Thought this was an interesting article...
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...98/UK-forced-to-borrow-spy-plane-from-US.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...98/UK-forced-to-borrow-spy-plane-from-US.html
-
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
Hey buddy, can you spare a P-3???
- Thread starter helolumpy
- Start date
Old pic. I haven't seen an ESM pod on a P-3 since the late 80s...
VP-31 at Moffett managed to scrap the tip off one on the runway while attempting a gear-up touch & go. At the last second, the FE felt a settling sensation that was wrong and pushed the power levers full foward. The prop tips hung as low as the pod and the only thing that saved them from a prop strike (in addition to the FE) was the nose up attitude from the student pilot over-rotating his flare.
VP-31 at Moffett managed to scrap the tip off one on the runway while attempting a gear-up touch & go. At the last second, the FE felt a settling sensation that was wrong and pushed the power levers full foward. The prop tips hung as low as the pod and the only thing that saved them from a prop strike (in addition to the FE) was the nose up attitude from the student pilot over-rotating his flare.
Just because its not surprising that the UK doesnt have its own MPRA doesnt mean its any less sad.
I like the fact that the USN is the predominant maritime force on the globe, but its sad to see one of our closest allies not being able to provide ISR coverage for their fleet. And this also isnt a situation where they are using US planes simply because its more convenient. If we had said no they would have to ask someone else or do without, and that while maybe not sensational is a shame.
I like the fact that the USN is the predominant maritime force on the globe, but its sad to see one of our closest allies not being able to provide ISR coverage for their fleet. And this also isnt a situation where they are using US planes simply because its more convenient. If we had said no they would have to ask someone else or do without, and that while maybe not sensational is a shame.
They could always borrow one from the Pakistanis. OH, wait...:icon_tong
Too soon?
Britain has a long, sad history of doing this sort of thing, ever since they decided they couldn't keep up an indigenous military-industrial complex anymore during the '60's. Most of their defence planning since the '70's was based on the assumption that any war the UK fought would be as part of NATO. The RN's niche was supposed to be ASW and mine warfare, which is a surface/helo/MPA thing. Therefore, they didn't need conventional carriers, CV AEW/fleet interceptors, amphibious forces or a long-range strategic bomber force. The Brits pulled of the Falklands by the skin of their teeth and because they're geniuses at improvising when they have to (and because the Argies weren't exactly the varsity). As it was, they lost way too many ships because of lack of AEW and interceptors, and a good chunk of the landing force had to be transported on the QEII. If the Argies had waited a year, Ark Royal would have been decommed and the Victor/Vulcan bomber force would have been on sticks and the Brits couldn't have retaken the islands.
Now that Russian subs coming down the GIUK isn't a big factor anymore, the Nimrods have been on their way out for a while, too.
This is all relevant because I can see us going down the same slope, defense-spending-wise. "Capability X is expensive and we don't need it right now, so just let it go." Then one day we'll find all of our capabilities have atrophied to the point where we can no longer project power in any meaningful way. We'll be in the same position as Her Majesty's Armed Forces... a professional, well-educated force that can't do fuck-all unless someone else does the heavy lifting.
Now that Russian subs coming down the GIUK isn't a big factor anymore, the Nimrods have been on their way out for a while, too.
This is all relevant because I can see us going down the same slope, defense-spending-wise. "Capability X is expensive and we don't need it right now, so just let it go." Then one day we'll find all of our capabilities have atrophied to the point where we can no longer project power in any meaningful way. We'll be in the same position as Her Majesty's Armed Forces... a professional, well-educated force that can't do fuck-all unless someone else does the heavy lifting.
A bit of a catch-22, isn't it? Either we can constantly hemorrage (sp?) cash, to the tune of $700 billion a year or so (maybe dropping off a bit if/when Af/Iraq/Libya end, and until we find the next conflict) to maintain a huge standing military, or we can revert back to the mobilization cycle that got us through WWI, WWII, and Korea. Or something in between. Both have their pros and cons, but I know for sure which decision influential defense contractors would prefer...
If you think we have a "huge standing army" (by which I'm sure you mean all the military) think again. The only reason we've been able to pull off these two active conflicts and still meet a host of other commitments is thanks to a huge technological advantage provided by those evil "influental defense contractors".
Many of us have lived through those "peace dividend" times and they are not good for virtually any aspect of the military and certainly not Naval Air. If you've been in less than a decade you are about to see the same cycle that happened post-Vietnam and post Cold War and just like then we will be caught with gaps when the crap hits the fan again.
Ok, I'll think again. I did mean "huge standing military," which is why I typed "huge standing military." It's not really "standing" right now--we're involved in three overseas conflicts with guys still pulling 12-month deployments. The question is to what extent we will maintain this military as a standing force following these conflicts. And don't put words in my mouth--I didn't say that defense contractors are evil, but I sincerely hope that no one here is naive enough to think that they don't influence policy. To argue that the U.S. doesn't have a massive military is a nonstarter. In every measurable way except, perhaps, the actual number of people in uniform, we're so far ahead of anyone else that it's ridiculous(ly awesome?). Hey, throw in the contractors and we even narrow the personnel gap a bit! 
And we pay for it. If we want to keep it up, we have to keep paying for it. And paying. And paying. This is in support of priorities and commitments that WE CHOOSE. I'm just saying that the time could very well come that we simply choose differently. Sure, we might get caught with our pants down at some point--but that could happen anyway. 12 years ago no one would have predicted that dudes flying airplanes into buildings and starving Somalis in speedboats would figure as prominently into our nat'l security as they do now.
"Caught with gaps." Absolutely true. Just like the examples I alluded to--WWI, WWII, and Korea. Especially WWII. But that could happen anyway, as a potential adversay will be seeking to find/create/exploit such gaps. Even as a peon-nobody in the military, I can understand the choice and the inherent risks. But the ridiculousness of it all is that if you ask the question, "What is the greatest danger/threat to the United States' security today?" you usually get an answer that can't be solved by another CVN or SSN.
And we pay for it. If we want to keep it up, we have to keep paying for it. And paying. And paying. This is in support of priorities and commitments that WE CHOOSE. I'm just saying that the time could very well come that we simply choose differently. Sure, we might get caught with our pants down at some point--but that could happen anyway. 12 years ago no one would have predicted that dudes flying airplanes into buildings and starving Somalis in speedboats would figure as prominently into our nat'l security as they do now. "Caught with gaps." Absolutely true. Just like the examples I alluded to--WWI, WWII, and Korea. Especially WWII. But that could happen anyway, as a potential adversay will be seeking to find/create/exploit such gaps. Even as a peon-nobody in the military, I can understand the choice and the inherent risks. But the ridiculousness of it all is that if you ask the question, "What is the greatest danger/threat to the United States' security today?" you usually get an answer that can't be solved by another CVN or SSN.
Apologies if I put unintended words to what was a reference to defense contractors.
The challenge is what is the next threat? Is it the asymmetric threat we have changed to deal with most often face today or is it a nation-state that decides that it has the imperative to close strait "hormuzemalacca" and has a vast number of subs, less capable than a Virginia class, but in large numbers to enforce their mandate.
Do the JCS pick up the blower and call Groton and say we need 5 more subs by friday?
Groton would say that's a three year plan to hire people and spool production up to make that happen.
The technology and quality people that make our military, and the intelligence that feeds them, superior is not something that ebbs and flows in a commercial pace. It's often unique and takes time to adapt.
It is imperative that we spend time determining what that balance is and it is not a trivial exercise that should be left in the hands of politicians that think in reelection cycles.