MAD Question

[geofflambert]

Here's a pic of the P-8 next to a Japanese P-1

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.

Yes , we'll never need MAD again. Just like in the 1960's it was decided that we'll never need to dogfight again. Yes, after ww1 we'll never need the bayonet again. Cruisers don't need torpedoes , we'll only fight long range daylight gun battles in the future. Escort fighters? What for? You know the bomber will always get through! Funny how those who say "the military doesn't need" are never the same people who have to go out and fight wars!. Yes I've prosecuted submarines from 20k feet. And if you are going against nuclear submarines in blue waters sometimes it even works. But did anyone notice that the majority of submarines in the world today are not big , fat nuclear steam kettels? But quite , small , diesel or AIP submarines? That's the problem with saying , "we'll never need"...the opposition looks at your strategy and says "HEY!" , "guess how you beat them? Do what they say they'll never need".

I'm not saying that MAD is absolutely "mission essential" , but I am saying is the more tools you steal from the carpenter's tool box, the lousier job the carpenter can do , as he can't do various jobs or deal with diverse problem. Soon all the carpenter's box will have in it is a hammer, and he'd damned well better pray that every adversary is a nail. [:(]

[Numdydar]

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]

[geofflambert]

Immediately. I love the taste of horsemeat and no, I'm not French. The French and I also have a great appreciation of dogs and cats. Also gerbils, goldfish and anything we can catch in our basements.

[wegman58]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]

Considering that ASW aircraft use light weight (aka SHORT ranged) torpedoes, how far will the sub be from where the torpedo was dropped if they are flying too high to use MAD???

Helos are nice, but the one time my reserve frigate squadron got to practice ASW it was because a P3 managed to find a Soviet sub (and it was Soviet back then) with a line of sonobouys (SP?). Then two KNOX, two FFG-7s and four LAMPS got to practice.

[Amoral]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

So when do you think we will need Calvary divisions with real horses again [:'(]

Hard to imagine a division, but India has the 61st cavalry regiment (mit horses) for fighting in the mountains. The US used special forces on horseback in Afghanistan.

[AW1Steve]

China has several regiment sized Calvary units. And of course US special forces utilized horse mounted units in Afghanistan (with laser rangefinders slung over their backs and saddlebags filled with money).

A better analogy might be how the US was going to eliminate all tracked vehicles (tanks, APC's and SP's) and replace them with variations of the Stryker in those roles. Fortunately reality convinced the powers that be that this was not a good idea. Or my favorite , the 1957 MOD white paper that said manned air craft were obsolete and the UK should go with strictly missiles.

But "when they say" never again will we need this or that , they are usually trying to sell something. In this case , a converted 737 that's low level performance exceeds dismal. When your plane sucks at low level , you tell everybody "you don't need low level any more". Kinda like Jordan Marsh explaining to the US government in the civil war that his boots wore out after a mile or two because " oh those boots? They were made for the cavalry!"

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
But "when they say" never again will we need this or that , they are usually trying to sell something. In this case , a converted 737 that's low level performance exceeds dismal. When your plane sucks at low level , you tell everybody "you don't need low level any more".

I fully agree.
I am afraid that situation is similar for KC-46 tanker. A330 MRTT is much better but the choice had to be Boeing in any case.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.

Yes , we'll never need MAD again. Just like in the 1960's it was decided that we'll never need to dogfight again. Yes, after ww1 we'll never need the bayonet again. Cruisers don't need torpedoes , we'll only fight long range daylight gun battles in the future. Escort fighters? What for? You know the bomber will always get through! Funny how those who say "the military doesn't need" are never the same people who have to go out and fight wars!. Yes I've prosecuted submarines from 20k feet. And if you are going against nuclear submarines in blue waters sometimes it even works. But did anyone notice that the majority of submarines in the world today are not big , fat nuclear steam kettels? But quite , small , diesel or AIP submarines? That's the problem with saying , "we'll never need"...the opposition looks at your strategy and says "HEY!" , "guess how you beat them? Do what they say they'll never need".

I'm not saying that MAD is absolutely "mission essential" , but I am saying is the more tools you steal from the carpenter's tool box, the lousier job the carpenter can do , as he can't do various jobs or deal with diverse problem. Soon all the carpenter's box will have in it is a hammer, and he'd damned well better pray that every adversary is a nail. [:(]

They are supposedly developing MAD-equipped UAV to work with P-8 to address the lack of MAD.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... drone.html

[Lecivius]

I keep seeing questionable weapon platforms coming into service. Does nobody know their history in the Pentagon anymore?

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I keep seeing questionable weapon platforms coming into service. Does nobody know their history in the Pentagon anymore?

Yes. Unlike in years gone by , the Pentagon decides what they want then create a "project office" to "guide" congress in it's procurement. The problem (in my humble estimation) is it politicizes the military process instead of laying out a series of requirements and awarding the contract to whoever meets the requirement best to "other factors". And example being the M-9 Berretta pistol contract. All kinds of factors entered into play including "we'll buy your pistol if your country will buy our fighters". In the past a requirement of specification was issued , then a competition between products ensued. It wasn't always fairly administered , but at least your didn't have a three starred flag officer and his staff appointed as a military lobbyist for the project.

And too often the "best product" was unseated by "the cheapest product". An example was the "low cost fighter project" of the 1970's. The F-16 beat the F-17 because it cost 4.5 million versus 5 million . Even thought the F-17 had two engines (required by European allies due to enhanced survivability and a weariness with single engine fighters falling on their heads). The F-17 was considered "too good to die" and was re-ramped as the F-18 (to dethrone the F-14 from USMC service).


