Navy Struggles With 'Fighter Gap'

See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS


What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?

Or something else?

wrote in message
...
See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS


What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?

Or something else?

gap vs who?

Ray O'Hara wrote:
wrote in message
...
See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS


What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?

Or something else?

gap vs who?


Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

On Apr 7, 10:25*pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
wrote in message
...
See:

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS

What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF
procurement?

Or something else?

gap vs who?

Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
OP subject and Attack Subs?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

BlackBeard wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
wrote in message
...
See:
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?
Or something else?
gap vs who?
Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
OP subject and Attack Subs?

BB

Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
fight the last war but not the next one.

The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.

Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote in
:

[Snips]
So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

[Sings]
"'Twas on a Wednesday morning, the choppers should have dunked,
But they got their balls in a twist and the sorties would have flunked,
When someone shouted "801 - they've never known defeat"
So they called upon a Buccaneer with its underwater seat."
[/Sings]

Everyone remember the story of how they were going to re-task Seacat fro
the anti-submarine role?

All the best,

John.

Andrew Swallow wrote:

:BlackBeard wrote:
: On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
: Ray O'Hara wrote:
: wrote in message
: ...
: See:
: http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
: What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
: procurement?
: Or something else?
: gap vs who?
: Try the Chinese attack submarines.
:
: Andrew Swallow
:
: I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
: OP subject and Attack Subs?
:
:
:Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
:fight the last war but not the next one.
:
:The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
:submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
revious posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
:submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.
:
:Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
:longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
:its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
:the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.
:
:So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
:vs bottom gun.
:

That's not a 'fighter gap'.

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, putting large ASW
aircraft aboard US CVNs would enlarge the air group and such aircraft
would be in addition to current airframes, not replacing them.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Andrew Swallow wrote:

Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
fight the last war but not the next one.

The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.

Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

Andrew Swallow

Good point. The retirement of the S-3 And the slow new production of a
P-3 replacement does leave a real gap in capability. While low and slow
and boring, ASW is a need part of Nav air that a F-18 can't fill.

On Apr 8, 4:01*am, Andrew Swallow wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
wrote in message
....
See:
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
What should the Navy do? *Buy more F/A-18's? *Speed up JSF
procurement?
Or something else?
gap vs who?
Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

I must admit I am lost here. *How does one find relevance between the
OP subject and Attack Subs?

BB

Know thy enemy. *Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
fight the last war but not the next one.

The planes and submarines are enemies. *The Chinese attack
submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. *See
previous posts on sci.military.naval. *There may be sufficient
submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.

Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
its aircraft for defence. *So what ever aircraft are purchased for
the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

That's not the way the navy buys carriers, though.
They buy nuclear reactors plus dock time plus a half dozen
DDG's, CGs, and P3's to go with them.
Since the fighter jets are always doing something else.





So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

Andrew Swallow- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Andrew Swallow wrote:
BlackBeard wrote:
On Apr 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
wrote in message
...

See:
http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=3466832&c=FEA&s=CVS
What should the Navy do? Buy more F/A-18's? Speed up JSF
procurement?
Or something else?
gap vs who?
Try the Chinese attack submarines.

Andrew Swallow

I must admit I am lost here. How does one find relevance between the
OP subject and Attack Subs?

BB

Know thy enemy. Do not fall into the trap of preparing to
fight the last war but not the next one.

The planes and submarines are enemies. The Chinese attack
submarines are being built to sink US aircraft carriers. See
previous posts on sci.military.naval. There may be sufficient
submarines to make a gap through the escort ships.

Since aircraft carriers do not have large guns and torpedoes have a
longer range than depth charges the carrier will have to rely on
its aircraft for defence. So what ever aircraft are purchased for
the ship will need the ability to find and/or sink submarines.

So as well as top gun vs top gun the US Navy needs to do top gun
vs bottom gun.

Andrew Swallow

All very interesting, but what has that interesting trivia to do with
fighter gaps?

Dan