Test pilot calls for carrier air wing shake-up
Interesting article: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/310826e050ad
Interesting article: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/310826e050ad
Last edited:
-
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 Navy, We’re Doing This Aviation Thing All Wrong
- Thread starter das
- Start date
My name is Chip and I work for a company that builds drones now. Ass hat.
Typical flawed argument. Just because the F-35 sucks, doesn't mean that UAV's are the only answer.
"...although there are some missions they could never do as well as we aviators would have liked: primarily intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD); and deep strike..."
Really?
"...Set the operational requirements for UCLASS for just three missions: ISR, SEAD and deep strike — the truly dull, dirty and dangerous missions of a combat air wing, for which the F-18 is less than perfect..."
Really?
"...consider that the maintenance squadron concept creates an opportunity for cross-decking that might reduce inventory numbers and adjust overhaul cycles..." How's that worked out for us so far? Common platform (E/F/G) just means common problems and more customers for not enough parts. Since there aren't enough parts to use all the aircraft we have on the line - we end up flying a few of them into phase maintenance more often.
"...Operate the UCLASS within the F-18 squadrons! Assign the F-18 pilots to work out the details of integration of manned and unmanned assets in the best ways they can..." Not without increasing the manning. There are approximately 15 pilots in a standard USN Charlie squadron. Each JO is covering down on no fewer than three ground jobs - while trying to work on LVL II/III/IV quals.
"...Yes, there are a lot of devilish details to be worked out..." This is the most accurate comment of his article. The details DO matter, and his article doesn't really do much to offer viable suggestions on how to solve them.
Really?
"...Set the operational requirements for UCLASS for just three missions: ISR, SEAD and deep strike — the truly dull, dirty and dangerous missions of a combat air wing, for which the F-18 is less than perfect..."
Really?
"...consider that the maintenance squadron concept creates an opportunity for cross-decking that might reduce inventory numbers and adjust overhaul cycles..." How's that worked out for us so far? Common platform (E/F/G) just means common problems and more customers for not enough parts. Since there aren't enough parts to use all the aircraft we have on the line - we end up flying a few of them into phase maintenance more often.
"...Operate the UCLASS within the F-18 squadrons! Assign the F-18 pilots to work out the details of integration of manned and unmanned assets in the best ways they can..." Not without increasing the manning. There are approximately 15 pilots in a standard USN Charlie squadron. Each JO is covering down on no fewer than three ground jobs - while trying to work on LVL II/III/IV quals.
"...Yes, there are a lot of devilish details to be worked out..." This is the most accurate comment of his article. The details DO matter, and his article doesn't really do much to offer viable suggestions on how to solve them.
To be honest a carrier-based UAV could probably do ISR a hell of a lot better than what current carrier aircraft can do.
I find it interesting that while the font in the article was big enough there was no blurb about the author at the bottom as is standard for most opinion pieces in more 'reputable' news sources. You have to dig online a bit to even find the basics of his career other than what he says in the article and nothing other than he is a 'consultant' after his retirement from the Navy.
I am a bit disappointed in most of the things I have read at War is Boring, I think the writing is a bit too polemical and 'know-it-all-ish' without really knowing enough. They seem to have a bit of an axe to grind. That and the visual presentation is annoying, I don't want to have to keep scrolling down every five seconds to read a simple article written in font my toddler would find too big.
^ but at least they tell you at the beginning how long the article should take you to read...
I'll grant you ISR. SEAD on the other hand - I guess we're so bad at it that every other service is willing to call on us to provide it.
I'll grant you ISR. SEAD on the other hand - I guess we're so bad at it that every other service is willing to call on us to provide it.
Robo-SEAD would get really ugly really quick, you need a man in the loop to tell all those trons apart and even then we will have blue on blue incidents.
Persistent ISR is something for Carrier Based UAV's to do. There are several other missions where it might be nice to have a unmanned wingman to send into the fray. Carrier based UAV is coming our way. I do not think they will replace manned carrier based aircraft. However, they could be a very useful asset if planned accordingly. Honestly, I would rather have a say now in how and when they are used, vice having them forced upon us. We can complain and moan all we want, but the reality is UAV's are coming to a carrier near you.
I think a good argument could have been made for investing in more F/A-18E/F/G, but that train has left the station. Boeing is hard at work lobbying some of the JSF buy-in countries that are having second thoughts or adjusting their numbers down, and I can't say I blame them for considering the SH as a viable alternative.
Small UAS are coming the CG's way very soon, and was reading a brief about our need to expand the program. In the power point it said something to the affect of "The 20th Century was about manned flight; this century is the age of unmanned flight".
Slow down, tiger; we are only 12.5 years into this century - let's get a little farther into it before we make those assumptions.
Slow down, tiger; we are only 12.5 years into this century - let's get a little farther into it before we make those assumptions.
I don't think a lot of folks are complaining since they will complement existing aircraft instead of replacing/displacing in the near future. Having a say in their employment woudl be critical but I think the author's ideas aren't the greatest.
LFCFan
*Insert nerd wings here*
Like that one article where the professor plays some tabletop war game and says that it shows how the US could lose a war in Korea...which is like saying that we would have had more success in Iraq if we had played "Risk" first.
Um…Google is your friend. Don't dismiss Chip Dudderar out of hand just because you've never heard of him. 30 years flying single-seat off the boat and TPS and "commanding" the Strike Directorate gives him the bona fides to put pen to paper.
You could do the same…Ass hat.
Yea, a little harsh on my part. I like to know who is paying for someone's opinion never the less. I do agree that the F-35 is most likely going to end up being a POS.