with both the EP-3E's systems and the Advanced 737 (having completed several BBJs), they'd definitely be in a position to properly do EP-8s if the Navy decided to go that route.  Lord knows, they did to replace those worn birds and, really, with a full crew, an Ep-3E gets to be a very crowded airframe.

Actually, there's a lot that can be done with immediate on-board initial signal processing and evaluation before the data gets passed off to other units.  In some critical cases, this goes directly to warfighters.

[Jennings]

It'll never happen, and if it does, it'll SURELY not look like this, but what the heck!

J


RC-45V Rivet Joint VIII:

[elmayerle]

Hmm, so how about an EP-8B with all the "lumps and bumps", including the "M&M", of the EP-3E?

[anthonyp]

Life imitates art?

Funny how we're talking about future SIGINT aircraft, and the USN pops up with this.

I'll grab the full article tomorrow at work.

From Janes.com:

USN announces SIGINT aircraft replacement programme

By Martin Streetly

11 December 2007

As part of its post-Aerial Common Sensor intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting (ISRT) recapitalisation effort, the US Navy (USN) published a broad agency announcement (BAA) in November 2007, regarding an Electronics Patrol Experiment (EPX) programme intended to find a replacement for the service's existing EP-3E signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft after Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17).

The BAA document states that the programme is intended to "recapitalise the EP-3 aircraft to provide tactical, theatre and national level ISRT support to carrier strike groups and to theatre, combatant and national commanders". As such, the EPX architecture is to be "a flexible, responsive, manned, multimission, multi-intelligence [M-INT], ISRT aircraft capable of carrying expendables".

Onboard intelligence and sensor capabilities are to include "SIGINT, imagery intelligence [IMINT] and radar intelligence [RADINT]", with the IMINT capability being built around electro-optic (EO) and infrared (IR) sensors and the RADINT package including synthetic aperture radar (SAR), inverse SAR and maritime moving target indicator operating modes.

The ability to perform onboard or offboard processing and M-INT data fusion (or a combination of the two) will enable the EPX to "operate successfully in either communications-permissive or communications-constrained environments". Other requirements include the ability to self-deploy worldwide.

EP-8B anyone?

[Jennings]

Good God!  Martin Streetly is still at it??  

J

[elmayerle]

Life imitates art?

Funny how we're talking about future SIGINT aircraft, and the USN pops up with this.

I'll grab the full article tomorrow at work.

From Janes.com:

USN announces SIGINT aircraft replacement programme

By Martin Streetly

11 December 2007

As part of its post-Aerial Common Sensor intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting (ISRT) recapitalisation effort, the US Navy (USN) published a broad agency announcement (BAA) in November 2007, regarding an Electronics Patrol Experiment (EPX) programme intended to find a replacement for the service's existing EP-3E signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft after Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17).

The BAA document states that the programme is intended to "recapitalise the EP-3 aircraft to provide tactical, theatre and national level ISRT support to carrier strike groups and to theatre, combatant and national commanders". As such, the EPX architecture is to be "a flexible, responsive, manned, multimission, multi-intelligence [M-INT], ISRT aircraft capable of carrying expendables".

Onboard intelligence and sensor capabilities are to include "SIGINT, imagery intelligence [IMINT] and radar intelligence [RADINT]", with the IMINT capability being built around electro-optic (EO) and infrared (IR) sensors and the RADINT package including synthetic aperture radar (SAR), inverse SAR and maritime moving target indicator operating modes.

The ability to perform onboard or offboard processing and M-INT data fusion (or a combination of the two) will enable the EPX to "operate successfully in either communications-permissive or communications-constrained environments". Other requirements include the ability to self-deploy worldwide.

EP-8B anyone?

*laughs* Well, I'm not at all surprised.  IMHO, it's been rather evident for some time that they'd almost have to go that way.  It sounds like they want enhanced, multi-spectral electro-optics, too, but the basic P-8 platform looks quite big enough for that.  

I do hope L3 teams with Boeing for the winning team as they've certainly got the know-how and experience.  They've also got a real good feel for what's in the current EP-3Es as we, while I was there, had to combine the data packages from the original conversions and the upgrades since then into a single coherent whole for the new conversions from stock P-3Cs.  The interesting thing was that they were, at least at that time, confounding the Navy by delivering on or ahead of schedule and at or under estimated costs.

It's a good and experienced crew and I rather hope they win.

[anthonyp]

I do hope L3 teams with Boeing for the winning team as they've certainly got the know-how and experience.  They've also got a real good feel for what's in the current EP-3Es as we, while I was there, had to combine the data packages from the original conversions and the upgrades since then into a single coherent whole for the new conversions from stock P-3Cs.  The interesting thing was that they were, at least at that time, confounding the Navy by delivering on or ahead of schedule and at or under estimated costs.

Too bad their Ground Systems division is the exact opposite of that...

[elmayerle]

What can I say?  L3 is an amalgam of bits and pieces that didn't fit in other companies; one reason it has so many divisions that are separately managed.