Several giant mining dump trucks full of cash. And I don't mean small bills.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
USN Another call to "bring back S-3's" (Vikings are Zombies)
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Constitution is a "living museum" at best. Except for her annual 'turnaround' trip out into Boston Harbor, she just stays tied to the pier and needs to do nothing more strenuous than look good for the public. Even then, she needs constant repair and spells in dry dock.
Working ships and aircraft get worked hard. There's a big difference between being preserved and being ready to work. At this point trying to bring back the S-3s would be sort of like leaving your lawnmower outside in all weather for ten years, with no more maintenance than an annual coat of Rustoleum, and then expecting to get it up and running for a lawn care service.
My goal is to be SECNAV some day and order the Constitution to sail to the British Isles and raid British shipping. I'll leave it up to the CO to decide if the diplomatic situation is better served by offering public tours when they arrive.
It is all a matter of necessity and commitment. IF the Navy thought that VS brought value to the fleet it is either bring on a new platform or bring back the War Hoover. In either case all the above will cost money. You all talk like these considerations would be unique to resurrecting the S-3. Not true at all. The issue is not the cost. It is the Navy not seeing a need for VS worthy of the cost. Debate that if you will. Don't try and tell me the cost of bringing S-3s back is is the deal breaker. It would be much cheaper than a new platform. But no one in Big Navy wants VS at any cost.
It’s not just the cost. It’s the cost/benefit analysis over time. We have some great folks dedicated to analyzing that for any of these situations. I trust them to do a better job than we will here.
I nominate @nittany03 as the first zombie S-3 commodore. I don't think you could find a better man for the job even out of Lionel Ritchie's entire band.
Of course, total life cycle must be taken into account. A newer platform will cost more but last longer. None of this is my point. This won't happen because there is no will inside of the Navy for VS. This bit that it will cost too much to stand up a RAG and buy/develop support is simply not determinant. Those same cost will be encountered with a new platform. What is determinant is that the Navy does not want VS and it doesn't matter whether a zombie S-3 or something else. THAT is debatable. I don't think anyone here is serious about bringing back the S-3.
As to trusting a decision like bringing back the S-3, or the VS Navy at all, to smarter more informed people than us is a laugh. All those experts you think are making a sound decision on VS are the same people that have led to so much bitching on these pages about how messed up the navy and aviation is. You can't tell me you are happy with acquisition, budget allotments, and any number of decisions we leave to smart guys.
I think you overestimate the level to which I'm ascribing the quality of decision making. I'm not talking about an O-7+ with a Master's in Global Security Studies that is making the ultimate decision with X number of Congress-critters interjecting their opinions. I'm talking about the pro analysts doing the real analytic work at places like N81. We can talk all we want about what the bosses do with that info, but I'll stand by my assertion that the quality of analysis that the decision makers get from their subordinates is better than what we'll accomplish here. Disclaimer- not now or ever an N81 guy, just an interested observer in the quality of analytic product.
I am not even suggesting that whoever is authoring the analysis is getting the zombie S-3 wrong. I am suggesting that maybe the lack of interest in reintroducing VS is flawed.
I was a member of the west coast VS augment unit when it was disestablished. You would think that was a well staffed and analyzed move. As it turned out, it happened by mistake. A miscommunication they explained. In the very next FY they tried to bring it back. It took a few years before they could fit it back in the budget, but VS Reserve Augment came back until the very end of the S-3. Even the best make mistakes, misjudge and miscommunicate. I don't care if they are pro analysts or some FO, which will make the final decision.
CQing new KS-3 pilots will cost more than the entire MQ-25 program over each of their lifetimes. Optional manning doesn't buy much. The benefit of a UAS is that you don't have to put all of the human stuff in the airplane.
I'm not saying that the Navy is right in relegating what should be a premier weapons system to tanker duty. But at the end of the day, there is something to be said about knowing that your recovery tanker will land on the first pass, every time, day or night, in bad weather, no matter how long it's been airborne. And if for some reason it can't get airborne, there isn't some poor bastard stuck thinking about ejecting next to the boat and hoping everyone is on their game that night. An MQ-25 could become consumable if it means nursing a sick airplane back to the beach. There is something to be said about that too.
Meth is bad mmkay.
You would rather worry about the last dude in the cycle getting aboard?
It isn't the concept of a UAV tanker I find amusing, it's the land first pass, every time, even in bad weather that is laughable.
Of course, this is AirWarriors.