Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/28/2005 8:20:23 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: pabianice
That is potentially good news to Lockheed Martin, which lost the MMA bid to Boeing, but hardly for the US.

Let's not forget what's good for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. citizens who value their freedom. It's probably best if we hold our defense spending to current levels of GDP, and it's probably best if we spend it in the best way to fight the war on terrorism.

This means tough choices and cuts in some cool, big-ticekt weapon systems like the F-22 and others. I'm glad the Bush admin. is willing to make the hard choices.

2 posted on 01/28/2005 8:26:31 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice
Good.
Revamp the Charlies, if you must, but B-TacMods were hauling the mail before gall-blame computerized Charlies showed up, and the Charlies have been doing an adequate job since.
Lower take-off weight? So what? They carried enough fuel and bouys to stay up until the crew became zombies.

Dumb idea, anyway, a twin-engined jet loitering around at 1,500 feet...

3 posted on 01/28/2005 8:29:40 AM PST by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

What's wrong with buying new P-3s? A turboprop is a better plane for the mission anyway.


4 posted on 01/28/2005 8:30:33 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice
This makes me nervous.The sub-hunting S-3 is history,the P-3 is old and overworked. The Chinese are going to build a sub fleet.There are plenty of Russian subs available for Third World countries to acquire.

Why are we reducing our sub hunting capabilities? We can't rely on DD's and carrier based helos alone.

7 posted on 01/28/2005 8:43:33 AM PST by oldsalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice
There is in the US inventory no other long-range maritime patrol and stand-off attack aircraft.

If anyone knows, why couldn't C-130s be used for this role? They have to have the carrying capacity and range needed and I don't think we necessarily are talking about something outside of their performance envelope otherwise. So why not? If they need greater speed why not consider the C-17?

Wasn't there just a stink becuase the C-130 line was going to be shut down? Well, extend production and modify them for this role.

I'm sure there's a reason this won't work, but I can't see it.

11 posted on 01/28/2005 9:05:56 AM PST by Phsstpok ("When you don't know where you are, but you don't care, you're not lost, you're exploring.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

I flew on P-3c's for 4.5 years in the Navy, these are old aircraft. we had one in our inventory that was 20 years old in 1989 and as far as I know it's still in service. that's 36 years old. You can't compare the B-52's mission of flying in smooth air at 40,000 feet to the P3's mission of bouncing around for 12 hours at 500-1000 feet. It beats you up pretty good. These aircraft have had it. They're too dangerous to fly anymore and need to be replaced if the navy is going to continue with this mission. This is a safety issue. It's deliberately putting our servicemen in harmsway.


12 posted on 01/28/2005 9:20:37 AM PST by hiramknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

And I was contemplating transferring from Boeing commercial to the MMA program when they announce openings for my job classification. I think I should wait.


17 posted on 01/28/2005 9:40:41 AM PST by NavyCanDo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

As an old P-3 man, this is good and bad news. I dearly love the P-3, logged a bunch of hours in the old Bravo models. But, let's face it, we have some VERY old aircraft out there that we are asking our military folks to fly.

The B-52 is over 50 years old. It's a great aircraft and has proven itself as a superb warhorse, but at over 50, it's got to be a VERY tired warhorse.

The same is true of the P-3. The P-3 is over 40 years old. Again, another great aircraft, but it's technology and airframe are way outdated and long overdue for a replacement.

I understand budget issues and know that the military can't spend what it doesn't have. I just hate to think of the risk to the airmen of all service branches who have to risk their lives flying in some of these (wonderful) aging, decrepit machines. They were great in their day . . . but their day is come and gone.

It's time to put these aircraft out to pasture - to join some of the folks who used to fly them.


21 posted on 01/28/2005 9:54:47 AM PST by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Long Cut

Item possibly of interest.


23 posted on 01/28/2005 9:57:20 AM PST by dighton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

This is what needs to be cut.


August 2004

Navy Will Build Electromagnetic Gun Test Site
by Joe Pappalardo

The U.S. Navy is preparing to break ground on a program dedicated to testing the science behind electromagnetic rail guns.

The Navy will begin the construction of a new building devoted to the project this summer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va.

The Navy said it hopes it can develop an electromagnetic rail gun by 2010, and possibly deploy it aboard the electric-powered DD-X destroyer. Rail guns require a pulse power system to get instant electrical charges needed to accelerate projectiles to hypersonic velocities. Its rapid flight time and 200-kilometer range make these guns a tempting option for future naval weapons.

Researchers at Dahlgren will be studying the power supply, pulse forming networks and the rails themselves, said Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman David Caskey.

“The basic physics have been around for 80 years,” he said. “I think things opened up when the Navy decided their next generation ship would be electric.”

If the EM gun works as promised, it would add considerable firepower to the DD-X, which already is being designed with two 155 mm guns that fire GPS-guided shells out to about 100 kilometers, half the expected range of an EM gun.

Researchers figure that the power requirements associated with electromagnetic weapons would be easier to handle on an electric-powered ship.

Advances in alternating current power systems have made generators more compact. According to Lt. Cmdr. David Allen Adams, a pulse power system needed to support a 250-nautical mile rail gun could fit into existing 5-inch gun mounts. In a recent article published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Adams wrote that electromagnetic guns are projected to have low firing rates, hovering at about six shots a minute. However, the lower flight times and massive range—two minutes for payload to reach 100 miles—makes up for that deficit.

Another benefit of EM guns is that they do not require explosive warheads, reducing shipboard hazards.

“The projectile is basically going into space,” Caskey said. “It could really change the way you look at ballistics.”

56 posted on 01/28/2005 9:37:58 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pabianice

I doubt it. This would fit Boxer's plan, not Rummy. The MMA seems a natural fit to the Rumsfeld/Bush plan for lighter/faster. Unless they have something better on the books, UAV?


70 posted on 01/31/2005 8:49:55 AM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson