If you want the TL/DR of this thread, this is as good as it gets.
-
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
Carrier-borne mid-range ASW revival?
Not that that can't change with a shift in priorities.
That's where the other half of those Romeos already are/would be.
Oh, you!
They already have this. Didn't you read the 1996 pamphlet on the Romeo capabilities? It's in the paragraph right before the one talking about those SNAs starting flight school at the time will be deploying with Romeo as JOs!!!!!!!!
#commoncockpitpanacea
One of the key elements of FVL is maintaining MOSA—Modular Open Systems Approach. The whole idea is to make adding new gear much more like adding an app to your phone than a massive integration problem
Great talk, but this is a very realistic issue the Navy needs to have. It is hands-down arrogant for the guys with stars to pretend that carriers aren’t in danger from submarines. I don’t have the answer but a ton of careers are going to be ruined (and a lots of good people dead) for the sake of “money and deck space.”
Are you selling us oceanfront property in Arizona where we can park the Poseidons and Seahawks afterwards?
I watched CBS This Morning and saw the segment on AI and military aviation. The guy from Sikorsky put it sadly, but probably accurately, that “you don’t need a pilot, just an operator. That means we won’t need pilots to park them in the desert but I wonder if the AI will get bored out there?Are you selling us oceanfront property in Arizona where we can park the Poseidons and Seahawks afterwards?
Evidence that this is the case?
The problem with our "middle zone ASW" problem, is the same problem we have in DoD acquisitions overall. The Defense Industrial Complex has given us a commercial airliner (x2) as a solution for the Navy's long range MPR requirements (P-3 - Lockheed Electra, P-8 - Boeing 737-800). The defense industry tail wags the DoD requirements dog.
??????????????
P-3C NAV/COMM trigger alert !!! ?
??????????????
Evidence, no, just the apparent lack of appropriate equipment. I know it takes time to field the right equipment and I equally admit that I have no idea how far along real solutions might be. But I still reserve my right to comment on it.
Evidence Brett?
Does someone with your background and experience need "evidence" that the RUS/PRC submarine threat is not credible against CVNs/CSGs ???
Gonna be a crowded lot—if a Pacific war ever starts in earnest, short-legged Sikorskis will be standouts, and not in a good way.Are you selling us oceanfront property in Arizona where we can park the Poseidons and Seahawks afterwards?
Better question: where are they gonna park all the former P-8 NFOs when old guys start doing their job out of trailers in Jax?
Maybe was looking for evidence that CSG commanders disregarded the threat?
That wasn't the matter being debated. The implication I'm pushing back on is that the demise of the S-3 = a lack of capability to defend the CSG against adversary submarines... and that senior leaders are somehow oblivious to the sub threat. Spend a day with the right INDOPACOM staffers and you'll quickly be disabused of that notion.