• 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

NEWS Seahawks Sink Houthi Boats

MIDNJAC

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
ChuckMK23 said:
I know a lot of you guys like throwing darts at Ward - but his channel numbers are growing... impressive. And he clearly is seen as a credible actor with his access to Flags - in this case CNAL aboard CVN-78. Good interview I thought.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Didn't watch the video, but if CNAL is popping up on social media accounts, YGBFSM.
 
ea6bflyr

ea6bflyr

Working Class Bum
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
I know a lot of you guys like throwing darts at Ward - but his channel numbers are growing... impressive. And he clearly is seen as a credible actor with his access to Flags - in this case CNAL aboard CVN-78. Good interview I thought.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...
No, he’s not. Dude‘s a turd that glamorizes his shit for clicks and views. He’s a social media whore. 🤢🤮
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Griz882 said:
Now, a a tax payer I’d rather see something more affordable like gun-armed AT-6’s (or OV-10’s) hunting drones. Bullets are considerably cheaper than missiles.
Click to expand...

Griz882 said:
You’re right…we need to save space in the boat so our $415 BILLION jet fighter can shoot down $1000 drones with $150K missiles. What was I thinking?

There was a time when our navy (like our AF still does) had different airframes for different jobs. It can be done.
Click to expand...

croakerfish said:
You think fielding a whole new platform with its own community of pilots and maintainers who aren’t involved in other missions, with an FRS and everything, that doesn’t fit on the same boat without sacrificing other platforms, or needs a separate land-based facility that itself requires a huge supply footprint is worth the savings in flight hours on a better platform?
Click to expand...

croakerfish said:
Buying a cheaper ship with cheaper planes isn’t going to stop us from buying the good stuff. It’s not like we can have the VBSS team drive around with goose guns to shoot them down.
Click to expand...

@croakerfish already hit the nail on the head but you are suggesting we buy a niche platform to do a niche job for an undetermined amount of time. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, using very expensive munitions to destroy low-cost weapons is an issue that the Navy (and DoD) are aware of and trying to mitigate but buying a whole new 'boutique' weapons platform just to do that is...not smart, or cost-efficient.

You point out that the USAF has a few unique airframes for unique jobs but some of those arguably cost more than they are worth. I remember a few years ago that the USAF CSAF pointed out that the funding for the A-10 fleet could fund 3 times as many F-16's, based largely on economies of scale since the A-10 has a unique airframe, unique engines (to the DoD) and all the other attendant infrastructure needed to support all of that unique stuff. And for what? Brrrtttttt? Frankly it has been Congress support that has kept them alive this long. Those extra costs are the same reason the KC-10 was retired even though it is 2 decades younger than the KC-135 and had more carrying capacity, a unique airframe with unique engines and all the attendant support for a relatively small fleet wasn't worth keeping them around any more.

Finally it comes down to capability. While on paper a light attack prop plane may stack up fine against a cheap drone you first have to get it in the right place at the right time to do so. Where are you going to base them? How long are you going to keep them there? In this case they are also a literal moving target without a fixed target, so you have to cover a very wide area. What is the best platform to do so? A fast, long-range asset that can stay on station for an extended length of time and has long-range, all-weather intercept capability with a full suite of weapons to destroy them. Guess what fits that bill? Our current inventory of air-refuelable fighters already stationed in the area. Guess what doesn't? The AT-6, A-29 and OV-10 among others.

Ironic or not we already have very capable, 'low-cost' platforms to shoot down enemy drones, helicopters. The problem is again getting them in the right place at the right time to do so, it is easy to do so with a place like DC with HH-65's but it is a lot harder to do so with ships transiting within a hundred miles north and south of the BAM.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Flash said:
@croakerfish already hit the nail on the head but you are suggesting we buy a niche platform to do a niche job for an undetermined amount of time. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, using very expensive munitions to destroy low-cost weapons is an issue that the Navy (and DoD) are aware of and trying to mitigate but buying a whole new 'boutique' weapons platform just to do that is...not smart, or cost-efficient.

You point out that the USAF has a few unique airframes for unique jobs but some of those arguably cost more than they are worth. I remember a few years ago that the USAF CSAF pointed out that the funding for the A-10 fleet could fund 3 times as many F-16's, based largely on economies of scale since the A-10 has a unique airframe, unique engines (to the DoD) and all the other attendant infrastructure needed to support all of that unique stuff. And for what? Brrrtttttt? Frankly it has been Congress support that has kept them alive this long. Those extra costs are the same reason the KC-10 was retired even though it is 2 decades younger than the KC-135 and had more carrying capacity, a unique airframe with unique engines and all the attendant support for a relatively small fleet wasn't worth keeping them around any more.

Finally it comes down to capability. While on paper a light attack prop plane may stack up fine against a cheap drone you first have to get it in the right place at the right time to do so. Where are you going to base them? How long are you going to keep them there? In this case they are also a literal moving target without a fixed target, so you have to cover a very wide area. What is the best platform to do so? A fast, long-range asset that can stay on station for an extended length of time and has long-range, all-weather intercept capability with a full suite of weapons to destroy them. Guess what fits that bill? Our current inventory of air-refuelable fighters already stationed in the area. Guess what doesn't? The AT-6, A-29 and OV-10 among others.

Ironic or not we already have very capable, 'low-cost' platforms to shoot down enemy drones, helicopters. The problem is again getting them in the right place at the right time to do so, it is easy to do so with a place like DC with HH-65's but it is a lot harder to do so with ships transiting within a hundred miles north and south of the BAM.
Click to expand...
I really started this part of the conversation as part joke. I don’t expect the Navy to shop a new platform since it apparently takes 20 years to field it. As an American tax payer I promise to continue my support of the Navy’s unimaginative and wasteful spending. I also don’t really believe in the Zombie Viking, I just like talking bout it…sorry @robav8r.
 
Flash

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Griz882 said:
I really started this part of the conversation as part joke. I don’t expect the Navy to shop a new platform since it apparently takes 20 years to field it. As an American tax payer I promise to continue my support of the Navy’s unimaginative and wasteful spending. I also don’t really believe in the Zombie Viking, I just like talking bout it…sorry @robav8r.
Click to expand...

It is a recurring theme, and is a focus of many a debate about what to fund and what to field from the A-10 to the U-2 to the LCS. So nothing at all personal, just venting about a frustration on my part and of many others that these solutions take up a lot of time and effort that could otherwise be directed elsewhere. Plus, its a slow day...the Huthis are staying quiet trying to avoid getting schwacked.
 
Griz882

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Flash said:
It is a recurring theme, and is a focus of many a debate about what to fund and what to field from the A-10 to the U-2 to the LCS. So nothing at all personal, just venting about a frustration on my part and of many others that these solutions take up a lot of time and effort that could otherwise be directed elsewhere. Plus, it’s a slow day...the Huthis are staying quiet trying to avoid getting schwacked.
Click to expand...
We’re good…like a Hothi navy captain, I’m open to attack. I can take it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top