Hard Power and Soft Power

[MIDNJAC]

Agreed. The ire of my post is directed mostly at our acquisition process/community (of which I am a member). The Big 5 have done some really dumb shit chasing profit though. That's not helpful when we've already put ourselves behind the proverbial 8 ball. Ultimately, there's plenty of blame to go around. Most of it is DOD's but the contractors bear some of it as well.

It is a disaster to be quite honest. I work on the other side, and I am probably a lot less informed than many of you have done tours in the navair world, but from the cheap seats as a guy working for a major defense contractor (that rhymes with Going) for the last 5 years, the contract is where it all gets ruined. And to your point, the navy is really bad at writing contracts in some realms. I want to give you XYZ, and you want XYZ, but based on the short sighted (often copy pasted) contract, we can't give it to you because that isn't funded......and instead we are measured on a bunch of non sensical, even inconsequential made up metrics to satisfy some NAVAIR bean counter who is only looking at black and white contract language "oh you didn't provide overhead projector slides" or "this enabling objective is not properly documented in the I documents". Or "you need to spell out Air Intercept Missile first" YGBFSM sometimes

 

[robav8r]

As a current MPR warfighter, I'd like to know what you think the best platform looks like, as I don't think you've answered that question.

I’m not sure, exactly. And I understand all the points made above. But if you start at the beginning, here, you may not end up with our current platform. I understand the fiscal environment, and current TTP’s and ROC/POE. Boeing was very skillful in their acquisition strategy, but from a purely DAS perspective, we could have ended up with a better platform.

 

[CommodoreMid]

A 757 would probably have been the better commercially driven variant to consider ONSTA time. I only miss 5 things from the P-3:

1) my window
2) facing forward
3) the barwood
4) the amplify fix function
5) my fixes actually updating my gen track

But otherwise you couldn’t pay me to go back.

 

[Mos]

I’m not sure, exactly.

Fair enough.

1) my window
2) facing forward
3) the barwood
4) the amplify fix function
5) my fixes actually updating my gen track

I sympathize, especially on the barwood. Recent software update makes #5 possible now, though I haven't used it much yet.

 

[robav8r]

I'm also not aware of any TTPs that put the MPRA aircraft on the leading edge of the strike package. The CSG is going to hold the threat at arm's length, so why would MPRA need to be that far forward?

A CSG strike package?, probably not. But there are OPLANS that have armed MPRA A/C operating alone, without the protection of the CSG.

 

[Brett327]

A CSG strike package?, probably not. But there are OPLANS that have armed MPRA A/C operating alone, without the protection of the CSG.

Inside a MEZ?

 

[KTBQ]

I’m not sure, exactly. And I understand all the points made above. But if you start at the beginning, here, you may not end up with our current platform. I understand the fiscal environment, and current TTP’s and ROC/POE. Boeing was very skillful in their acquisition strategy, but from a purely DAS perspective, we could have ended up with a better platform.

From an acquisitions perspective, P-8A has been a historically successful program, still in production and spiraling capability based on bottomless operational demand worldwide. Anecdotally, you couldn’t pay me to go back to P-3C. Really interested in what you’d propose to do differently?

 

[robav8r]

Inside a MEZ?

Obviously not getting into ISR track locations or OPLANS, but MPRA operates, and plans to operates, in many locations against a peer adversary without the luxury of a CSG nearby.

 

[robav8r]

From an acquisitions perspective, P-8A has been a historically successful program, still in production and spiraling capability based on bottomless operational demand worldwide. Anecdotally, you couldn’t pay me to go back to P-3C. Really interested in what you’d propose to do differently?

I would propose to not send an armed 737 into an ASW patrol area or ISR track, during a time of increased tensions/conflict with a target nation that would treat that A/C differently than an unarmed, Navy or Air Force ASW/ISR platform. Maybe Triton is the answer, maybe UUV/USV's are the answer, maybe another turboprop platform like this is the answer. I guess we'd have to let the JCIDS process play out. My overarching point, from the beginning has been, Boeing offered a "solution" to the P-3 replacement, we all understand why, politically and fiscally. If you want to argue fiscal responsibility and what is "possible" in the current environment, I get that. A lot of theoretical bar napkin discussions going on here. I just hope we never have to gnash our teeth over why we put 9 or 10 folks in an armed 737 into harms way during a phase 0-3 scenario.

