Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: US Navy diesel powered submarines?
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 03:19:23 am »
From my limited experience, the NI seems to make several arguments for a position but does not follow any of them to a logical conclusion.  Almost disinformation style.  I wonder why too.
2
Aerospace / Re: MH-139 to replace USAF UH-1Ns
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 10:36:31 pm »
That $1.7b discount just seems to be too much for the USAF to ignore. It's a very nice helicopter, the assembly is in the US, and it's not going to be deployed outside CONUS so supply chain issues are less worrisome. Probably also great news for the pilots, who will now be experienced on a platform that has a whole bunch of commercial users when they leave the service.
3
Military / Re: US Navy diesel powered submarines?
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 08:30:40 pm »
Diesel Submarines: The Game Changer the U.S. Navy Needs

Is it that time again?  This idea comes up every decade or so.  It runs into the basic problem that the USN rarely has the luxury of reliably  operating close to its forward bases.  Sure, sometimes your new, "cheap" SSKs will be operating in the Sea of Japan.  But sometime you'll need to surge to the Persian Gulf again, and those SSKs will be too far away to be operationally useful.

Methinks you have misread the article, if you believe that is what it is about.   What he is proposing is a theatre only use of diesel electric submarines, rather than a world-wide use of them.  The SSNs would handle the world-wide deployment of the US Navy while the SS would handle the needs of being deployed close to the PRC, along with the Japanese.

Is it a good idea?  I have no idea.  I put the article up for comment to see what others thought about it's reasoning.    What I find interesting is that he limits his views only to employing Japanese boats and ignores the ROK and ROC presence in the South China Sea.   I wonder why?
4
Aerospace / Re: MH-139 to replace USAF UH-1Ns
« Last post by AeroFranz on Yesterday at 07:23:23 pm »
Wouldn't have called that!  :o
5
Aerospace / Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Last post by AeroFranz on Yesterday at 07:21:41 pm »
The requirements shown at industry day fit the S-97 to a tee.

6
Aerospace / Re: MH-139 to replace USAF UH-1Ns
« Last post by yasotay on Yesterday at 07:14:08 pm »
Would have bet on H-60 myself, since USAF is buying new HH-60, but its all about the $$.  Guess they made the M-139 less expensive to operate.  It is a good flying helicopter though.
7
Military / Re: US Navy diesel powered submarines?
« Last post by Moose on Yesterday at 06:23:42 pm »
We're building better robots. They're cheaper and they donít get their crews killed recharging their batteries.
8
Military / Re: US Navy diesel powered submarines?
« Last post by TomS on Yesterday at 06:22:00 pm »
Diesel Submarines: The Game Changer the U.S. Navy Needs

Is it that time again?  This idea comes up every decade or so.  It runs into the basic problem that the USN rarely has the luxury of reliably  operating close to its forward bases.  Sure, sometimes your new, "cheap" SSKs will be operating in the Sea of Japan.  But sometime you'll need to surge to the Persian Gulf again, and those SSKs will be too far away to be operationally useful.
10
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by Sundog on Yesterday at 05:47:34 pm »
B-1C? I'm intrigued.
I still think the Bone would make the best arsenal plane. Launch about 200 AMRAAMS and while the enemy is completely defensive F-22s loaded with CUDAs clean up any survivors. 😁

That's what I used to do way back when (In the '90s) with, I think Janes ATF sim. I would take a B-1 up loaded only with AMRAAMs and completely saturate the skies with them when encountering enemy squadrons. Yes, it was only a 'game' sim, but it was the most lethal combination in the game. I was never shot down in that B-1!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10