USN Another call to "bring back S-3's" (Vikings are Zombies)

[Swanee]

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.

Well, as long as the conditions are inside the parameters for the system, sure. A system like TALS will even exceed it's own advertised capabilities well beyond what anyone would expect. It is a true honey badger.

The DGPS system for the RQ-21 is actually really good as well. It's the fact that the airplane only weighs 135 lbs soaking wet that we have such wind and pitch/roll limits at the boat.

So sure, first time every time is a little alcohol induced hyperbole, but I'm willing to bet a lot of money that the machine will do it better and more consistently than a human.

 

[squorch2]

Semi related: OCO funds need to die yesterday.

They circumvent and distort normal, established processes with zero benefit.

 

[Griz882]

Must we continually rehash what is never, ever going to happen?

Our chances of going to war against a peer, or near-peer adversary are well below 50% but if that were to happen our chance of fighting a peer, or near-peer adversary with a clap lee submarine threat is about 100%. Does that not make the discussion of some type of VS capability a worthy discussion?

Then again, as @insanebikerboy wrote:
“Of course, this is airwarriors.”

 

[Brett327]

Our chances of going to war against a peer, or near-peer adversary are well below 50% but if that were to happen our chance of fighting a peer, or near-peer adversary with a clap lee submarine threat is about 100%. Does that not make the discussion of some type of VS capability a worthy discussion?

No, our chances of actually bringing back the S-3B is nil. We're not going to have or acquire an organic fixed wing ASW capability in the CSG construct.

 

[pilot_man]

Well, as long as the conditions are inside the parameters for the system, sure. A system like TALS will even exceed it's own advertised capabilities well beyond what anyone would expect. It is a true honey badger.

The DGPS system for the RQ-21 is actually really good as well. It's the fact that the airplane only weighs 135 lbs soaking wet that we have such wind and pitch/roll limits at the boat.

So sure, first time every time is a little alcohol induced hyperbole, but I'm willing to bet a lot of money that the machine will do it better and more consistently than a human.

Yeah, but when it is a moving target, in rough seas, and crappy weather, these systems aren't flawless. I would love it if they were because then we could just get rid of LSOs and FCLPs.

I fly a jet that can land itself at the boat. I actually like going for a ride every once in a while. But when I have needed it the most (really shitty weather), it hasn't worked. Something about datalinks and heavy downpours and mom always driving into the squall line for winds.

 

[UInavy]

Yeah, but when it is a moving target, in rough seas, and crappy weather, these systems aren't flawless. I would love it if they were because then we could just get rid of LSOs and FCLPs.

I fly a jet that can land itself at the boat. I actually like going for a ride every once in a while. But when I have needed it the most (really shitty weather), it hasn't worked. Something about datalinks and heavy downpours and mom always driving into the squall line for winds.

Agreed. Counting on DGPS being available and the datalink working isn't a solved problem. An internal, operator actuated/ jet assisted solution (PLM) has provided better results in a short time than automated solutions have provided over a much longer time horizon.

Also, "as long as the conditions are within parameters" can't be a circle than what is smaller than the current conditions of any anticipated operations.

 

[Griz882]

No, our chances of actually bringing back the S-3B is nil. We're not going to have or acquire an organic fixed wing ASW capability in the CSG construct.

Of course I recognize the chances of bringing back the S-3 are zero, that really wasn’t the point. The point is about ASW and that we expect to face a modern adversary with no carrier-based mid-range ASW capability. You say we will not have that capability or create it- check, I believe you. Too bad a lot of good kids might very well drown because of the “CSG construct.”

 

[Swanee]

Yeah, but when it is a moving target, in rough seas, and crappy weather, these systems aren't flawless. I would love it if they were because then we could just get rid of LSOs and FCLPs.

I fly a jet that can land itself at the boat. I actually like going for a ride every once in a while. But when I have needed it the most (really shitty weather), it hasn't worked. Something about datalinks and heavy downpours and mom always driving into the squall line for winds.

I guess time will tell. I wasn't so good behind the boat, which is why I ended up where I am now, and probably why I'm biased towards the machines.

On a semi (but not really) related note- here is another I'm the Machine! story to lighten the mood!

 

[Brett327]

Of course I recognize the chances of bringing back the S-3 are zero, that really wasn’t the point. The point is about ASW and that we expect to face a modern adversary with no carrier-based mid-range ASW capability. You say we will not have that capability or create it- check, I believe you. Too bad a lot of good kids might very well drown because of the “CSG construct.”

