-
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
For my rotor bretheren
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
You see, for those of us that go "shipboard" - a TACAN is more important (theoretically) than an ILS.
I'd be interested to see a comparison between the number of USN/USMC flight hours flown in support of OEF/OIF/OND in the past 10 years, and those in support of HADR/NEO during the same time period.
I'm guessing they wouldn't be as different as you might expect.
The GAU-17 may be authorized in the HH, but I've never heard of an AC squadron having one. So if the active squadrons can't get their hands on the weapon, why would Big Navy pay to get the flight clearance for the weapon for the Sierra?
I think the -17 is the perfect weapon to counter the "swarm tactics" threat that we may encounter, but that is irrelevant to the fact that Big Navy doesn't want to pay for the ammo needed to keep crews current on the weapon system.
Gotta love having a primary nav system that the rest of the country has been trying to do away with for over a decade. The military is the only reason TACAN still exists. Go to Asia and try to find TACAN approaches, they are few and far between.
I agree, we need a common voice. There were some great plans for helos, and a lot of really $#!((% ones. Unfortunately we are left with 1 airframe that we all know is a compromise and does not really meet the need(s). Then look at the technology that other countries (and even other services) put in their birds and compare that to our "new" gear. Its sad. What would it really cost to upgrade the fleet with real crash survivable seats that didn't induce back problems, modern ASE gear, moving map, Heck why not a freakin HUD? (I can put one in my car for $125.) Or actually move to a modular design similar to the Japanese so parts really could be interchangeable instead of 1 basic frame and 3 different innards (5 when you consider all the -60S blocks.) Compare that cost to what the Navy spends on fixed wing crap. It would be a drop in the bucket. It just wouldn't look as sexy at an airshow.
I agree, we need a common voice. There were some great plans for helos, and a lot of really $#!((% ones. Unfortunately we are left with 1 airframe that we all know is a compromise and does not really meet the need(s). Then look at the technology that other countries (and even other services) put in their birds and compare that to our "new" gear. Its sad. What would it really cost to upgrade the fleet with real crash survivable seats that didn't induce back problems, modern ASE gear, moving map, Heck why not a freakin HUD? (I can put one in my car for $125.) Or actually move to a modular design similar to the Japanese so parts really could be interchangeable instead of 1 basic frame and 3 different innards (5 when you consider all the -60S blocks.) Compare that cost to what the Navy spends on fixed wing crap. It would be a drop in the bucket. It just wouldn't look as sexy at an airshow.
It's true that Rhinos can't shoot civilian ILS approaches. It can shoot ICLS and ACLS. Or it can just designate the runway with the radar and fly a self-contained approach. I would imagine the Navy's thinking is something along the lines of, "Why pay extra money for a system to use only in bad weather on good deal XCs?" It does seem odd for such an advanced jet to not have a civilian-compatible ILS, but the Rhino is a Navy fighter and is equipped to use any of the possible options to get aboard in Case III. And besides, on the road not having a normal ILS is a good excuse to take vectors to the visual and hurry to the bar.
The ammo to keep crews current would be less than what we spend on HELLFIRE currency -- a capability I think we all can agree is misplaced in the current Naval SCAR / Anti-Piracy Environment.
Not to mention the fact that I can't shoot a .50 cal at a person ... so what good are those things ;-P
I really hope you're joking... but that is simply untrue. Go ahead and check snopes, wiki, google, read the Geneva Conventions and Law of Armed Conflict in their entirety, or, aw heck, don't take my word for it, do a word search in the NWP 1-14 for an authoritative answer.
Also, if someone--anyone no matter what the rank--giving an official brief makes that statement, call that person out for spreading bad gouge and being generally dumb.
Sorry, nothing personal man
/rant off
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
What happens when you bingo to a divert that's NOT in this country, and SHOCK, they don't have a TACAN - but an ILS?? And weather's dogshit...
I really hope you're joking... but that is simply untrue. Go ahead and check snopes, wiki, google, read the Geneva Conventions and Law of Armed Conflict in their entirety, or, aw heck, don't take my word for it, do a word search in the NWP 1-14 for an authoritative answer.
Also, if someone--anyone no matter what the rank--giving an official brief makes that statement, call that person out for spreading bad gouge and being generally dumb.
Sorry, nothing personal man
/rant off
Snopes, wiki, and google are great sources for authoritative legal advice ... lol (that means laughing out loud).
Next time, I'll use the colorful smiley
instead of a text based smiley ;-P so the older folks can more easily detect my sarcasm ...On a related note, there are still folks preaching that proportionality implies that engaging dismounted troops with a .50 cal MG is incorrect ... most of them were lawyers, so take that for what it's worth.
Unfortunately, you do not have all of the facts about the GAU-17. The weapon is very complicated for the gunners to learn and would require hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition per squadron to train / keep gunners current. While the -17 can give you a higher rate of fire, the larger round of the .50 cal will do more to stop a small boat, and the weapon will require far less training for the AW3 who just showed up from the FRS.