Stubby
Ask the Chief
once again.... uh.... no.
Predator (or any other UAV) doesn't give anywhere near as good of information as MPA. The troops on the ground would specifically ask for MPA overhead if they were conducting an operation that required overhead intel support. MPA has more sensors, the info is more quickly processed and transmitted to the ground forces, the aircraft is more quickly positioned/repositioned, and has the capability to change missions. I know where you're coming from, but your "better info" argument is completely without merit. This of course, doesn't even address the issue of ASW and the myriad of other missions conducted by Maritime Patrol.
As far as risking aircrews.... that is what we do for a living.... same as you. Of course VP haven't lost an aircraft as result of enemy fire since the 1950's (that was a P-2 shot down by Migs off the coast of Alaska... everyone survived), and we have never lost an aircraft in a combat zone as a result of mechanical failure (knock wood), so while your concern is appreciated, it is a bit overly cautious.
As far as firing back, the P-3 does have that capability. We carried weapons in Bosnia and in Afghanistan. With the absolute air superiority of the United States (and it's allies) however, there is typically no reason for P-3's to carry that type of ordnance.... as there are generally strike aircraft nearby when needed (thanks guys). Incidentally, P-3's have fired on ground positions in Serbia and Afghanistan.
I've already given you cheaper.... If that was the sole consideration you might have an argument, However you’d be short changing the guys on the ground and robbing the country of a valuable asset.
Predator (or any other UAV) doesn't give anywhere near as good of information as MPA. The troops on the ground would specifically ask for MPA overhead if they were conducting an operation that required overhead intel support. MPA has more sensors, the info is more quickly processed and transmitted to the ground forces, the aircraft is more quickly positioned/repositioned, and has the capability to change missions. I know where you're coming from, but your "better info" argument is completely without merit. This of course, doesn't even address the issue of ASW and the myriad of other missions conducted by Maritime Patrol.
As far as risking aircrews.... that is what we do for a living.... same as you. Of course VP haven't lost an aircraft as result of enemy fire since the 1950's (that was a P-2 shot down by Migs off the coast of Alaska... everyone survived), and we have never lost an aircraft in a combat zone as a result of mechanical failure (knock wood), so while your concern is appreciated, it is a bit overly cautious.
As far as firing back, the P-3 does have that capability. We carried weapons in Bosnia and in Afghanistan. With the absolute air superiority of the United States (and it's allies) however, there is typically no reason for P-3's to carry that type of ordnance.... as there are generally strike aircraft nearby when needed (thanks guys). Incidentally, P-3's have fired on ground positions in Serbia and Afghanistan.
I've already given you cheaper.... If that was the sole consideration you might have an argument, However you’d be short changing the guys on the ground and robbing the country of a valuable asset.