You're making the assumption that not having VS means that CSG/MPA ASW will not be sufficient. In a limited resource environment, someone in the Pentagon has already done that math.

 

[wink]

You're making the assumption that not having VS means that CSG/MPA ASW will not be sufficient. In a limited resource environment, someone in the Pentagon has already done that math.

Have they really done the math lately, or are they just sticking to a flawed decision made in the heady 90s when some people in the Navy thought it was the end of history and savings could be found by killing VS.

We had MPA and HS during the cold war and found a need for something else as well. I dont think the P-8 and Romeo, capable as they are, can close that gap. And if I am wrong due to my complete unfamiliarity with those aircraft, i am sure there will simply not be enough P-8s to carry the mission into what was the middle zone and answer all the other calls for their multiple and disparate services.

 

[Brett327]

Have they really done the math lately, or are they just sticking to a flawed decision made in the heady 90s when some people in the Navy thought it was the end of history and savings could be found by killing VS.

There's an entire formal process devoted to exploring capability gaps which then drives requirements for technology, systems and platforms. Given that the entire fleet is centered around servicing and protecting the CSG, do you really think Big Navy would just shoulder shrug something that consequential and say, "Hey, if it was good enough in 1995, then it's probably good now." That's not how any of this works. These kinds of problems are being constantly looked at and revised. Capabilities, risk and prioritizing resources where they can have the greatest impact is all part of the process.

 

[robav8r]

Capabilities, risk and prioritizing resources where they can have the greatest impact is all part of the process.

As are really big defense contractors who will stop at nothing to sell there wares . . . . . .

 

[pilot_man]

I guess time will tell. I wasn't so good behind the boat, which is why I ended up where I am now, and probably why I'm biased towards the machines.

On a semi (but not really) related note- here is another I'm the Machine! story to lighten the mood!

Two words. Flying Dildos. That is all

 

[Gatordev]

We had MPA and HS during the cold war and found a need for something else as well. I dont think the P-8 and Romeo, capable as they are, can close that gap. And if I am wrong due to my complete familiarity with those aircraft, i am sure there will simply not be enough P-8s to carry the mission into what was the middle zone and answer all the other calls for their multiple and disparate services.

Again, we have to be honest in the discussion and acknowledge the limited resource environment we live in today. Would extra assets be good? Of course, but we can't even keep the dumpsters empty at our national parks right now.

One difference is sensor capability. HS was very capable, partly due to the gear, partly due to the experience. But sensor "clarity" (to sum it up) has been vastly improved, both range and detection. Add that to screen tactics and assets, and there's at least some force out there that's been considered adequate by the "What If?" shop.

At least from the HSM side, the much bigger need is more and more effective ASW training time. Some of that is fixing priorities at the squadron level (specifically the AW shop and JO training), but also more/better access to live targets. Unfortunately, the East Coast lags the West Coast with this due to geography, but both coasts could always be better.

 

[wink]

There's an entire formal process devoted to exploring capability gaps which then drives requirements for technology, systems and platforms. Given that the entire fleet is centered around servicing and protecting the CSG, do you really think Big Navy would just shoulder shrug something that consequential and say, "Hey, if it was good enough in 1995, then it's probably good now." That's not how any of this works. These kinds of problems are being constantly looked at and revised. Capabilities, risk and prioritizing resources where they can have the greatest impact is all part of the process.

I'll buy this. Doesn't meant they aways get it right. Case in point, lack of CV organic airborne tanking which ties the carrier to land based assets or severely reduces the range of power projection. That in turn threatens the very raison d'etre for the CV, independence and power projection.

Given that every product of this formal process (as if I thought it was not) begins with assumptions and conditions, if you assume wrong you will have a super fine detailed report that is wrong. "We can make the A-6 fill the gap, kill the A-12." Not many Intruder guys fully appreciated flying a bomber with a 3 G restriction on its wings. "We are at the dawn of a true Pax Americana. The Russian Federation will never be a creditable threat again and the Chinese will never build capable submarines. Kill VS." The list of errors made in long term planning and capability studies is long. TACAIR alone continues to suffer for decisions made a long time ago that were defended then as you defend the decisions made today. It is only because we have avoided a near peer conflict that we haven't paid a high cost.

I don't doubt the intelligence or dedication of the people who make the capability decisions for Big Navy. I just am not willing to take everything they decree as infallible. They can guess wrong and they can start from faulty assumptions and conditions. Garbage in garbage out.

I also do not accept budgetary restrictions as a reason for any long range plan. Budget short falls should have relative short term effects. If the wiz kids doing the long term capability studies say we need X then you plan for it in future budgets.