 

[KTBQ]

I would propose to not send an armed 737 into an ASW patrol area or ISR track, during a time of increased tensions/conflict with a target nation that would treat that A/C differently than an unarmed, Navy or Air Force ASW/ISR platform. Maybe Triton is the answer, maybe UUV/USV's are the answer, maybe another turboprop platform like this is the answer. I guess we'd have to let the JCIDS process play out. My overarching point, from the beginning has been, Boeing offered a "solution" to the P-3 replacement, we all understand why, politically and fiscally. If you want to argue fiscal responsibility and what is "possible" in the current environment, I get that. A lot of theoretical bar napkin discussions going on here. I just hope we never have to gnash our teeth over why we put 9 or 10 folks in an armed 737 into harms way during a phase 0-3 scenario.

Ok, survivability. That’s fair, though I don’t think that airbus turboprop really addresses that concern (P-8 flies low and slow just fine).

 

[robav8r]

Ok, survivability. That’s fair, though I don’t think that airbus turboprop really addresses that concern (P-8 flies low and slow just fine).

My comments are more targeted towards how our acquisition process "should" work in a perfect world, not being overly influenced by the power brokers with the defense industry. I too have heard the P-8 is a wonderful A/C compared to the P-3, hopefully it continues to add value and relevancy to our NDS/NMS.

 

[Brett327]

Obviously not getting into ISR track locations or OPLANS, but MPRA operates, and plans to operates, in many locations against a peer adversary without the luxury of a CSG nearby.

That isn't what I asked. If you're operating in a MEZ, then you aren't survivable. I don't care what kind of aircraft you're in. If you aren't operating in a MEZ, then your assertion of "unseriousness" doesn't matter. You're asking for something that does not exist, then complaining that the 737 doesn't provide it.

If you want to argue fiscal responsibility and what is "possible" in the current environment, I get that.

Unless you're living in an alternate universe, these are the constraints we ALL have to live with. I still don't understand exactly what you're pushing back against with the 737.

My comments are more targeted towards how our acquisition process "should" work in a perfect world, not being overly influenced by the power brokers with the defense industry.

Again, what "should" the acquisitions process have delivered that would meet your as yet still undefined magic set of requirements? I don't think you know what you want... you just want to bitch about Boeing.

 

[robav8r]

That isn't what I asked. If you're operating in a MEZ, then you aren't survivable. I don't care what kind of aircraft you're in. If you aren't operating in a MEZ, then your assertion of "unseriousness" doesn't matter. You're asking for something that does not exist, then complaining that the 737 doesn't provide it.

Unless you're living in an alternate universe, these are the constraints we ALL have to live with. I still don't understand exactly what you're pushing back against with the 737.

Again, what "should" the acquisitions process have delivered that would meet your as yet still undefined magic set of requirements? I don't think you know what you want... you just want to bitch about Boeing.

MPRA doesn't always operate in a defined, and known MEZ.

You have the comfort of living in an environment (CVW) that has a lot of capability and protection that MPRA does not always have.

From our adversaries perspective, what will they think about an armed (AGM-84/MK-50/Other) P-8 operating without the protections of a CSG or land based S2A weapon systems?

The acquisition process, should not "start" with a Boeing product - should it end with a Boeing product?, I'm not sure. You are being a pragmatist, and I understand why. But at the end of the day, we have MPRA aircrews flying in AOR's, armed, and a very easy target for our adversaries.

I think this conversation is useful, and bleeds into the need for CVN's and all that comes with a CSG. Just trying to think "forward" a bit. The UAV horrors of the Ukraine war and recent activities of the Houthi's should give us all pause and stimulate conversations about current capabilities and resourcing versus what we should be thinking about going forward.

We are vulnerable to a host of threats and capabilities i'm not sure our NDS/NMS is considering.

And Brett, this is a discussion, not a challenge to your KSAs.

Thoughts?

 

[mmx1]

If not a Boeing product, who else is making 100k MTOW aluminum tubes with jet engines? Seems like that’s your problem.

I’m sure POTUS could get us a good deal on some UAC planes if he’s unhappy with Boeing.

 

[robav8r]

If not a Boeing product, who else is making 100k MTOW aluminum tubes with jet engines? Seems like that’s your problem.

I’m sure POTUS could get us a good deal on some UAC planes if he’s unhappy with Boeing.

No, that’s a problem of our Defense Industrial base. Kinda my point . . .