Procurement has always been a convoluted and controversial process. There's just too much money involved not to be. [:)]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The Wikipedia article says the operational altitude of the P-8 is too high for MAD. Even though the P-8 is Navy, I should think the CVNs should have some ASW aircraft of their own.

Yes , we'll never need MAD again. Just like in the 1960's it was decided that we'll never need to dogfight again. Yes, after ww1 we'll never need the bayonet again. Cruisers don't need torpedoes , we'll only fight long range daylight gun battles in the future. Escort fighters? What for? You know the bomber will always get through! Funny how those who say "the military doesn't need" are never the same people who have to go out and fight wars!. Yes I've prosecuted submarines from 20k feet. And if you are going against nuclear submarines in blue waters sometimes it even works. But did anyone notice that the majority of submarines in the world today are not big , fat nuclear steam kettels? But quite , small , diesel or AIP submarines? That's the problem with saying , "we'll never need"...the opposition looks at your strategy and says "HEY!" , "guess how you beat them? Do what they say they'll never need".

I'm not saying that MAD is absolutely "mission essential" , but I am saying is the more tools you steal from the carpenter's tool box, the lousier job the carpenter can do , as he can't do various jobs or deal with diverse problem. Soon all the carpenter's box will have in it is a hammer, and he'd damned well better pray that every adversary is a nail. [:(]

They are supposedly developing MAD-equipped UAV to work with P-8 to address the lack of MAD.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... drone.html

Right. We'll fixed the flaws AFTER you buy the product , then charge you extravagantly for the fix. [:D]

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
But "when they say" never again will we need this or that , they are usually trying to sell something. In this case , a converted 737 that's low level performance exceeds dismal. When your plane sucks at low level , you tell everybody "you don't need low level any more".

I fully agree.
I am afraid that situation is similar for KC-46 tanker. A330 MRTT is much better but the choice had to be Boeing in any case.

Especially since BOTH share exactly the same flaws. [:D] Two points here. 1) many officers feel it becomes a matter of "OUR junk versus THEIR junk". (US company versus a European pseudo company attempt to avoid the "Buy American act"). 2) a great many of pilots involved in the procurement process learned on Boeing products ,and have flown Boeing products their whole career. Versus an aircraft that isn't that familiar to them except as "the aircraft that went down in the Hudson" and other similar incidents. Call it "brand loyalty" .

[:D] Fair or not. Please note..this isn't MY judgement , but merely an attempt to provide a perspective. [:)]

[wdolson]

When I was at Boeing, one of the things my group did was maintain simulators used to design commercial aircraft flight decks. They had pilots from airlines come in an critique things.

From the guys who interacted with the pilots, they said pilots tend to like Boeing flight decks better than Airbus. Airbus fly by wire is like flying a video game with no tactile feedback. Boeing went to a lot of trouble to make the fly by wire controls behave like physical cable controls. So the control column shakes when you start to stall and both control columns will move when one pilot moves them. Boeing puts a lot of effort into keeping pilots happy. Airbus sells to the bean counters at the airlines and they make the interfaces cheaper than Boeing does.

One Airbus was lost over the Atlantic when an inexperienced co-pilot did the wrong thing with the control stick and the pilot was locked out from doing anything. The pilot didn't realize until the last second that the co-pilot had been doing the wrong thing the whole time. That would be impossible on a Boeing flight deck.

Bill

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Especially since BOTH share exactly the same flaws.

[:D] Fair or not. Please note..this isn't MY judgement , but merely an attempt to provide a perspective. [:)]

Note that MRTT have won all the competitions against KC-46 including the initial US one. [;)]

[bomccarthy]

In 1996 McDonnell Douglas proposed a KC-17, with a palletised version of the remote aerial-refuelling operator's (RARO) system, two optional KC-10 wing-mounted drogues located on hard points already built into the standard airframe, a centerline boom mounted on a cargo door that would be interchangeable with the standard door, and fuel coming from either an unused center wing tank or a roll-on optional modular fuel tank. The lower cargo ramp door would have been retained, allowing access and removal of the RARO and the optional fuel tank. You can see some more details here: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mdc-reveals-kc-17-cargotanker-details-11685/

I don't recall the details of what happened to the proposal (it was offered to the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Japan). After the acquisition, Boeing slowly killed all legacy McDonnell Douglas products.

[SuluSea]

I believe it was the book Bowfin but it could have been another late war sub book but I felt they paid respect enough to MAD that the game had it underrated.

In full disclosure I don't know or understand the algorithms or what's under the hood in this game.

[sanch]

I had an uncle that did a tour in the Pentagon in procurements. His project was (IIRC) a ship-borne SAM system. It was his last test before becoming an admiral in command of a carrier. But, to make a long story short, the system didn't work. And he refused to cave in to the politicians and his superiors. It cost him his promotion and the carrier command. Basically, they put him out to pasture. He retired a couple years later as commandant of the Boston navy yard.

[Reg]

Sounds like Pentagon Wars.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

[Alpha77]

ORI
Now about non-magnetic subs. There have been such beasts , but they are very expensive , both to build and maintain. The Soviet Navy had their Alfa and Mike class subs made of titanium. The soviets referred to the Alfa's as "golden fish" as one boat used up almost their entire years production to build just one boat (and a great deal of that years Naval budget).

Thanksfor the info, seems some of my info was wrong.

However the Alfa class sub awakes bad memories from some Harpoon scenarios I played It was impossible to kill. Would outrun any torp I fired at it [:D] This was a hypothetic pacific scenario...guess you know the Harpoon stuff yourself if you are into this technology etc. The Alfa was the fasted sub ever built iirc. Yes noisy but even if detected it can harm you because if the torpedos you fire are slower than the target lol. Guess good old fashioned weaponry would work better to sink such a beast (eg. Hedgehog)